The URL can be used to link to this page

60-07 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc Form No 30043 1 1 Ordinance No. 60 -07 Passed 20 REZONING APPROXIMATELY 2.0 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF POST ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 2,700 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH AVERY - MUIRFIELD DRIVE, FROM PCD, PLANNED COMMERCE DISTRICT, TO: PCD, PLANNED COMMERCE DISTRICT. (PERIMETER WEST PCD, SUBAREA 3 — POST /PERIMETER OFFICE BUILDING — 6655 POST ROAD — CASE NO. 07- 049Z /FDP) NOW, THEREFjORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, L of the elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit "A ") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PCD, Planned Commerce District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B ", including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Exhibit "C ", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this day of ' 2007. Mayor - Presiding Officer Attest: 0 1�� Clerk of Council Sponsor: Land Use and Long Range Planning �_ Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1006 CITY OF DUBLIN_ Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 •Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 Memo To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manage.,,,, 5. Date: August 2, 2007 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director, Land Use and Long Range Planning Gary P. Gunderman, AICP, Planning Manager, Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Ordinance 60 -07, Rezoning Approximately 2 Acres on the South Side of Post Road, Approximately 2,000 Feet West of the Intersection with Avery - Muirfield Drive, from PCD, Planned Commerce District, to PCD, Planned Commerce District. (Perimeter West PCD, Subarea 3 — Post/Perimeter Office Building — 6655 Post Road, Case No. 07- 049Z /FDP) Summary Rezoning application 07 -049Z is being forwarded to City Council for a proposed office building within Subarea 3 of the Perimeter West Planned District. The two -acre site is located south of Post, west of the intersection with Avery - Muirfield Drive. This application requests two modifications to the previously approved development text. The proposed modifications include permitting access onto Post Road and decreasing the length of the loading space from 50 to 40 feet. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this rezoning on July 12, 2007 with two conditions, which can be found in the attached Record of Action. The applicant has addressed both conditions through an addendum to the development text and the completion of an approved traffic study. Additional information regarding this case is available for public viewing at 5800 Shier -Rings Road in the offices of Land Use and Long Range Planning. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 60 -07 at the second reading/public hearing on August 20, 2007. �T Aim- ;M PUD I� c: PUD 4" ID PUD �a R o 0 - POSt 7 Road- PCD ? PCD 4 Z91i p � r� met v PCD PCD )T--/ PCD - t : v PCD M C PUD PCD a�l�ll City of Dublin 07- 049Z /FDP N Land Use and Rezoning /Final Development Plan Long Range Planning Post /Perimeter Office Building Z3 Feet 6655 Post Road 0 250 500 PLR m PLR PLR PLR �T Aim- ;M PUD I� c: PUD 4" ID PUD �a R o 0 - POSt 7 Road- PCD ? PCD 4 Z91i p � r� met v PCD PCD )T--/ PCD - t : v PCD M C PUD PCD a�l�ll City of Dublin 07- 049Z /FDP N Land Use and Rezoning /Final Development Plan Long Range Planning Post /Perimeter Office Building Z3 Feet 6655 Post Road 0 250 500 I BOLL Reams Ltd. Corporate Real Estate Services July 27, 2007 6600 Perimeter Dr. Suite 100 Dublin, OH 43016 614.799.2100 Fax 614.799.2112 www.rjboll.com SI 9 The following represents the proposed modifications to the previously approved text for the Perimeter West Planned Commerce District, Subarea 3 (Version November 11, 1999). If approved by City Council, the proposed modifications would replace the following sections found on page 12 and 13. The current development text and the proposed modifications are provided below. Current Development Text 3.04 Traffic, Circulation, Parking and Loading: 1. Size, ratio, and loading facilities shall be regulated by City of Dublin Zoning Code Sections 153.200 through 153. 212. Parking in excess of that required by the Code may be 8'x16' with 22 -foot aisles. 4. Access to Subarea 3 shall be from Post Road unless the residential structure is expanded or Subarea 3 is redeveloped, at which time internal access via Perimeter Drive must be provided. Proposed Text Modifications 3.04 Traffic, Circulation, Parking and Loading: 1. Size, ratio, and loading facilities shall be regulated by City of Dublin Zoning Code Sections 153.200 through 153. 212. Parking in excess of that required by the Code may be 8'x16' with 22 -foot aisles. A reduction in the minimum length of loading spaces may be provided at no less than 40 feet. 4. Full service access to Subarea 3 shall be permitted from Post Road when Subarea 3 is redeveloped. Internal access via Perimeter Drive shall also be provided. 3 C.Q¢t PROPOSED SITE PLAN ' e — ,�. • Y 1 N i a.76 -Fai i t . j sue. -• --- _ f t . t 1 's i 1 i i S i 'v i I � i r � r PROP.LFFT -"N LANE OwmAt21N0111 i a.76 -Fai i t . j sue. -• --- _ f t . t 1 's i 1 i i S i 'v i I � i r CITY O 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 P e: N�wv +.tludir7.oh,VS January 2007 EXHIBIT "B" REZONING APPLICATION (Code Section 153.234) TO EXPIRE ORDINANCE NUMBER CITY COUNCIL (FIRST READING) CITY COUNCIL (PUBLIC HEARING) CITY COUNCIL ACTION 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 encouraged to contact Land Use and Long Range Planning for assistance and to discuss the rezoning process, and if needed, to make an appolfftment for a pre - submittal review prior to submitting a formal application. I. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: ❑ Preliminary Development Plan (Section 153.053) Other (Please Describe) TZIE FMOI II. PROPERTY INFORMATION This section must be completed. Property Address: (6 7 5 L j' i ( ff V?N.�„'a (L 6($0 `,(p Tax ID /Parcel Number(s): 2 l 7 — d Q 5 Q O$1 ]� Parcel Size (Acres): Existing Land UselDevelopment: �i ( �� (11 �,7 I,�� Proposed Land Use/Development: Omw\,/ ��og— w Q � Existing Zoning District: ;7C)P Requested Zoning District: ?C, Total Acres to be Rezoned: III. REZONING STATEMENT: Please attach separate sheets (8.5 X 11) to the back of this application with your responses to the following sections. A. Please briefly explain the proposed rezoning and development: B. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the existing and potential future land use character of the vicinity: C. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan and, If applicable, how the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for Planned Districts [Section 153.052(B)]: Mr-0 IMES 51 ncuriv D. Briefly address how the proposed rezoning and development meet the review criteria for Preilminary Development Plan approve y the Planning and Zoning Commission as stated in [Section 153.055(A)] (SEE ATTACHMENT A): J n l 300 mt U(' —I f LAND USE & Page 1 of 5 i LONG RANGE PLANNING Has a previous application to rezone the property been denied by City Council within the last twelve months? ❑ Yes g No If yes, list when and state the basis for reconsideration as noted by Section 153.234(A)(3): IV. PLEASE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FOR INITIAL STAFF REVIEW: Please submit large (24X36) and small (11X17) sets of plans. Please make sure all plans are stapled and collated. Large plans should also be folded. Staff may later request plans that incorporate review comments. Fourteen (14) additional copies of revised submittals are required for the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS AND THIRTEEN (13) COPIES Please notarize agent authorization, if necessary. Lff FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY to FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A TAX PARCEL ID MAP indicating property owners and parcel numbers for all parcels within 500 FEET of the site (Maximum Size 11X17). Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance. FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LIST OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET of the perimeter of the property based on the County Auditor's current tax list, including parcel number, owner name (not Mortgage Company or Tax Service), and address (Maximum Size 11X17). It is the policy of the City of Dublin to notify surrounding property owners of pending applications under public review. Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance. FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF THE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT a� FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF SCALED SITE /STAKING PLANS SHOWING: a. North arrow and bar scale. b. Location, size and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping, structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking). c. Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, number of dwellings, building /unit types, square footages, parking, open space, etc.). d. Size of the site in acres /square feet. e. All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights -of -way, easements, and other information related to the site. f. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries. g. Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties. IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING SCALED PLANS: a. Grading Plan. b. Landscaping Plan. c. Lighting Plan. d. Utility and /or Stormwater Plan. e. Tree Survey, Tree Preservation and Tree Replacement Plans 'fJJ IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) SCALED, ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS with proposed colors and materials noted. \ffrIF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF SCALED DRAWINGS SHOWING: a. Location of signs and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window). b. Sign dimensions, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grade. c. Copy layout and lettering styles (fonts) of signage. d. Materials and manufacturer to be used in fabrication. e. Total area of sign face (including frame) f. Type of illumination ❑ MATERIAL/COLOR SAMPLES (swatches, photos, plans, or product specifications). Include manufacturer name and product number. RECEIVED �Il J 412007 Page 2 of 5 r� - f . F��P /� y COOT UIS IN I' LAND USE & LONG RANGE PLANNING V. GURRENT PRUPEK I Y UWNtK(,): This section must be completed. Please attacn additional sneets iT neeaea. Name (Individual or Organization): C` k V C/o Mailing Address: (hJ (Street, City, State, Zip Code) l! v`l+\.�CS ''//�� VV �'�` Daytime Telephone: (v`4) `61 Fax: Email or Alternate Contact Information: VI. APPLICANT Please complete if applicable. This is the person(s) who is requesting the zone change if different than the property f1W -1.1 Name: e7 V V7 Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): Qtr Mailing Address: V A- a�(,.� (Street, City, State, Zip Code) V f�'�- Vl�+ Cr � M v' ` 7 VJ Daytime Telephone((o Q 01 Fax: ((0 -F ZUI Email or Alternate Contact Information: V-0,U Po w Q � 00 x- - wr VII. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF OWNER/APPLICANT. Please complete if applicable. This is the primary contact person who will raralva rnrraannndanra rsaardina this aooilcation. If needed. attach additional sheets for multiple representatives. Name: Organization:('C(��L,r'j Mailing Address: (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Daytime Telephon�� ✓�� Far ("` 46q- Email or Alternate Contact Information: �� ax & (K& tel j �/I Page 3 of 5 / RECEIV'r 7Y OF l.i3LIN LAND USE & LONG RANGE PLANNING VIII. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT /REPRESENTATIVE(S): If the applicant is not the property owner, this sectioryn yst be completed anA notarize,. I + the owner, hereby authorize to act as my applicant/representative(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: c L —0 I C4 Subscribed �anndd sworn to before me this — day of ' 20 State of County of yJLL Notary Public CAROL E. BOLL Notary Public, State of Ohio My Commission Expires 09 -11 -00 IX. 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. X. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The City of 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. XI. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: This section must be completed and notarized. I -J 6 - :; s , the owner or authorized representative, have read and understand a contents of this application. T e 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 representativ ��iiW)rYf1�Jf , /y/ "' ✓ I Dat - 3> 1 ,J �4 - �.Yt D Subscribed and �sworn to before me this State of County of day of r ' ' , 20 Notary Public CAROL E. BOLL Notary Publlo State of 0hio 1y Co 09 -11 -OB NOTE: THE OWNER, OR NOTED REPRESENTATIVE IF APPLICABLE, WILL RECEIVE A FACSIMILE CONFIRMING RECEIPT OF THIS APPLICATION FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Amou Rg� 've l R Receipt Application No: n _ P &Z Date(s) : - P &Z Action: No: Q I lP��` MIS Fee No: Date Received. F i Received By: Type of Request: ` N , W {Circle) Side of: 5 �� a f1 Nearest Intersection: / f 1� _ I� i 1 I r/��'p I / f W` Vt) Distance from Nearest Intersection: ) -- puo ro„ C RFTE"'d •J Page 4 of 5 FIL. C r� GlTY UE OUtif (il� / � J LAND USE & LONG RANGE PLANNING ATTACHMENT A: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA § 153.055 PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA. (A) Preliminary development plan. In the review of proposed planned developments, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall determine whether or not the preliminary development plan complies with the following criteria. In the event the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed preliminary development plan does not comply with a preponderance of these criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall disapprove the application: (1) The proposed development Is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Zoning Code; (2) The proposed development is in conformity with 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 sur- rounding 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 pedes- trians; (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 PD 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 accept- ability of the development plans contribute 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 devel- opment regulations included in the 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; (16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. RECEIVED J o x zoa7 Page 5 of 5 ' i -F V) I JUV�� !' LAND USE & LONG RANGE PLANNIN[ 'may Z,-t, avv i DESCRIPTION OF A 2.000 ACRE TRACT ALONG"tOST ROAD, WEST OI+' AVE RY— MLIIRFIELD DRIVE, CITY OI DUBLIN, 01110 Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin in Virginia Military Survey No. 3452 and being all of 'a 2.000 acre •tract of land conveyed to Carol S. Lehr, Trustee, all records referenced to the Recorder's Office, Franklin..County, Ohio, and bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a 5/$'•' iron bar found in the south right -of -way line of Post Road (60 feet in width), at the southwest corner of a 0.500 acre tract of land conveyed, for Post Road right -of -way purposes, to The City of Dublin by deed of record in Instrument 200002250037974, at the northeast coiner of said 2.000 acre tract ands ak the northwest corner of Perimeter Place Professional Office Condominium of record in Condo.'Plat Book 183, Pages 77 through 81 and recorded in Instrument 200703090042160, said iron bar being S 04° 42' 27" E a distance of 30.23 feet from a railroad spike found in the centerline of Post Road and at the northwest comer of said 0.500 acre tract and said point being N 87° 05' 29" E a distance of 725.80 feet from a 9.871 acre tract of land known as Reserve "A" as shown upon the play of Avery Place, of record in Plat Book 104, Pages 94 and 95; thence S 04° 42' 27" E along the east line of said-2.000 acre tract and along a portion of the west line of said Perimeter Place Professional Office Condominium a distance of 313.68 feet to a 5/8" iron bar found at the southeast corner of said 2.000 acre tract and at a northeast corner of a 3.616 acre tract of land conveyed to Jet -Link Development, Ltd, by deed of record in Instrument 200611220234321; thence N 87° 05' 29" W along the south line of said 2.000 acre tract and along a north line of said 3.616 acre tract a distance of 280.21 feet to a 5/8" iron bar found at the southwest corner of said 2.000 acre tract and at a corner of Perimeter West Professional Village, L.L.C. of record in Condo. Plat Book 172, Pages IOQ -106 and recorded in Instrument 200608070155218; thence N 04° 42' 27" W along the west line of said 2.000 acre tract and along an east line of said Perimeter West Professional Village, L.L.C. a distance "of 313.68 feet to a 5/8" iron bar found at the northwest corner of said 2.000 acre tract, in the south right - of - way line of Post Road and at the northeast corner of said Perimeter West Professional Village, L.L.C.; thence S 87° 05' 29" E along the north line of said 2.000 acre tract and along the south right -of -way line of Post Road a distance of 280.21 feet to the place of beginning; containing 2.000 acres of land more or less and being subject to all easements and restrictions of record. The above description was prepared by Kevin L. Baxter, Ohio Surveyor No. 7697, of CY. BiC & R.J. Bull, Inc., Consulting Engineers & Surveyors, Columbus, Ohio, from an actual field survey perforined under his supervision in January, 2006. Basis of bearings is the centerline of Post Road, being S 87° 23' 18" E, as shown on the plat of Avery Road Retail Center, Section 1, of record in Plat Book 86, Pages 86 & 87, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio. An exhibit of this description is attached hereto and made a part thereof. 010 O KEV f M Kevin L. Baxter L. Ohio Surveyor #7697 * F BAXTER 'A 5 -7'897 Q URV F Page 1 of 1 M Z' P.N. 27J-0059J7 518' Iron Bor 28G 21 L Found PLACE OF BEGINING FOR A 2.000 AC. TRACT CAROL S LEHR, TRUSTEE 2.000 AC. INSTR. 199812070314853 S:7 o�A cz K S 04 42 z 7" E 30.23' 518" Iron Bar j 280.21 Found Found Fou'nd sP'ke POST .RO ' IV 87 U. �S W ear T25.80' THE CITY OF DUBLIN 0.500 AC. i r IN57R. 200002 250037974 v PERIMETER PLACE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM C. P.B. 183, PGS 77 -81 INSTR, 200703090042160 314" I.D. Iron Pipe Set JET —LINK DEVELOPMENT LTD. 3.616 AC. INS7R. 200611220234321 P.N. 27J-012137 BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE CENTERLINE OF POST ROAD, BEING S 87' 23' 18' E, AS SHOW ON THE PLAT OF AVERY ROAD RETAIL CENTER, SECTION 1, OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 86, PAGES 86, & 87, RECORDERS OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO. PERIMETER WEST, L.L.C. ORIG. 21.718 AC. INSTR. 200408230196478 P.N. 273 - 001900 SCALE. 1' — 100' 0 100 200 300 GRAPHIC SCALE EXHIBIT FOR A 2.000 ACRE TRACT ALONG POST ROAD, WEST OF AVERY —.. MUIRFIELD DRIVE, CITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO (V. M. S. 3452) ,�• . � SCALE: 1' = 100' L 4N MAY 24, 2007 v'r BAXTER 9 5-7fi97 D �� C.F. Bird & R.J. Bull, In 18T 2875 W. Dublin— Granville cS' Surve Kevin L. Baxter — Ohio or No. 7697 Columbus, Ohio 43235 RUE .a �' ExHISITSIPERIMETER _OFFICE— WEST.DWG '""'"' 05 -184 Proximity Report Results Proximity Report Results The selection distance was 500 feet. The selected parcel was 273 - 005937. To view a table showing the IS parcels within the displayed proximity, scroll down. Print Window ® Back to Proxi Report Disdaimer This map Is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It Is compiled from recorded deeds, survey plats, and other public records and data. Users of this map are notified that the public primary information source should be consulted for verification of the Information contained on this map. The county and the mapping companies assume no legal responsibilities for the information contained on this map. Please notify the Franklin County GIS Division of any discrepancies. Proximity Parcels Hint: To copy this report to another program: 1. Hold down the left mouse buttton over the top -left corner of the area you want to get. 2. Drag the mouse to the bottom -left corner of the desired area. 3. Let go of the mouse button. 4. Select edit.Qopy from the menu bar. You can then Paste the report into another application. Parcel Owner Name Address 273 - 012128 BBH PROPERTIES OF OHIO LLC 6860 PERIMETER 273 - 012124 BDB PERIMETER LLC POST 273 - 009360 CITY OF DUBLIN 6648 POST 273 - 009359 CITY OF DUBLIN 6648 POST 273 - 009357 CITY OF DUBLIN 6648 POST 273-009361 CITY OF DUBLIN 6648 POST 273 - 003959 DUBLIN SENIOR COMMUNITY DRV LLC 6470 POST RD 273 - 001898 GLK PROPERTIES LTD LLC 7155 POST RD 273 - 011552 GORDEN FARMS CONVERSION CO LLC 6951 W OLD BRIDGE LN 273 - 012137 JET -LINK DEVELOPMENT LTD POST 273 - 005937 LEHR CAROL S TR 6655 POST RD 273 - 001902 MOUNT CARMEL HEALTH SYSTEM 6594 LIGGETT RD 273 - 012148 NATIONAL CITY BANK POST 273 - 010700 PERIMETER WEST LLC POST 273 - 011310 PERIMETER WEST PROFESSIONAL VILLAGE 6860 PERIMET 273 - 001900 PIV REALTY VENTURES LLC POST 273- 012163 SZ PERIMETER LLC 273 - 003964 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN 6500 POST RD pm*rtd by Page 1 of 1 H iE ct�ob 7 �P 1 �" N LN LOW t. 11fSl) �JSE R ININo l,ttn -flMO S 1 I Q'2 RQhzc /m-,vSrPr A 5/9.4/9.807 Map Search Real Estate Search Auditor Home Image Date: Thu May 24 15:37:012007 JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR Report of parcels touching irregular area 273 - 001898 * Owner: GLK PROPERTIES LTD LLC Address: 7155 POST RD Mail To: GLK PROPERTIES LTD LLC 7155 POST RD DUBLIN OH 43016 DUBLIN OH 43016 273 - 001900 * Owner: PIV REALTY VENTURES LLC Address: POST RD Mail To: PIV REALTY VENTURES LLC 3525 OLENTANGY RIVER RD COLUMBUS OH 43214 273 - 001902 * Owner: MOUNT CARMEL HEALTH SYSTEM Address: 6594 LIGGETT RD Mail To: MOUNT CARMEL HEALTH CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 6150 E BROAD ST FL 3 COLUMBUS OH 43213 -1574 DATE : MAY 25, 2007 273 - 003959 * Owner: DUBLIN SENIOR COMMUNITY DRV LLC Address: 6470 POST RD Mail To: FIRST AMERICAN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICE PO BOX 167928 IRVING TX 75016 -7928 273 - 003964 * Owner: VILLAGE OF DUBLIN Address: 6500 POST RD Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF : 5200 EMERALD PKWY : DUBLIN OH 43017 -1066 273 - 005937 * Owner: LEHR CAROL S TR Address: 6655 POST RD Mail To: LEHR CAROL S TR 2267 MIDDLESEX RD COLUMBUS OH 43220 273 - 009357 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN Address: 6648 POST RD Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017 -1066 273 - 009359 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN Address: 6648 POST RD Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017 -1066 VAN38 MMPC07 Page 1 JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR Report of parcels touching irregular area DATE : MAY 25, 2007 273 - 009360 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN Address: 6648 POST RD Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017 -1066 273 - 009361 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN Address: 6648 POST RD Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017 -1066 273 - 010700 * Owner: PERIMETER WEST LLC Address: POST RD Mail To: PERIMETER WEST LLC : 2041 ARLINGATE IN : COLUMBUS OH 43228 273 - 011310 * Owner: PERIMETER WEST PROFESSIONAL VILLAGE LLC Address: POST RD Mail To: PERIMETER WEST : PROFESSIONAL VILLAGE LLC : 6233 AVERY RD : DUBLIN OH 43016 273 - 012124 * Owner: BDB PERIMETER LLC Address: POST RD Mail To: BDB PERIMETER LLC : 6600 PERIMETER DR STE 100 : COLUMBUS OH 43216 273 - 012128 * Owner: BBH PROPERTIES OF OHIO LLC Address: 6860 PERIMETER DR Mail To: BBH PROPERTIES OF OHIO LLC 41 COMMERCE PARK DR WESTERVILLE OH 43082 273 - 012137 * Owner: JET -LINK DEVELOPMENT LTD Address: POST RD Mail To: JET -LINK DEVELOPMENT LTD : 4930 REED RD : COLUMBUS OH 43220 VAN38 MMPC07 Page 2 JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR Report of parcels touching irregular area 273 - 012148 Owner: NATIONAL CITY BANK Address: POST RD Mail To: * 273- 012163 * Owner: Address: Mail To: SZ PERIMETER LLC SZ PERIMETER LLC 5775 PERIMETER DR STE 275 DUBLIN OH 43017 DATE : MAY 25, 2007 VAN38 MMPC07 Page 3 - TA JOSEPH - UT -, - TES- FRANKLIN'COUNTY AUDITOR 5/25 07. XOIWOAIIlS aw OEM- - CITY OF DUBLIM. Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone: 614 -410 -4600 Fax_ 614 -410 -4141 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION July 12, 2007 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 10. Post/Perimeter Office Building 07- 049Z /FDP 6655 Post Road Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Proposal: A 15,550- square -foot medical office building with associated site improvements including the addition of a curb cut along Post Road within Subarea 3 of the Perimeter West Planned Commerce District, located on the south side of Post Road, approximately 2,700 feet west of the intersection with Avery - Muirfield Drive. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan and a final development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Ray Boll, RJ Boll Realty; represented by Don Meier, Architecture Alliance. Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planner (614)410 -4690, jrauch @dublin.oh.us MOTION 1: To approve this Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan application because it complies with the criteria set forth in Section 153.050 of the Dublin Zoning Code and the existing development standards within the area, with two conditions: 1) A signed and dated copy of the development text that includes the modifications to allow Post Road access and the reduction in the loading space area should be submitted to Planning prior to the issuance of building permits; and 2) The traffic study be finalized to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to the scheduling for a public hearing by City Council. William Loveland, Loveland and Brosius, representing the applicant agreed to the above conditions. Page i of 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION July 12, 2007 10. Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: This Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan application was approved. MOTION 2: To approve this Final Development Plan application because it complies with the criteria set forth in Section 153.050 of the Dublin Zoning Code and the existing development standards within the area, with no conditions: VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: This Final Development Plan application was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION nnifer . Rauch, AICP Planner Page 2of2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2007 — Minutes DRAFT Page 11 of 13 10. Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Mr. Gerber swore in the applicant's representative for this case, William Loveland, Loveland and Brosius, who agreed to the two conditions listed below for the Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan. Motion and Vote — Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Mr. Gerber made a motion to approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan application because it complies with the criteria set forth in Section 153.050 of the Dublin Zoning Code and the existing development standards within the area, with two conditions: 1) A signed and dated copy of the development text that includes the modifications to allow Post Road access and the reduction in the loading space area should be submitted to Planning prior to the issuance of building permits; and 2) The traffic study be finalized to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to the scheduling for a public hearing by City Council. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 6 — 0) Motion and Vote — Final Development Plan Mr. Gerber made a motion to approve this Final Development Plan because it complies with the criteria set forth in Section 153.050 of the Dublin Zoning Code and the existing development standards within the area and Mr. Zimmerman seconded. The vote was as follows: Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Amorose- Groomes, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 6 — 0) CITY OF DUBLIN_ land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone: 614,410 -4600 Fax: 614 -410 -4747 Web Site: www- dublin.oh.us PLANNING REPORT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 12 SECTION I — CASE INFORMATION: 10. Post /Perimeter Office Building 07- 049Z /FDP 6655 Post Road Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Proposal: A 15,550- square -foot medical office building with associated site improvements including the addition of a curb cut along Post Road within Subarea 3 of the Perimeter West Planned Commerce District, located on the south side of Post Road, approximately 2,700 feet west of the intersection with Avery - Muirfield Drive. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan and a final development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Ray Boll, RJ Boll Realty; represented by Don Meier, Architecture Alliance. Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, A1CP, Planner (614)410 -4690, irauch @dublin.oh.us Case Summary This proposal is a request for review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan and a final development plan for a 15,550- square -foot, one -story medical office building with associated site improvements. Case Background The site is located within the Perimeter West PCD, Planned Commerce District. The original rezoning for the 83 -acre Planned District was approved by City Council in 1999 and included three subareas. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a final development plan for the parcel to the east on April 6, 2006 (see Case No. 06- 029FDP) and the Post Road access was discussed as part of the application. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2007 Planning Report Case No- 07 -049Z/FDP Page 2 of 7 Site Description Location The 2 -acre site is located within Subarea 3 and has approximately 280 feet of frontage along Post Road and a site depth of 315 feet. Site Character The site contains an existing single - family house, several outbuildings and a tree stand in the northwest corner. Surrounding Zoning and Uses The site and adjacent properties to the east, south and west are zoned PCD, Planned Commerce District, as part of the Perimeter West plan. The properties northeast of the site are zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District and include the Gorden Farms condominiums. To the northwest is the Northwest Assembly of God Church, zoned R, Rural District. Plan Description Overview This proposal is for a one -story medical office building within the southwestern portion of the site with a retention basin located along Post Road and parking located to the north and east of the building. The main entrance to the building is located at the northeast corner, adjacent to the parking area. Text Modifications The proposal includes two amendments to the previously approved development text to permit Post Road access and decrease the size of the loading space. No additional text modifications are proposed, and all other development details will continue to be governed by the previously approved text. Parking and Loading Code requires a parking ratio of one space per 200 square feet of medical office space. The 15,550- square -foot building requires a minimum of 78 parking spaces; 79 spaces are provided. Code requires a 12 -foot by 50 -foot loading space for buildings between 10,000 to 100,000 square feet. The plan and amended text indicates a reduced loading space of 12 -foot by 40 -foot at the front entrance to the building_ Vehicular Access Access to the site is provided by a full access curb cut onto Post Road, which aligns with the Gorden Farms entrance on the north side of Post Road. An internal drive is provided to the development to the east and connects to the internal roadway system of the Planned District, providing access to Perimeter Drive. Post Road Access Currently, the residential site has full access onto Post Road; however, the approved preliminary development plan states that once Subarea 3 is redeveloped the Post Road access is prohibited. As part of the final development plan for the parcel to the east, Planning, Engineering and the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the reconsideration of Post Road access. The Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2007 Planning Report Case No_ 07- 049Z/FDP Page 3 of 7 discussions resulted in agreement that an access point on Post Road would be beneficial to the development and provide increased vehicular circulation. The amended text indicates the retention of Post Road access with the redevelopment this site. Traffic Study The applicant has submitted a traffic impact study and the information provided is sufficient to determine that the Post Road access point will not have a detrimental effect on the overall traffic network in the area. The plans indicate the installation of a westbound left turn lane on Post Road. Lighting The development text states that lighting shall comply with the Dublin .Exterior Lighting Guidelines and utilize cut -off type fixtures with pole heights not to exceed 28 feet. The applicant is proposing to illuminate the parking lot with a stylized gooseneck fixture (Kim Erem "dark bronze "). A lighting plan has been provided and is consistent with the Exterior Lighting Guidelines. Architecture The approved text requires that the building architecture be harmonious in character throughout the Planned District. The one -story building utilizes cultured limestone along the lower portion of the building facade and a brick veneer along the upper portion of the building facade. Hardiplank detailing will be incorporated on all sides of the buildings and louvered dormers are also incorporated into the architecture. The architecture meets the standards specified in the development text, including four -sided architecture. Building Materials The approved development text requires that the predominant building materials include brick, stone, or decorative precast concrete panels. The proposal utilizes building materials matching those of existing buildings within the Perimeter West PCD. The predominant materials are brick (Glen- Geary, "Rustic Burgundy ") and cultured limestone (Lang Stone, "Ohio Buff'). The trim color will be a natural color to coordinate with the cultured limestone (Sherwin- Williams, "Maccadamia "). The windows will be bronze tinted glass. The roof is proposed with dimensional asphalt shingles (Landmark, "Driftwood "). The proposed materials meet the standards specified in the text. Landscaping The proposal complies with the interior landscaping, vehicular use area and service structure screening requirements. The plans provide the required street trees and landscape plantings along Post Road. Tree Preservation Code requires any trees removed that are greater than six inches in diameter, and considered in good or fair condition be replaced inch -for -inch. The plan indicates the removal of eight protected trees totaling 158 caliper inches, and replacement on -site with 161 inches of 3.5 -inch trees. The availability of 3.5 -inch trees may be limited and a fee must be paid in lieu of any deficiency in replacement inches, which is noted on the landscape plans. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2007 Planning Report Case No 07- 049ZIFDP Page 4 of 7 Proposed Signs The proposed sign, located west of the Post Road access point, meets the Code requirement of one ground sign per use with an area of 50 square feet. The proposed sign will have an opaque, dark green background with three individual tenant panels with white copy. The sign will be internally illuminated. The sign base will consist of stone and brick, which coordinate with the building materials. Stormwater Management The proposed plans show a wet pond in the northern portion of the site. The project must comply with the requirements of the City of Dublin Stormwater Regulations and stormwater calculations have been -submitted. Final calculations will be required at the building permit stage. 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. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2007 Planning Report Case No. 07- 049Z/FDP Page 5 of 7 Criteria met: The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council have established a development theme within this area, which include high- quality office development. The proposal is harmonious with adjacent development within the Planned District and the vicinity. Parks and Open Space (Criteria 5 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 met: This requirement is not applicable to commercial development; however, the proposal includes a water feature with landscaping along'Post Road. Traffic, Utilities and Stormivatcr 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 are met: The plans indicate the installation of a westbound left turn lane into the site. Construction drawings and final details will be required at the building permit stage. The preliminary stormwater management report indicates that the proposed stormwater pond meets the needs of the site and final details will be required at the building permit stage. The plans show the installation of a sidewalk on the south side of Post Road to further increase the accessibility of the site. 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 met: The proposed plans contribute to the orderly development of this site, including proposed use, setbacks, and density. The plans also indicate adequate provisions for parking and pedestrian access. 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 condition: The development text outlines all applicable development standards for this project. The proposal complies with the text requirements of high - quality, four -side architecture which complements the existing buildings within the area. Since the user does not require a larger loading area for its daily operation, the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2007 Planning Report Case No. 07 -049Z(FDP Page 6 of 7 proposal includes a deviation from Code regarding the size of the loading space. The modification from 50 -foot long loading space to 40 -foot long loading space should be reflected within the revised development text (Condition #1). 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 may be met with condition The proposed Post Road access provides efficient vehicular circulation for the entire Planned District. The traffic study demonstrates benefits to the surrounding traffic network and should be finalized to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and modified within the development text (Conditions # 1 and 42). Final Development Plan The purpose of the Planned Unit Development 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 consists of up to three 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 intent of the final development plan is to show conformance with and provide a detailed refinement of the total aspects of the approved preliminary development plan (rezoning). The final development plan includes all of the final details of the proposed development and is the final stage of the PUD process. The Commission may approve as submitted, approve with modifications agreed to by the applicant, or disapprove and terminate the process. If the application is disapproved, the applicant may respond to Planning and Zoning Commission's concerns and resubmit the plan. This action will be considered a new application for review in all respects, including payment of the application fee. Appeal of any action taken by the Commission shall be to the Court of Common Pleas in the appropriate jurisdiction. Following approval by the Commission, the applicant may proceed with the building permit process. In the event that updated citywide standards are applicable, all subsequently approved final development plans shall comply with the updated standards if the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the updated standards would not cause undue hardship. Evaluation and Recommendation based on Final Development Plan Criteria Section 153.055(B) of. the Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a final 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: Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2007 Planning Report Case No. 07- 049Z/FDP Page 7 of 7 Adopted Policies and Plans (Criteria 1, 3, 9, & 10). The proposed modifications conform to the approved preliminary development plan, have adequate public facilities and open spaces, are carried out in progressive stages, and conform to all other applicable zoning text and Code requirements. Criteria met The proposal conforms to the preliminary development plan in terms of permitted use, lot coverage, and setbacks. Site Safety and Circulation (Criteria 2 & S). The proposed modifications provide for safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation and provide adequate lighting for such uses. Criteria may be met through condition_ The site provides adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation. The addition of the Post Road access provides additional vehicular connectivity for the entire development and significantly improves access for the provision of fire and EMS services (Condition #1). Development Details (Criteria 4, 6, 7, & 8). The details of the development are sensitive to the natural characteristics of the site, include appropriate landscaping and signs, and provide adequate storm drainage. Criteria is met: The proposal conforms to the preliminary development plan requirements for signs, includes appropriate landscaping details, and provides adequate stormwater retention along Post Road. SECTION III — PLANNING OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION: Approval. Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan In Planning's opinion, this proposal complies with the rezoning/preliminary development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area. Approval with two conditions is recommended. Conditions: 1) A signed and dated copy of the development text that includes the modifications to allow Post Road access and the reduction in the loading space area should be submitted to Planning prior to the issuance of building permits; and 2) The traffic study be finalized to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to the scheduling for a public hearing by City Council. Final Development Plan In Planning's opinion, this proposal complies with the final development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area. Approval with no conditions is recommended. I 0 1, om�- M o o a m i m !M 0 ,' �, � � . bra .«. -.•. � Q� PROPOSED ULVLLUF I I LX I MODIFICATIONS PERIMETER WEST OFFICE PARK MODIFICATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS GOVERNING SUBAREA 3 BDB PERIMETER, LLC - A P_PLIC ANT City of Dublin Case No.- 0 7- 049Z The project will in all respects be governed by the General Development Standards for Perimeter West dated November 11, 1999, and the Subarea 3 Development Standards contained in that document except as follows: Standard 3.04 is amended to provide as follows: 3.04 Traffic, Circulation, Parking and Loading: 1. Size, ratio and loading facilities shall be regulated by City of Dublin Zoning Code Sections 153.200 through 153.212, except that the Loading Space for the building to be constructed in this Subarea shall be 41' x 12', as shown on the Drawing. Parking in excess of that required by the Code may be 8' x 16' with 22- foot aisles. 2. Traffic, Circulation, Parking and Loading shall be per the Drawing. 3. Loading areas shall be screened according to City of Dublin Code Sections 153.200 through 153.212. 4. Access to Subarea 3 shall be from Post Road and through internal access via Perimeter Drive, as shown on the Drawing. All other General and Subarea specific development standards as established by the November 11, 1999 Development Plan shall remain effective. L&Bdoa\Rea] Estme\Agre mts\BoU - Lomeo- Reaoning Dc Text Change, 6 -22 -07 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUgARFA 3 (2.0±L-.A D net of road riL-ht-of-ways. 3.01 Description: Subarea 3 is located immediately south of Post Road west of Avery Road. This Subarea may be developed independently of the remainder of the 81 +/- acre balance of the site, or it may be integrated into the overall deirelopment_ 3.02 Permitted Uses: The uses permitted in this Subarea include: ■ Those uses li:.ted in the Dublin Zoning Regulations in Section 153.026(A). R General office = uses including, without limitation, corporate headquarters and offices of major insti Iutional users. = Existing resit trice may he continued without expansion. ■ Reuse of the e= xisting residential structure for office purposes is permitted only in the event the structure is not expanded. 3.03 Permitted Height and Setback Requirements: 1. Setbacks stead be determined as described below: Side and rear ;yards for buildings within the Subarea shall be a minimum of 30 feet. ■ Side and rea: yards for parking areas shall be 10 feet each for a total of 20 feet between area s unless a common parking lot is established adjacent to the site. R The maximum height shall be 2 stories above grade. ■ Buildings sh _dl be limited to 35 feet in height as measured to the midpoint of the gable roof: 2. Pavement sea backs shall be the following: ■ 75 feet from Post Road right -of -way. 3. Building sett lacks shall be the following. ■ 100 feet frown the Post Road right -of -way for any building. 3.04 Traffic, Circulation., Parking and Loading: Size, ratio, and loading facilities shall be regulated by City of Dublin Zoning Code Sections 15- through 153212. Parking in excess of that required by the Code maybe 8' x 16' with 22 -foot aisles_ 2. Exceptions f rom strict application of code standards may be granted at the discretion of the Plann rig and Zoning Commission. 07- 049Z /FDP 12 Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post/Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road 3_ Loading areas shall be screened according to City of Dublin Code Sections 153200 through 153.•12 4. Access to Subarea 3 shall be from Post Road unless the residential structure is expanded or 3ubarea 3 is redeveloped, at which time internal access via Perimeter Drive must lr:: provided. 5. Shared drives will be encouraged throughout the development to reduce the number of curb cuts needed. 3.05 Waste and Refuse: All waste ar. d refuse shall be containerized and fully screened, according to the Dublin zonir_g code, with walls constructed of materials that coordinate with the materials utilized in the associated structure (i.e. brick, etc). 3.05 Storage and Equip:uent: 1. No materials. supplies, equipment, or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of the parcel outside the permitted structure. 2. Mechanical cquipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground, or buildings shall be set back from the property line or building edge so as not to be visible from the adjacent prol ierty, or shall be screened from public view with landscape materials or materials hai monious with the building. 3.07 Landscaping, Lot Coverage, and Pedestrian Paths: 1. All landscap ng shall, at a minimum, be according to the City of Dublin Zoning Code Section 153,134. Landscaping for each individual building site shall be consistent with other "{lass A" office campus developments in Dublin_ 2. The develo agrees to limit areas of construction activity and implement sedimentatic ri and erosion control measures to minimize erosion during construction. 3.08 Fences/Walls 1. No chain lir:c or wire fencing shall be permitted. 3.09 Signage and Grap :tics: Except as otherwise: herein stated: 1 _ All signage -L d graphics shall conform to the City of Dublin Zoning Code Sections 153.150 through 153.164. 13 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road 2. All signage shall be subject to applicable signage setbacks of Sections 153.150 through 153.164. 3. No signs shz.11 be applied to windows for the purpose of outdoor or exterior advertising. 4_ No roof signs shall be permitted, nor should a sign extend higher than the building. 5. No flashing, g=aveling, animated, or intermittently illuminated signs may be used. 6. No billboard or electrical or other advertising signs shall be allowed, other than a sign carrying - the name of the business occupying the site. 7_ Temporary Development marketing signage shall be permitted. g. No wall signage shall be permitted unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission. 3_16 Lighting: Except as otherwise I,.erein stated, all lighting must conform to the City of Dublin Lighting Guidelines. 1 _ External lighting within all subareas shall be cut -off type fixtures. 2. All types of X aAing, pedestrian, and other exterior lighting shall be on poles or wall mounted cut off fixtures, and shall be of the same type and style. 3. All light poles and standards shall be dark in color and shall either be a dark brown, black or broi ize metal. 4. Parking lot 1: ghting shall be no higher than 28 feet_ 5. Cut -off type sighting and building uplighting shall be permitted. 6. All lights sh�.11 be arranged to reflect light away from any street or adjacent property. 7. All building illumination shall be from concealed sources. 8. No colored lights shall be used to light the exterior of the buildings. 9. All lighting <if parking/driving areas and buildings will be designed and constructed so that it will be directed away from adjacent residential properties_ 10. A lighting p.an conforming to the City's Lighting Guidelines must be submitted to 14 07 -049 Z /FD P Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road the City as part of the Development Plan - 3. 11 Architectural Standards: The following standards shall apply and be placed as deed restrictions, also: 1 _ All buildings and associated structures shall be harmonious in character, and reflect an upscale, high quality, residential style, office park development_ Final architectural drawings shall be presented for approval according to the process identified by the Final Development Plan. 2. All buildings shall have the same degree of exterior finish on all sides. Stone, brick, or decorative;. precast concrete panels shall be dominant exterior materials. Dryvit and other ace mt materials shall be limited to a maximum of 15% of the total exterior - areas of the 1 n ilding. 3. Facade colc:ts and materials on individual buildings shall be coordinated to complement inch other. Facade colors of high chroma or intensity are not permitted. 4_ Glass and cu stain wall color should be coordinated to complement each other and the color palette of the building. Highly reflective "mirror - like" glass shall not be permitted or building facades. 5. All building structures constructed shall be of residential style_ Roofs shall be 6:12 pitch and nn.insard roofs shall be prohibited_ 3c:1ri[es\periweSAdcv sids_01 15 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road CITY OF DUBLIN_ Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 ShierRings Road Dublin Ohio 43016 1736 Phone: 614-410 -4600 laic 614 - 410 -0747 Web We WWW dublin oh us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 7, 2006 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3_ Final Development Plan 06- 115FDP /AFDP — Perimeter West PCD, Subarea 1 — Perimeter West Office Park — 6700 Perimeter Drive Location: 326 acres located on the south side of Post Road, approximately 1,900 feet west of Avery- Muirfield Drive_ Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter West plan)_ Request: Review and approval of a Final Development Plan under the PUD provisions of Code Sections 153.050_ Proposed Use: A two -story 30,000- square -foot medical and general office building and minor text modification for lot coverage_ Applicant: Rob Ryan, Ruscilli Development Company, Ltd_, 5747 Perimeter Drive, Suite 130, Dublin, Ohio 43017_ Staff Contact: Tanury Noble, Senior Planner. Contact Information: (614) 4104649/Email_ tnoble @dublin_oh_us MOTION: To approve this Final Development Plan because the proposal provides a high - quality office building that continues the standard of development within the Perimeter West PCD, the site plan and associated design elements comply with Code and text modifications remain consistent to the original intent of the requirements of the PCD, with seven conditions_ I) That the landscape plan be revised prior to building permit submittal to address the comments and recommendations in the staff report, subject to staff approval 2) That the applicant utilize the regional stormwater basin approved with the National City Final Development Plan and show conformance with the City's Storinwater Management requirements before building pennit issuance; 3) That the design of private drive pavement meet the approval of the City Engineer; 4) That only the white tenant copy on the monument sign be illuminated, in order to be consistent with other approved signs within the Perimeter West PCD; 5) That a man -door be included in the design of the dumpster enclosure to permit access for uses, outside of waste removal; 6) That architectural elements be added to the exterior of the building to add detail and effectively break up the brick exterior, subject to staff approval; and Page I of 2 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 7, 2006 3. Final Development Plan 06- 115FDP /AFDP — Perimeter West PCD, Subarea i — Perimeter West Office Park — 6700 Perimeter Drive (Continued) 7) That the plans be correctly labeled to reflect the total number of parking spaces_ *Rob Ryan agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 7 -0 RESULT: This Final Development Plan was approved. ,,STAFF CER- IFICATION Tammy N ie Seiunr Planner Page 2 of 2 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post/Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 16 of 27 3) That driv utis be limited to a m mum of one drive - thru either Subarea B or C �zd not be all ed to serve an eat , r drinking establishme and that the stacking quirement la uage be revised; �l hat the alternate layo or Subarea D be purse for the final developm plan and that the text be modified t learly define the assn tion of a detached c ash with the service facility; S) That the d- elopment text provisio remain allowing a cc ination of wall and and signs f a single tenant in Sub a D with the maxim quare footage of the nd sign sub ct to review and ap val by the Planning d Zoning Commissio at the final velopment plan stage; That the text be mo i ied to include a require ent for buildings to be two- to three -story design similar to e architectural renden' for Subareas B and C 7) That the app - ant continue to work \, i 3 staff to finalize the tr is study prior to subm ing for fina evelopment plan an hat the recornmenda - ns required by the dy be cony led; 8) t the design of private ive pavement meet the proval of the City I;rigi er; 9 That the rights -of -wa and any necessary ments be dedicated b < < plat prior to the issuance of any b - ing permits; 10) That stormwa management is in co iance with the current tormwater Regulations o the satisfa - on of the City Engince ` d l 1) That outlined in the Tax ceement Financing A cement, the applicant atticipate fi cially in the Shantro Boulevard Roadway twork, and the B r Drive and toneridge Lane extens s to the satisfaction of e City Engineer; and 2) That the developm text be modified to - urinate the setback re ements along West Dublin Granvill oad. Z Mr_ Hale avye'ed to the above conditi Mr. ishman seconded the tr ion and the vote was a allows; Ms_ Jones, ye , r_ Saneholtz, s; Mr_ Fishman, yes; 'alter, yes; Mr. Zini an, yes; and Mr. Gel , yes. (Approved 6 — 0_) (Mr_ McCash cased himself at the b inning of the meetin our this case due to business associatjofi conflict_) 3. Final Development Plan /Amended Final Development Plan 06- 11SFDP /AFDP — Perimeter West PCD, Subarea 1 — Perimeter West Office Park — 6700 Mr_ Gerber swore in the representative of the applicant, Rob Ryan, who then agreed to the seven conditions as amended_ Motion and Vote: Mr_ Gerber moved to approve this Final Development Plan because the proposal provides a high - quality office building that continues the standard of development within the Perimeter West PCD, the site plan and associated design elements comply with Code and text modifications remain consistent to the original intent of the requirements of the PCD, with seven conditions: I That the landscape plan be revised prior to building permit submittal to address the comments and recommendations in the staff report, subject to staff approval; 2) That the applicant utilize the regional stormwater basin approved with the National City Final Development Plan and show conformance with the City's Stormwater Manavernent 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development PIan Post /Perimeter Office Building «« T)--. n__A Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 7, 2006 Page 17 of 27 requirements before building permit issuance; 3) That the design of private drive pavement meet the approval of the City Engineer; 4) That only the white tenant copy on the monument sign be illuminated, in order to be consistent with other approved signs within the Perimeter West PCD; 5) That a man -door be included in the design of the dumpster enclosure to permit access for uses, outside of waste removal; 6) That architectural elements be added to the exterior of the building to add detail and effectively break up the brick exterior, subject to staff approval; and 7) That the plans be correctly labeled to reflect the total number of parking spaces_ Mr_ Zimmerman seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. McCash, yes; Ms_ Jones, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr_ Gerber, yes_ (Approved 7 — 0.) 4_ Concept an 06 -131CP — Star YjRfage Mixed Use Devel nent — 420Z s. Gra a Road Perimeter Dri Dan liabaum presented this a and slides. He said is was a request for and feedback for mixed use developme concept under the PU t Development District visions of the Code. He id the site is 2.59 the sated on the south side of West Dubt 'ranville Road, approx ately 350 feet west of S >K nirock Boulevard. He said the si lar �the ompletely developed d existing structures i ude a 17,308- square -f ;Ie ". urant east p roperty line d a 736- square -foot g e located at the rear of t site_ the remai nder of the s` contains a large parki area. Mr. Phillabaum ated that Bridge Lane end at the thcast corner of the pro y and continues as a pr t to drive aisle along the rear, providin cress to the La Scala urant and the La Seal illa Apartments_ He said a shared ac s drive to the apartmen ns along the western edge of the site. :Ile r. Phillab m said the main portion this site is zoned CC, [; munity Commercial D tct, th t estem drive aisle that esses the apartment, zai It-12, Urban Residenti istrict. id the site is also locat within the CDD, Coriid evelopment District. e said to the rth, across West Dub . - Granville Road is We s International Head ers, also zoned CC, to the east is un eloped land zoned SO burban Office and Inst' tonal District with a proposed rezom to PUD, Planned Unit D elopment District whir on this agenda. He sai the propose and use is a mix of of e, retail, restaurant, and sidential uses which ar tot permit[ his district, and therefor ezoning is necessary. N r_ Phillabaum said the 7 Community Plan reC911frriended a sense of con lion to Historic Dublin be establishe tth new buildings orie to the street and link s between the uses He presented a A showing an image of a nceptual drawing of the Sian of the West Dublin - Granville Ro Corridor which had be discussed at various Jot work sessions as part o e Commu Plan Update. He sal a direction provided i xese work sessions addr ed the ove character of the West ublin- Granville Road etscape, including plac ent of the tidings at the street, in orating a mix of hi , intensity Land uses, cr ing significant entryways, and more estrian- friendly enviro ent. 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road CITY OF DUBLIN_ land Use and long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Obia 43016 -1236 Phone_ 614 - 410-4600 Fax- 614AIOA741 Web Site: www.dublin-oh -us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION APRIL 6, 2006 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting_ 4. Final Development Plan 06- 029FDP — Perimeter West PCD, Subarea I — Perimeter West Office Park — 6730 to 6790 Perimeter Drive Location: 5.45 acres located on the south side of Post Road, approximately 1,900 feet west of Avery- Muirfield Drive. Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter West plan). Request: Review and approval of a Final Development Plan under the PUD provisions of Section 153.053(E). Proposed Use: An office park consisting of two 8,888 square -foot and four 5,878 square -foot professional and medical office buildings with associated site improvements. Applicant: Perimeter West, LLC., 5747 Perimeter Drive, Suite 130, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented by Don Meier, Architectural Alliance, 165 N_ Fifth Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Jennifer M_ Rauch, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410- 4690/Email jrauch @dublin.oh.us. MOTION: To approve this Final Development Plan because the plan is consistent with the PCD plan for Perimeter West PCD and the new planned district ordinance, the proposal incorporates high- quality building materials and four -sided architecture, and the plan complies with the regulations and the intent of the rezoning, with eight conditions: 1) That the proposed vehicular use area lighting be modified to eliminate light/tree conflicts; subject to staff approval; 2) That the plans be revised to show the alignment of the access points to existing curb cuts located along the south side of Perimeter Drive 3) That the applicant continue to work with staff on the concern of the impact their future development will have on the public roadway system; 4) That all utility connections and/or extensions meet or exceed the requirements and standards of the Engineering Division, the City of Columbus and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; 5) That the site stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 6) That the sign be revised to meet Code regarding the size, that the internal illumination be limited to the white copy, and the address numbers be relocated; subject to staff approval 07- 049Z /FDP Page l of 2 Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION APRIL 6, 2006 4. Final Development Plan 06- 029FDP — Perimeter West PCD, Subarea I — Perimeter West Office Park — 6730 to 6790 Perimeter Drive (Continued) 7) That ponds and mounding along Post Road be reconfigured for a more naturalized character with the inclusion of public art or other focal points, subject to staff approval; and 8) That the cross access easement be relocated to the northwest corner of the site, subject to staff approval. * Don Meier, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 5-1. RESULT: This Final Development Plan was approved_ STAFF CERTIFICATION /e J dm - fer M_ Rauch .J Planner Page 2 of 2 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — April 6, 2006 Page 13 of 27 Mr. Gerbe nade the motion to a ove this Corridor De •lopment District ap ation because the site mprovements enlian the quality of this elopment and are i eeping with the exi. g land use charact and it allows a s cessful Dublin busu ss to continue safe eration, with six con . ons: I ) That the south parcel (used car de rship site) be used f parking only in asso 'ation with the lm a Auto Group camp nd if it becomes dis ; ociated in the future - must be brought i compliance with all plicable Code sectiut 1) That t design of private dri pavement meet the a roval of the City En ' er; 2) IF the site design meets ormwater Regulatio o the satisfaction of City Engineer; 3) iat the applicant wo with staff to revise landscape plans to ect comments in thi staff report; 4) That a tree rep - ement fee be paid p r to the issuance of ilding permits, if ne ssary; and 5) That ad tonal striping and s nage of the FAAR e implemented to e - ure the safe man Bring of fire equi ent, to the satisfaet n of the Washingto Township Fire D artment. r. Zimmerman seco ed the motion, and tl vote was as follows: r. Walter, yes; Ms. J es, yes; Mr. Fishman es; Mr. McCash, yes; Zimmerman, yes; z t. Mr. Gerber, yes_ ( roved 6 -0 -) 4. Final Development Plan 06- 029FDP — Perimeter West Office Park — Perimeter West PCD, Subarea 1 -6730 to 6790 Perimeter Drive Chair Rick Gerber swore in those who intended to speak in regards to this case- Jennifer Rauch presented this case and slides. She said the 5 -45 -acre site is zoned PCD, Planned Commerce District, as part of the Perimeter West plan- She said the areas to the south and west are also located within this PCD. Ms. Rauch said the proposed site plan includes six one -story office buildings- She said the four smaller buildings are located towards the center of the site with the two larger buildings located on each end of the site. She said shared parking, serving all six buildings, is located throughout the site. A retention pond with two seven -foot mounds is located along the northern portion of the site, nearest to Post Road. Ms. Rauch said access to the site is gained by two drives that connect to Perimeter Drive to the south which includes one full access point at Hospital Drive. She said a future internal access point will be provided at the southwest comer of the site and connect to Subarea 3 which is located to the west. She said currently, there is no access onto Post Road as specified at the time of the rezoning, however, due to the large amount of office and the relative length of frontage along Post Road, staff is taking the restriction under consideration and would like the Commission's feedback regarding the desire for this access point along Post Road. She -stated that staff realized such an amendment would require this applicant or a future applicant to modify plans and gain approval from the Commission and City Council_ Ms- Rauch said the text outlines several architectural provisions, including utilizing building 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — April 6, 2006 Page 14 of 27 materials that match the existing buildings within the Perimeter West PCD_ -She stated this proposal meets the development text. Ms. Rauch explained the proposed signage and said due to the landscaping required around the base, staff is recommending that the address numbers be moved in order to promote adequate visibility_ She said in addition, the applicant is proposing an internally illuminated sign_ Ms_ Rauch said staff recommends that only the white tenant copy be illuminated in order to be consistent with other signs within the Perimeter West PCD_ Ms. Rauch said staff believes that the proposal provides six high- quality office buildings that continue the standard of development within the Perimeter West PCD. She said the site plan and associated design elements require only minor modifications to comply with text. Ms_ Rauch said staff recommends approval of this final development plan with the following conditions as listed in the staff report: I) That the proposed vehicular use area lighting be modified to eliminate light/tree conflicts; subject to staff approval; 2) That the plans be revised to show the alignment of the access points to existing curb cuts located along the south side of Perimeter Drive; 3) That the applicant continue to work with staff on the concern of the impact their future development will have on the public roadway system; 4) That all utility connections and/or extensions meet or exceed the requirements and standards of the Engineering Division, the City of Columbus and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; 5) That the site stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and 6) That the sign be revised to meet Code regarding the size, that the internal illumination be limited to the white copy, and the address numbers be relocated; subject to staff approval_ Don Meier, Architecture Alliance, representing the applicant, said this is a medical office complex. He said each building, although two different sizes, will most likely have two tenants each which will total ten doctors' offices_ He said the final design of the buildings have been modified from the original submittal in working with staff, primarily with attention to the rooflines, adding some roof elements in the form of dormers_ Mr. Meier agreed to the six conditions as listed in the staff report_ He said they would work with staff to see if they could put the address numbers on the masonry portion of the sign, otherwise, he said they would modify the sign accordingly_ Mr. McCash said he was concerned about the pond and mound along Post Road being so linear_ He said the pond on the corner of Avery- Muirfield Drive and Post Road was more curvilinear_ He said he wanted the pond and mounding to be more natural looking to coincide with the scenic corridor along Post Road_ He asked if the size of pond was designed to handle only this development's stormwater or if the pond was designed to handle future developments' stormwater too. Ms_ Rauch said the location and shape of the retention pond was approved at the time of 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 6, 2006 Page 15 of 27 rezoning_ Mr_ McCash asked whether the pond needed to be that large, which dictated the linear shape. Kristin Yorko said this site is very restricted with the stormwater. She said they were allowed 0.15 CSF offsite between this acreage, the National City development, and the parcels to the south and west. She said this pond and the pond located north of the National City development are needed to handle the stormwater for this remaining 15 acres within the PCD. She said their release rate was 0.01 CSF, so the 15 acres was only allowed 0.15 CSF_ She said this pond had to be large to restrict the water flow_ She said the volume needed for the pond associated with this development is very constricted_ Mr. Meier said there will be two pond fountains, consistent with the ones in the existing pond_ Mr_ Gerber asked if there was mounding on Post Road in front of this pond_ Todd Faris, Fans Planning and Design, said there was no mounding in front of the pond along Post Road_ He said the required volume restricted them_ He agreed to work with staff to re- shape the pond as much as possible. Mr. McCash asked if this applicant owned the property to the south also_ Mr_ Fans said no. Mr. McCash said he would be inclined to reduce the setback along the south property line to allow more undulation to occur with the pond along Post Road because this property line was more internal. Mr. Gerber said he was inclined to table this case so that the applicant could work with staff to solve the issue related to the pond's shape_ Mr. McCash said he was more inclined to let staff work with the applicant to try to make the pond look more natural. Mr. McCash said that additional landscaping may be necessary to help break up the edge. Mr_ Fishman suggested the pond be brought around into the treed area_ He also suggested that another fountain be added in the center of the pond_ Mr. Faris asked if Mr. Fishman meant a fountain similar to that at Nationwide. Mr. McCash said a piece of artwork would be interesting_ Mr. Gerber suggested that a condition be drafted that included the reshaping of the pond and the inclusion of sculptured artwork. 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post/Penmeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — April 6, 2006 Page 16 of 27 Mr. Gerber asked staff about the future access point, although it was not part of this application. He suggested that guidance be provided_ Ms. Rauch said staff was looking at the potential addition of an access point along Post Road_ She stated that at the time of rezoning, it was determined that no access to Post Road would be allowed_ She stated that there were two potential locations for this access point, either on the eastern side of the site, lining up with the Red Trabue Nature Preserve or on the western edge of the site, which would affect mostly Subarea 3, lining up with the Gorden Farms entrance. She said if the applicant was interested, they would have to come back to modify their site plan. She suggested that if at this time the applicant gains approval of this application, and if they choose to entertain this idea in the future, then they could return to the Commission with an Amended Final Development Plan_ Mr_ McCash stated that if a similar type of layout or intensity of the office buildings would happen on the south side of this development, it was a long drive for fire access from the Perimeter West entrance back to this development. He said having the access off Post Road might be a good idea_ Ms. Rauch said that was also staff's concern_ She stated that staff also had concerns about the additional traffic that would be funneled to Perimeter Drive with the future development within this PCD_ Mr_ Gunder said serious site design modifications would have to occur to deal with the stormwater detention, mounding, and landscaping, etc_ He stated that a revised site plan would be necessary if the access point was to be located on this development. He said if the access point were located to the west, within Subarea 3, then potentially, if this condition was lifted, a future development could incorporate a driveway from the beginning. He said he suspected if this happened, the western edge of this proposed development might incur minor changes in its driveway configuration and parking, and most likely it would not impact any of the buildings. Mr_ Gerber said that access could serve other parcels in the area. Mr. Gunderman agreed that with the cross access between the various developments would serve all of the PCD_ Mr_ McCash asked if Ruscilli owned the property to the south and west_ Ms. Rauch stated that she believed this to be the case_ Mr. Faris said they already had the future access on Post Road in mind. He said they could facilitate access to the west to this site. Mr. Walter said he was not comfortable with the way which the road network was developed within the adjacent Riverside North PCD. He said it was very confusing to drive_ He stated his concern that this PCD furthers this problem, especially given that the access to this site is only permitted from Perimeter Drive_ He said while this site complies with Code, he thought a 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post/Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — April 6, 2006 Page 17 of 27 parcelized development would occur throughout this entire site_ Mr. Walter said he saw this continuing with the approved office development to the west_ He said he was concerned about the number of buildings, the fire and safety access, traffic flow with the medical offices and handicap spaces_ He said overall he did not like the entire development and was inclined to stop this type of development before all the parcels sell. Mr. Gerber said when other applications -for the Perimeter West PCD come before the Commission, Mr. Walter will have the opportunity to express those concerns_ Mr. Gerber asked where ground sign would be located_ Ms. Rauch demonstrated the sign location at the southwestern entrance to the development. She stated that it will not be seen from Post Road, only from the internal access drive. Mr. McCash said complaints about patients not being able to a find doctors' offices have occurred on other sites and as proposed, these building addresses will not be seen from the public right -of -way, which he believes is a potential problem for the tenants_ He stated if future shared access to Post Road was located along the western property, it would resolve the potential issues for fire - fighting access and the signage could be located along Post Road where it can be seen. He said he did not want to see an application come back requesting a relocation of the sign after everything developed because the sign at this location is not visible. He said a sign on Perimeter Drive would not be permitted by Code because it would be considered an off-premise sign. Mr. Meier said the applicant realizes that signage is very important, especially for doctors' offices. He said this is a very challenging site because it does not have frontage on Perimeter Drive. He said a sign on Post Road was useless because there is no access point into the development. He said originally, during discussions with staff, it was thought there would be a sign facing Post Road, however that was changed. He said this proposed location is the best location available. Mr. McCash agreed that a sign on Post Road is useless without access. He suggested having a curbcut and access on Post Road and locating the sign there, while still providing a connection to the property to the south and to Perimeter Drive. He said the main access could be Post Road, not Perimeter Drive_ He stated the proposed sign location would be useless_ Mr. Meier said at the initial meetings with staff it was stated that there would not be any access permitted to Post Road, so they designed the site according to that requirement. Mr_ McCash asked if staff had changed their position regarding the Post Road access. He stated this was a very deep site to access from Perimeter Drive for an office use and still have the ability to have the necessary fire access_ Mr. Gunderman said at the rezoning stage there was a very flat statement on the preliminary development plan that there would be absolutely no access onto Post Road. He said staff raised concerns about the traffic flow in this area, not only with this project, but with previous projects. He said staff asked Ruscilli if they would consider a through - access point from Post Road to 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post/Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — April 6, 2006 Page 18 of 27 Perimeter Drive, but Ruscilli had a number of contracts and were not able to undertake that change. Mr. Gunderman said staff believed the next best thing was to provide a driveway connection at Post Road_ He said this applicant was already in the process of turning in a final development plan that had to comply with the requirements of the preliminary development plan. However, Mr. Gunderman said staff supported the change to the preliminary development plan and felt it was a useful topic for discussion_ Mr_ Gunderman asked the Commission to remember that to the east are the Shoppes at Avery, etc. He said that a traffic study was done with that project, and it spoke directly to a number of issues that the Engineering department is very concerned about, particularly the intersection at Perimeter Drive and Avery Road_ He said it was clear that there was some benefit to providing driveway access onto Post Road_ He stated that the developments are the same super -block pattern, located between Post Road and Perimeter Drive, and the traffic issues are almost exactly the same between these two developments_ Mr. Gunderman said that based on the results of the traffic study, more is known now about the traffic impacts than were probably known by the Commission when the preliminary development plan was approved_ Mr. McCash asked where the potential Post Road curbcut would be located if it aligned with the Gorden Farms property_ Ms_ Rauch said it would be located along the western property line of the proposed site. Mr. McCash asked if this development's western property line would end up being the centerline of the roadway, or if the roadway would be entirely on the property to the west. Ms. Rauch said the majority of the roadway would be located on the western property and that it would line up almost exactly with the western property line. She then asked if the Commission would prefer directional signage, perhaps an address number, on Post Road. Mr_ McCash said he could see the sign relocated to the northwest corner of the site, if and when the access point to Post Road was constructed_ He said the access point onto Post Road was really needed_ Mr_ Gunderman said should either this applicant choose to submit a plan that shows an access point alignment with the driveway to the east, or if a new final development plan application is received for the property to the west, there would be a chance to relocate the signage. Mr. Gerber summarized by saying that if the access point should occur onto Post Road the location of the sign should be considered on the northwest corner of this development. He said it also makes sense that the cross - access provided between this development and Subarea 3 to the west be retrofitted. Mr. Gunderman said if this access point occurs on Subarea 3 the northwest corner of this development would need revisions_ Mr_ McCash referred to the parking located along the western property line. He suggested that 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — April 6, 2006 Page 19 of 27 rather than providing cross- access in the southwest corner, it should be provided at the northwest corner of the site and the parking along the west property line can be shifted to the south_ He stated that the cross - access would align across the top of this development and provide an easy connection to Post Road, a minimal change to this plan. Mr. Walter asked if that was done, would the two southern connections to Perimeter Drive be retained_ Mr. McCash said those connections could remain. Mr. Gunderman said staff believed they received the input necessary from the Commission regarding the Post Road access_ Ms. Jones asked if the access were changed to Post Road would the entry sign have a Post Road address or Perimeter Road address. Mr. Gunderman thought it would be a Post Road address if that were convenient for them. Mr. Gerber said it would be ideal if there could be a condition in the event that the western access occurs. Mr. Gunderman said would be difficult to do since there is currently no pending application proposing this access point. Mr. McCash suggested that a condition be made to relocate the cross - access connection from the southwest corner to the northwest corner_ Mr. Meier asked if that condition were included and the curbcut did become a reality, would there be any safety or Code related issues with to the relocation of the cross - access. Mr. Gunderman said he wanted to consult the fire department before responding to the question. Mr. McCash asked if Engineering had a concern about switching the location of the cross - access. Barb Cox said she was concerned that moving the cross - access point would create a shorter stacking distance to make a left turn onto Post Road. She said there was a similar concern with cross - access drive at the southern end of the PCD and the intersection of Hospital Drive and Perimeter Drive. She said it appeared to be far enough, but it had not been studied. Mr_ Gerber asked that the additional Conditions 7 and 8 be read. Dan Phillabaum read Condition 7: That the ponds and mounding along Post Road be reconfigured for a more naturalized character with the inclusion of public art or other focal point, subject to staff approval. Mr. Phillabaum read Condition 8: That if access is available to this site from Post Road in the 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — April 6, 2006 Page 20 of 27 future, that the cross access casement be relocated to the northwest corner of the site, subject to staff approval_ Mr. McCash noted that the applicant wanted to shift the parking now and have the cross access easement moved in the northwest section. Mr_ Phillabaum amended Condition 8: That the cross access easement be relocated to the northwest corner of the site, subject to staff approval. Mr. Meier agreed with the eight conditions as listed below_ Mr. Gerber made the motion to approve this Final Development Plan because the plan is consistent with the PCD plan for Perimeter West PCD and the planned district ordinance, it incorporates high - quality building materials and four -sided architecture, and complies with the regulations and the intent of the rezoning, with eight conditions: l) That the proposed vehicular use area lighting be modified to eliminate tight/tree conflicts; subject to staff approval; 2) That the plans be revised to show the alignment of the access points to existing curb cuts located along the south side of Perimeter Drive; 3) That the applicant continue to work with staff on the concern of the impact their future development will have on the public roadway system; 4) That all utility connections and/or extensions meet or exceed the requirements and standards of the Engineering Division, the City of Columbus and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; 5) That the site stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 6) That the sign be revised to meet Code regarding the size, that the internal illumination be limited to the white copy, and the address numbers be relocated; subject to staff approval; 7) That ponds and mounding along Post Road be reconfigured for a more naturalized character with the inclusion of public art or other focal points, subject to staff approval; and 8) That the cross access easement be relocated to the northwest corner of the site, subject to staff approval. Mr_ Zimmerman seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Walter, no; Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr_ McCash, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 5 -1.) Mr. Gerber called a short recess at 8:20 p-m. 5. Final c:► clopment Plan 5- 167FDP — Emc ld /Cent ter T/Ko . D, Su area E — Emerald arkway and Waer cr Te Ch. Rick Gerber swor n those who intend to testi to this Judson Rex prese d this case by sh ing slides ang the _ Rex said this is a pr posal for 33,000 s are feet of retais statiod site improvemen . He discussed th layout of the site itectur four 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road (AT) OF Ut QL1 N Division of Planning 5800 shier -Rags Road DAn. Ohio 43016 -1236 Ptnw/tD0 614 - 161 -6550 tux 614 - 161-6566 Wet Site www dublin oh-m AMENDED DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION October 7, 1999 The Plaruung and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting 3. Rezoning Application 99 -04OZ - Composite Plan - Perimeter West Office Park Location: 83 acres located on the south side of Post Road, north of US 33, approximately 900 feet west of Avery- Muirfreld Drive_ Existing Zoning: R, Rural District_ Request: PCD, Planned Commerce District. Proposed Use: An office campus totaling 747,000 square feet and additional permitted uses (including hotels and ancillary commercial /restaurant uses in an office or hotel)_ Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road will also be extended. Applicant: BJL, LP, c/o Jeff Mclnturf, 283 South State Street, Suite 201, Westerville, Ohio 43081; Carol Lehr, 2267 Middlesex Road, Columbus, Ohio 43220; and Ruscilli Development Company, c/o William Tippmann, 2041 Arlingate Lane, Columbus, Ohio 43228; represented by Ben W_ Hale, Jr-, Stnith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. MOTION #l: To approve this rezoning application with 12 conditions- l) 2) 3) 4) 5) That the text be revised to clarify the means to administer the density and lot coverage requirements That the text be revised to state that the existing structure in Subarea 3 is permitted access onto Post Road unless the structure is expanded or the site redeveloped, at which time internal access via Perimeter Drive must be provided; That the text prohibit commercial use of the existing structure in Subarea 3 if the structure is ever expanded That the text be revised to state compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan and the Stormwater Regulations, That mansard roofs be strictly prohibited from Subareas t and 3, 07- 049Z /FDP Page l of 2 Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post/Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road AMENDED DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION October 7, 1999 3_ Rezoning Application - Composite Plan 99 -040Z - Perimeter West Office Park (Continued) 6) `11iat the landscape treatment, including street trees, along all roads be consistent with the property to the east, subject to staff approval, 7) That the text be revised to limit signs to ground signs with a maximum height of six feet; 8) That the average density for the entire project not exceed 9,000 square feet per acre; 9) That the absolute maximum height, including mechanicals, in Subarea 2 be limited to 80 feet, and that the absolute maximum height, including mechanicals, in Subarea 1 be limited to 35 feet; 10) That the text be revised to increase the minimum roof pitch to 6.12 in all Subareas; 11) That buildings over 60 feet in height along the south side of Perimeter Drive have a minimum setback of 150 feet; and 12) That all conditions are met prior to this case being scheduled for City Council. * Ben W_ Hale, Jr_ agreed to the above conditions_ VOTE: 7 -0_ RESULT: This rezoning application will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation_ MOTION #2: To recommend to City Council that a study of the Post Road interchange with US 33 /SR 161 be undertaken as a high priority at the beginning of 2000_ VOTE: 7 -0_ RESULT: A recommendation will be forwarded to City Council to undertake a study of the Post Road interchange with US33 /SR 161 with a high priority early in 2000_ STAFF CERTIFICATION Chad Gibson Planner 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -- October 7, 1999 Page 10 Mr_ FishmY agreed that t ere should be an strong lent _ ordinance w ich reflects character c Dublin_ Sma lots should ha c split rail fen ng only withi+ the building I' e, and there , hottld be no pr' acy fences pe titled Messy _ [tartan, Fisht an, and Leckli •r agreed that e rotative, orna i�-ntal type len -s only slim d be permitted 'tt the front yar Vlr_ [ ecklider a ecd with the is, es expr /aatr Mr_" McCasti. He was not in avor of rear yard privacy f e n h igher the : four fes for safety ound swimmi g pools_ He would make lowances for p tva . fencet of a deck He opposed lit rail fenc around the wrimeter, exec t for large lany kind of fencing uI ow of the f building I �c Ornamental encing along [ walk, n y be okay Mr_ l l[leton asked if stone wall fet ing should be variance situ tion, such as n Old fiEas n M /mathe 'r said yes. M _ Clarke sugge ed lots along t river_ She s ggested of mas es be limited scenic roads. motion to table this Cod revision_ Mr McCash seco ed, and the vote was as Mr. Pep w, yes; Mr_ S ague, yes; Mr. xcklider, yes Mr_ Fishman, yes; Mr_ Ha Mr_ [Wash, yes an( r_ Eastep ye _ (Tabled 7 -0_ Mr_ LeckYiider called it sh(Ai recess. 3. Rezoning Application — Composite Plan 99 -04OZ — Perimeter West Office Park Chad Gibson said this composite plan is for 83 acres between Post Road and US 33 /SR 16 L The revised application includes 888,000 square feet of office, hotel, and related commercial uses_ This is the second downward revision from the initial proposal of tM square feet_ The current application is for 10,700 square feet per acre_ Mr_ Gibson showed several slides_ The site is zoned R, Rural District, and the request is for PCD, Planned Commerce District_ Subarea 3 contains- a house, and the rest of the site is undeveloped- Ile said the development text for Subarea 1, along Post Road, permits two - story office buildings, a maxin7um height of 35 feet, and requires residential character. Subarea 2 is along US 33 and will permit five -story offices and seven -story hotels with an 80 -foot height maximum_ Subarea 3 has access to Post Road until any modification or expansion of that site, at which time access will be limited to Perimeter Drive_ He said the traffic study indicated several road improvements are necessary, and in some off - site areas, landscaping will need to be removed and right- of-way acquired_ He said architecture is to be harmonious within the development and will feature brick, stone, and decorative pre -cast materials- Water features with pedestrian access will be included_ Mr_ Gibson said staff recommends approval with ei0ht condifinwQ 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 7, 1999 Page 11 1) That the text be revised to clarify the administration of the density and lot coverage requirements; 2) That the text be revised to state that the existing structure in Subarea 3 is permitted access onto Post Road unless the structure is `expanded or the site redeveloped at which time internal access via Perimeter Drive must be provided; 3) That the text prohibit commercial use of the existing structure in Subarea 3 if the structure is ever expanded; 4) That the text be revised to state compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan and Stormwater Regulations; 5) That mansard roofs be strictly prohibited from Subarea l; 6) That the landscape treatment, including street trees, along all roads be consistent with the property to the east; 7) That the text be revised to limit signs to ground signs with a maximum height of six feet; and 8) That all conditions are met prior to this case being scheduled for City Council_ Mr. McCash asked about the service level at US 33/Hyland-Croy- Mr. Gibson said it was "D +" for 944,000 square feet, but it was not re- tested for 888,000 square feet_ Mr. Peplow said the overall gross density is 10,700 square feet per acre. Mr_ Gibson said the density for each subarea was not provided_ He expected the highest densities along US 33. Mr. Lecklider was also concerned about density, and lowering the density was previously discussed. He said mechanicals should not be roof- mounted in Subarea 1; this conflicts with a residential look_ Also the height limit should be 35 feet without exceptions_ Mr. Gibson said the lot coverage was lowered from 70 to 65 percent on any one site, and to 60 percent for the entire 83 -acre development_ Mr_ Lecklider said the staff report pointed out the potential or likelihood of having to relocate street lights, fire hydrants, etc. along Avery- Muirfield Drive to allow for widening, etc_ He asked who would pay for the relocation_ Mr_ McCash said it could be included in the TIF_ Mr_ Lecklider asked about the impacted or reduced greenspace along Muirfield -Avery Drive_ Mr. Gibson said in order to achieve the desired level of service, additional right turn lanes are needed, and this will require the removal of portions of greenspace in front of the Fifth- Third Bank, for example. Mr_ Lecklider was disappointed that any encroachments would be permitted on the limited greenspace provided_ Ben W_ Hale, Jr_, attorney for the applicant, said Subarea 2 was proposed at a maximum height of 70 feet, plus mechanicals_ They will remove the reference to mechanicals from the text for Subarea 1 _ That subarea will have pitched residential type roofs. It will be difficult to meet setback and other requirements and build above 9,000 square feet per acre_ Mr_ Hale said the site plan for Rail Van indicates a 65 percent lot coverage. lie said relocation of the streetlights, hydrants, etc_, are in the TIF approved for this site. When the 07- 0492 /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post/Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 7, 1999 Page 12 Community Plan was done, the level of service desired was "D "_ Going to "C, will require right turn lanes_ Mr. Hale agreed to the eight conditions listed above_ Mr_ Eastep thought the site should have a density of 9,000 square feet per acre overall- Mr. Hale said this application was first filed by the Alter Group at 15,526 square feet per acre_ In August, the application was revised down to 13026 square feet per acre which operated at a level of service - D". The Commission requested a "C" level of service, and it was revised down to 11,458 square feet per acre. It is now down to 10,700 square feet per acre_ He said the Preserve on Frantz Road has a density of 11,000 square feet, Parkwood has 17,300; Blazer was 13,900; and Upper Metro was at 12,845 square feet_ Mr_ [late said this is under those examples, has 60 percent lot coverage, and the traffic works at a level of service "C_" Mr_ Eastep said if the Commission continued to approve densities higher than the Community Plan, they were over-building- He said the Preserve is a fantastic development on a wooded lot which gave something back to the Community. He said the level of service is to be considered, and the Commission asked for 9,000 square feet_ The proposal is too high. Mr_ Eastep is very concerned about the interchange which is not yet even being studied_ He feels this development needs an improved Post Road interchange to take the heat off the Avery Road interchange_ He does not want Avery- Muirfield widened further_ Mr. Hale said the TIFs will not only come from these buildings_ There will be a considerable amount of income tax above and beyond what is needed for this TIF. Mr_ Eastep said the majority of the developments with higher density are directly off I -270 or US 33 with free- flowing access_ There is no infrastructure planned here_ Mr_ McCash said Council has been very aggressive in moving up roadway projects, and about 65 percent of the CIP is devoted to roads_ He thought the Hyland - Croy /Post Road interchange would be considered soon, but there are more pressing traffic needs elsewhere_ With development, it will be moved forward_ The "D +" level of service results from the entire 888,000 square feet of development_ He suggested a limiting development to 210,000 square feet until the road goes through, or 550,000 square feet until there are major improvements to the US 33 /SR 161 /Hyland -Croy interchange_ Mr. Eastep said Dublin should be proactive in its road improvements_ Mr_ Sprague suggested 9,000 square feet as an aggregate limit_ If those improvements are done to Hyland -Croy, etc., the applicant could apply for more density based on traffic: Mr_ McCash suggested a limit of a density of 9,000 square feet until the road improvements were made _ Mr. Eastep thought the development and road improvements should be installed hand in hand. He said private money moves faster than public money which would require approvals of MORPC and ODOT, etc_ Mr_ Lecklider said another 50 acres to the west will also develop_ Mr_ Hale said this was also tested in the traffic study_ 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development flan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 7, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Fishman said he waits for four or more cycles at some traffic signals to get through_ Doyle Clear, Parsons Transportation, said if a driver waited more than one traffic signal cycle, generally that is - F" level of service_ Mr_ Fishman said given that, Dublin gets an "F" all over_ Mr_ Clear disagreed, and he recounted his own experiences_ He said Council is spending a lot on road improvements to improve the level of service_ He noted several areas are under construction at once, and many will be finished in one or two years_ Mr_ Clear said a "D" level means stopping about 45 to 60 seconds on a average_ He said the adopted Community Plan level was "D," and it is used many places. He noted that 9,000 square feet per acre is a Community Plan standard. Mr_ Eastep was concerned about another 2M square feet of offices_ He wondered if traffic will be improved enough to satisfy most residents_ Mr. Clear said the development is being staged with a set of road improvements_ He said if the concern was the interchange, perhaps another trigger point could tie it to square feet of development or number of employees_ Staging of roadway improvements is totally fair according to Mr_ Clear_ He stands by the projected levels of service in 2020_ Mr_ Hale said Hyland -Croy Road is the farthest west Dublin can annex, and Union County has extended sewers. He assumes jobs will come to that area, and no Dublin taxes will be paid_ The township has limited ability to make improvements. He said Metro Parks bought 800 acres of developable land in Jerome Township, north of McKitrick Road_ Mr_ Clear said hundreds of cars turning to and from Hyland -Croy Road, outside Dublin, onto Post Road have been considered_ He said there are no good left turn lanes existing today. He said it cannot be totally fixed because the columns underneath limit the area needed to create right /left turn lanes. It will take state cooperation. Mr_ Eastep did not disagree, but he is concerned about the traffic trade -off for increased density_ He said this project needs the proposed road_ Mr. McCash though the extension of Perimeter Drive was needed now. Mr. Clear said all of the development in the Riverside PCD, this site, and the site to the west was tested in his study in the 2020 numbers_ Mr_ Lecklider was also concerned about the volume of homes recently approved_ Their access will be down Avery - Muirfield Drive_ He expected Hyland -Croy Road would also be loaded with new resident traffic_ Mr_ Clear said these were included also in the 2020 projections_ The existing conditions are known, and a growth rate is added to that roadway plus the development_ He said the City Engineer requires analysis based on existing conditions and the 2020 projections_ Mr. Fishman and Mr_ Clear traded their driving experiences on Avery - Muirfield Drive_ Mr_ Fishman said Dublin needs to be even more proactive about traffic because much development has been approved in outlying areas_ He was uncomfortable annrovinQ this 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post/Perimeter Office Building Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 7, 1999 Page 14 project with a density of even 9,000 square feet per acre, because the needed infrastructure is lagging behind_ He said no one in Dublin is happy with the traffic_ Mr. Clear said things are getting better. Ten years ago, none of the roads were in place, but Pat Bowman and others were doing the planning_ Now the roads are coming on line and being funded by new sources of revenue_ Mr_ Fishman disagreed that things are developing according to the long- standing plan. Compromises were made_ The reality of driving in Dublin on a daily basis is not pleasant_ Mr_ hale said the development will stay at 9,000 square feet per acre until the US 33 /1 Road interchange is fixed to a "C" level of service_ Mr. Clear said a completely rebuilt interchange is needed_ Mr. Sprague said he has been looking at traffic numbers for five years_ lie now questions the whole methodology_ He said half of the development area was not accounted for on the exhibits_ The residents' number one issue is traffic_ The Avery interchange needed improvement four years ago, and Hyland -Croy Road is not even programmed for improvement_ He was not happy about removing landscaping for additional lanes_ The density should be capped at 9,000 square feet per acre. If things do get better, the applicant could ask for additional square footage through a rezoning. Until proved otherwise, 9,000 square feet is the absolute limit_ The traffic experience is abysmal, simply unacceptable_ Mr_ Lecklider said current PM peak backs traffic up through the intersections. Mr_ Clear said more turn lanes are needed at the intersections, and he does not believe the signals are interconnected as yet_ He again said traffic will greatly improve in a few years_ Mr_ Eastep suggested using more police to direct peak hour traffic onto the freeway and to route some traffic to Hyland -Croy Road temporarily_ He said the civic associations are adamant about not increasing densities because people are sick of the traffic_ Mr_ Hale said they believe strongly that the traffic will work_ He believes that the Riverside PCD will develop at a lower density_ He agreed to come back later with a rezoning for more than 9,000 square feet per acre. He is confident the traffic numbers will bear him out_ Mr_ Fishman feels traffic is always in a "catch up" situation, and it will take years and years to solve the problem. He still could not support anything over 9,000 square feet per acre. Mr_ Hale agreed to an average density of 9,000 square feet per acre and an average lot coverage of 60 percent, with no site exceeding 65 percent. There was agreement among the Commissioners with this. Mr_ Lecklider said a signature office park should have more than one water feature. Mr Hale said the stormwater design is not yet planned_ He said the water flows to the north_ Regarding signs, Mr. Lecklider wanted it to be clear that the Commission would not accept signs in excess of the Code. There should be no wall signs_ Mr_ Hale agreed_ 07- 0492 /FDP Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building ((S S Pnct R nali Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 7, 1999 Page 15 Regarding building height in Subarea 1, along Post Road, Mr_ Lecklider wanted no deviations from the 35 feet height limit. He was concerned that 80 feet in height just south of Perimeter Drive is too high. It is too close to the residential use to the north_ Mr. Hale said the Rail Van building will be about 40 feet tall and will be set back about 160 feet from Perimeter Drive_ Mr. Bill Tippmann, Ruscilli, said that height would be typical- Mr- Lecklider thought this would be great_ Mr_ McCash noted the text does require a 100 -foot setback along Perimeter Drive for buildings over 50 feet in height_ There was some discussion of sight lines and blockage of this site by the seniors' housing structure to the north. Mr. Fishman said he likes the proposal with the limitations just added_ He said the rezoning is at the stage where the expectations for development are to be included_ He wanted water features and for the developer to exceed the Landscape Code_ He said the new benchmark for landscape excellence is the corner of SR 161 and Frantz (Upper Metro Place). He said this is a gateway, and he asked fora similar commitment_ Mr_ Tippmann said a commitment to do "Class A" landscaping is in the text. Mr_ Hale concurred_ Regarding the setback on the south side of Perimeter Drive, buildings up to 50 feet are required to have a 50 -foot setback. After some discussion, Mr. Hale agreed to a setback of 150 feet for buildings over 50 feet. Mr_ Hale agreed to an absolute maximum building height of 80 feet; mechanicals, etc_ will not exceed this_ Mr_ Hale agreed to increase the minimum roof pitch from 5 =12 to 6 =12_ He reiterated that density will be capped at 9,000 square feet in this application_ if the interchange is improved or the surrounding area is developed at a lower density, Mr_ Hale said he may be back with another rezoning request_ Mr_ Harian appreciated the applicant's flexibility_ tic can support this application_ Mr. Fishman agreed and said he respected the developer and the concessions made_ Mr. Eastep appreciated the efforts of Mr. Hale and the applicants for the Dublin community_ Mr. Sprague apologized for raising his voice earlier_ He said the duty of each Commissioner is to express the will of the community within reasonable, legal limits_ lie expressed deep respect for Mr_ Hale_ He appreciated Mr_ Clear's work and the flexibility of the applicant_ He hopes Rail Van will be satisfied in this new, attractive building_ Mr_ Lecklider commended the staff effort and the applicant's team_ Ile is much more comfortable with the revised application than was with the original case_ He will vote yes with his fingers crossed, as he does on very large projects_ Ms. Clarke asked for clariftcation on the use of the residence in Subarea 3 _ She said both the Commission and City Council have opposed the commercial reuse of houses. Expansion of a house often makes the house very difficult to eliminate. 07- 0492 /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 7, t999 Page 16 Mr_ Hale said Subarea 2 was not in the original application, and it was included because the City requested it. The owner has agreed to participate in this application_ He agreed not to expand the house_ If he builds an office building, he will eliminate his access onto Post Road and will use Perimeter Drive for the sole access_ Ruscilli has agreed to grant him access to Perimeter Road_ The house can be used as a residence or an office with access to Post Road_ The building will be eliminated with new construction, and it will not be expanded_ There is also a barn on the two -acre site_ He appreciated that this owner participated in this rezoning_ Mr_ Eastep suggested that Commission should recommend to City Council that the Post Road interchange should be sped up as much as humanly possible. Mr. McCash made a motion to approve this rezoning with 12 conditions: 1) That the text be revised to clarify the means to administer the density and lot coverage requirements 2) That the text be revised to state that the existing structure in Subarea 3 is permitted access onto Post Road unless the structure is expanded or the site redeveloped, at which time internal access via Perimeter Drive must be provided, 3) That the text prohibit commercial use of the existing structure in Subarea 3 if the structure is ever expanded; 4) That the text be revised to state compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan and the Stormwater Regulations; 5) That mansard roofs be strictly prohibited from Subareas l and 3; 6) That the landscape treatment, including street trees, along all roads be consistent with the property to the east, subject to staff approval; 7) That the text be revised to limit signs to ground signs with a maximum height of six Let; 8) That the average density for the entire project not exceed 9,000 square feet per acre; 9) That the absolute maximum height, including mechanicals, in Subarea 2 be limited to 80 feet, and that the absolute maximum height, including mechanicals, in Subarea 1 be limited to 35 feet; 10) That the text be revised to increase the minimum roof pitch to 6 :12 in all Subareas; I l) That buildings over 60 feet in height along the south side of Perimeter Drive have a minimum setback of 150 feet, and 12) That all conditions are met prior to this case being scheduled for City Council_ Mr_ Fishman seconded the motion_ Mr_ Hale agreed to the above conditions_ The vote was as follows_ Mr. Eastep, yes; Mr_ Peplow, yes Mr_ Sprague, yes, Mr_ Lecklider, yes; Mr_ Harian, yes; Mr_ Fishman, yes, and Mr. McCash, yes_ (Approved 7 -0_) Mr. Eastep made a motion to City Council that a study of the Post Road interchange with US 33 /SR 161 be undertaken as a high priority at the beginning of 2000_ Mr_ Fishman seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows Mr_ Harian, yes; Mr_ McCash, yes; Mr. Leckhder, yes, Mr_ Sprague, yes, Mr_ Peplow, yes, Mr_ Fishman, yes; and Mr. Eastep, yes_ (Approved 7 -0_) 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road �T Aim- ;M PUD I� c: PUD 4" ID PUD �a R o 0 - POSt 7 Road- PCD ? PCD 4 Z91i p � r� met v PCD PCD )T--/ PCD - t : v PCD M C PUD PCD a�l�ll City of Dublin 07- 049Z /FDP N Land Use and Rezoning /Final Development Plan Long Range Planning Post /Perimeter Office Building Z3 Feet 6655 Post Road 0 250 500 PLR m PLR PLR PLR �T Aim- ;M PUD I� c: PUD 4" ID PUD �a R o 0 - POSt 7 Road- PCD ? PCD 4 Z91i p � r� met v PCD PCD )T--/ PCD - t : v PCD M C PUD PCD a�l�ll City of Dublin 07- 049Z /FDP N Land Use and Rezoning /Final Development Plan Long Range Planning Post /Perimeter Office Building Z3 Feet 6655 Post Road 0 250 500 I BOLL Reams Ltd. Corporate Real Estate Services July 27, 2007 6600 Perimeter Dr. Suite 100 Dublin, OH 43016 614.799.2100 Fax 614.799.2112 www.rjboll.com SI 9 The following represents the proposed modifications to the previously approved text for the Perimeter West Planned Commerce District, Subarea 3 (Version November 11, 1999). If approved by City Council, the proposed modifications would replace the following sections found on page 12 and 13. The current development text and the proposed modifications are provided below. Current Development Text 3.04 Traffic, Circulation, Parking and Loading: 1. Size, ratio, and loading facilities shall be regulated by City of Dublin Zoning Code Sections 153.200 through 153. 212. Parking in excess of that required by the Code may be 8'x16' with 22 -foot aisles. 4. Access to Subarea 3 shall be from Post Road unless the residential structure is expanded or Subarea 3 is redeveloped, at which time internal access via Perimeter Drive must be provided. Proposed Text Modifications 3.04 Traffic, Circulation, Parking and Loading: 1. Size, ratio, and loading facilities shall be regulated by City of Dublin Zoning Code Sections 153.200 through 153. 212. Parking in excess of that required by the Code may be 8'x16' with 22 -foot aisles. A reduction in the minimum length of loading spaces may be provided at no less than 40 feet. 4. Full service access to Subarea 3 shall be permitted from Post Road when Subarea 3 is redeveloped. Internal access via Perimeter Drive shall also be provided. 3 C.Q¢t PROPOSED SITE PLAN ' e — ,�. • Y 1 N i a.76 -Fai i t . j sue. -• --- _ f t . t 1 's i 1 i i S i 'v i I � i r � r PROP.LFFT -"N LANE OwmAt21N0111 i a.76 -Fai i t . j sue. -• --- _ f t . t 1 's i 1 i i S i 'v i I � i r CITY O 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 P e: N�wv +.tludir7.oh,VS January 2007 EXHIBIT "B" REZONING APPLICATION (Code Section 153.234) TO EXPIRE ORDINANCE NUMBER CITY COUNCIL (FIRST READING) CITY COUNCIL (PUBLIC HEARING) CITY COUNCIL ACTION 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 encouraged to contact Land Use and Long Range Planning for assistance and to discuss the rezoning process, and if needed, to make an appolfftment for a pre - submittal review prior to submitting a formal application. I. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: ❑ Preliminary Development Plan (Section 153.053) Other (Please Describe) TZIE FMOI II. PROPERTY INFORMATION This section must be completed. Property Address: (6 7 5 L j' i ( ff V?N.�„'a (L 6($0 `,(p Tax ID /Parcel Number(s): 2 l 7 — d Q 5 Q O$1 ]� Parcel Size (Acres): Existing Land UselDevelopment: �i ( �� (11 �,7 I,�� Proposed Land Use/Development: Omw\,/ ��og— w Q � Existing Zoning District: ;7C)P Requested Zoning District: ?C, Total Acres to be Rezoned: III. REZONING STATEMENT: Please attach separate sheets (8.5 X 11) to the back of this application with your responses to the following sections. A. Please briefly explain the proposed rezoning and development: B. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the existing and potential future land use character of the vicinity: C. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan and, If applicable, how the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for Planned Districts [Section 153.052(B)]: Mr-0 IMES 51 ncuriv D. Briefly address how the proposed rezoning and development meet the review criteria for Preilminary Development Plan approve y the Planning and Zoning Commission as stated in [Section 153.055(A)] (SEE ATTACHMENT A): J n l 300 mt U(' —I f LAND USE & Page 1 of 5 i LONG RANGE PLANNING Has a previous application to rezone the property been denied by City Council within the last twelve months? ❑ Yes g No If yes, list when and state the basis for reconsideration as noted by Section 153.234(A)(3): IV. PLEASE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FOR INITIAL STAFF REVIEW: Please submit large (24X36) and small (11X17) sets of plans. Please make sure all plans are stapled and collated. Large plans should also be folded. Staff may later request plans that incorporate review comments. Fourteen (14) additional copies of revised submittals are required for the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS AND THIRTEEN (13) COPIES Please notarize agent authorization, if necessary. Lff FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY to FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A TAX PARCEL ID MAP indicating property owners and parcel numbers for all parcels within 500 FEET of the site (Maximum Size 11X17). Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance. FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LIST OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET of the perimeter of the property based on the County Auditor's current tax list, including parcel number, owner name (not Mortgage Company or Tax Service), and address (Maximum Size 11X17). It is the policy of the City of Dublin to notify surrounding property owners of pending applications under public review. Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance. FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF THE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT a� FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF SCALED SITE /STAKING PLANS SHOWING: a. North arrow and bar scale. b. Location, size and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping, structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking). c. Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, number of dwellings, building /unit types, square footages, parking, open space, etc.). d. Size of the site in acres /square feet. e. All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights -of -way, easements, and other information related to the site. f. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries. g. Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties. IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING SCALED PLANS: a. Grading Plan. b. Landscaping Plan. c. Lighting Plan. d. Utility and /or Stormwater Plan. e. Tree Survey, Tree Preservation and Tree Replacement Plans 'fJJ IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) SCALED, ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS with proposed colors and materials noted. \ffrIF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF SCALED DRAWINGS SHOWING: a. Location of signs and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window). b. Sign dimensions, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grade. c. Copy layout and lettering styles (fonts) of signage. d. Materials and manufacturer to be used in fabrication. e. Total area of sign face (including frame) f. Type of illumination ❑ MATERIAL/COLOR SAMPLES (swatches, photos, plans, or product specifications). Include manufacturer name and product number. RECEIVED �Il J 412007 Page 2 of 5 r� - f . F��P /� y COOT UIS IN I' LAND USE & LONG RANGE PLANNING V. GURRENT PRUPEK I Y UWNtK(,): This section must be completed. Please attacn additional sneets iT neeaea. Name (Individual or Organization): C` k V C/o Mailing Address: (hJ (Street, City, State, Zip Code) l! v`l+\.�CS ''//�� VV �'�` Daytime Telephone: (v`4) `61 Fax: Email or Alternate Contact Information: VI. APPLICANT Please complete if applicable. This is the person(s) who is requesting the zone change if different than the property f1W -1.1 Name: e7 V V7 Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): Qtr Mailing Address: V A- a�(,.� (Street, City, State, Zip Code) V f�'�- Vl�+ Cr � M v' ` 7 VJ Daytime Telephone((o Q 01 Fax: ((0 -F ZUI Email or Alternate Contact Information: V-0,U Po w Q � 00 x- - wr VII. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF OWNER/APPLICANT. Please complete if applicable. This is the primary contact person who will raralva rnrraannndanra rsaardina this aooilcation. If needed. attach additional sheets for multiple representatives. Name: Organization:('C(��L,r'j Mailing Address: (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Daytime Telephon�� ✓�� Far ("` 46q- Email or Alternate Contact Information: �� ax & (K& tel j �/I Page 3 of 5 / RECEIV'r 7Y OF l.i3LIN LAND USE & LONG RANGE PLANNING VIII. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT /REPRESENTATIVE(S): If the applicant is not the property owner, this sectioryn yst be completed anA notarize,. I + the owner, hereby authorize to act as my applicant/representative(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: c L —0 I C4 Subscribed �anndd sworn to before me this — day of ' 20 State of County of yJLL Notary Public CAROL E. BOLL Notary Public, State of Ohio My Commission Expires 09 -11 -00 IX. 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. X. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The City of 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. XI. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: This section must be completed and notarized. I -J 6 - :; s , the owner or authorized representative, have read and understand a contents of this application. T e 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 representativ ��iiW)rYf1�Jf , /y/ "' ✓ I Dat - 3> 1 ,J �4 - �.Yt D Subscribed and �sworn to before me this State of County of day of r ' ' , 20 Notary Public CAROL E. BOLL Notary Publlo State of 0hio 1y Co 09 -11 -OB NOTE: THE OWNER, OR NOTED REPRESENTATIVE IF APPLICABLE, WILL RECEIVE A FACSIMILE CONFIRMING RECEIPT OF THIS APPLICATION FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Amou Rg� 've l R Receipt Application No: n _ P &Z Date(s) : - P &Z Action: No: Q I lP��` MIS Fee No: Date Received. F i Received By: Type of Request: ` N , W {Circle) Side of: 5 �� a f1 Nearest Intersection: / f 1� _ I� i 1 I r/��'p I / f W` Vt) Distance from Nearest Intersection: ) -- puo ro„ C RFTE"'d •J Page 4 of 5 FIL. C r� GlTY UE OUtif (il� / � J LAND USE & LONG RANGE PLANNING ATTACHMENT A: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA § 153.055 PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA. (A) Preliminary development plan. In the review of proposed planned developments, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall determine whether or not the preliminary development plan complies with the following criteria. In the event the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed preliminary development plan does not comply with a preponderance of these criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall disapprove the application: (1) The proposed development Is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Zoning Code; (2) The proposed development is in conformity with 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 sur- rounding 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 pedes- trians; (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 PD 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 accept- ability of the development plans contribute 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 devel- opment regulations included in the 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; (16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. RECEIVED J o x zoa7 Page 5 of 5 ' i -F V) I JUV�� !' LAND USE & LONG RANGE PLANNIN[ 'may Z,-t, avv i DESCRIPTION OF A 2.000 ACRE TRACT ALONG"tOST ROAD, WEST OI+' AVE RY— MLIIRFIELD DRIVE, CITY OI DUBLIN, 01110 Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin in Virginia Military Survey No. 3452 and being all of 'a 2.000 acre •tract of land conveyed to Carol S. Lehr, Trustee, all records referenced to the Recorder's Office, Franklin..County, Ohio, and bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a 5/$'•' iron bar found in the south right -of -way line of Post Road (60 feet in width), at the southwest corner of a 0.500 acre tract of land conveyed, for Post Road right -of -way purposes, to The City of Dublin by deed of record in Instrument 200002250037974, at the northeast coiner of said 2.000 acre tract ands ak the northwest corner of Perimeter Place Professional Office Condominium of record in Condo.'Plat Book 183, Pages 77 through 81 and recorded in Instrument 200703090042160, said iron bar being S 04° 42' 27" E a distance of 30.23 feet from a railroad spike found in the centerline of Post Road and at the northwest comer of said 0.500 acre tract and said point being N 87° 05' 29" E a distance of 725.80 feet from a 9.871 acre tract of land known as Reserve "A" as shown upon the play of Avery Place, of record in Plat Book 104, Pages 94 and 95; thence S 04° 42' 27" E along the east line of said-2.000 acre tract and along a portion of the west line of said Perimeter Place Professional Office Condominium a distance of 313.68 feet to a 5/8" iron bar found at the southeast corner of said 2.000 acre tract and at a northeast corner of a 3.616 acre tract of land conveyed to Jet -Link Development, Ltd, by deed of record in Instrument 200611220234321; thence N 87° 05' 29" W along the south line of said 2.000 acre tract and along a north line of said 3.616 acre tract a distance of 280.21 feet to a 5/8" iron bar found at the southwest corner of said 2.000 acre tract and at a corner of Perimeter West Professional Village, L.L.C. of record in Condo. Plat Book 172, Pages IOQ -106 and recorded in Instrument 200608070155218; thence N 04° 42' 27" W along the west line of said 2.000 acre tract and along an east line of said Perimeter West Professional Village, L.L.C. a distance "of 313.68 feet to a 5/8" iron bar found at the northwest corner of said 2.000 acre tract, in the south right - of - way line of Post Road and at the northeast corner of said Perimeter West Professional Village, L.L.C.; thence S 87° 05' 29" E along the north line of said 2.000 acre tract and along the south right -of -way line of Post Road a distance of 280.21 feet to the place of beginning; containing 2.000 acres of land more or less and being subject to all easements and restrictions of record. The above description was prepared by Kevin L. Baxter, Ohio Surveyor No. 7697, of CY. BiC & R.J. Bull, Inc., Consulting Engineers & Surveyors, Columbus, Ohio, from an actual field survey perforined under his supervision in January, 2006. Basis of bearings is the centerline of Post Road, being S 87° 23' 18" E, as shown on the plat of Avery Road Retail Center, Section 1, of record in Plat Book 86, Pages 86 & 87, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio. An exhibit of this description is attached hereto and made a part thereof. 010 O KEV f M Kevin L. Baxter L. Ohio Surveyor #7697 * F BAXTER 'A 5 -7'897 Q URV F Page 1 of 1 M Z' P.N. 27J-0059J7 518' Iron Bor 28G 21 L Found PLACE OF BEGINING FOR A 2.000 AC. TRACT CAROL S LEHR, TRUSTEE 2.000 AC. INSTR. 199812070314853 S:7 o�A cz K S 04 42 z 7" E 30.23' 518" Iron Bar j 280.21 Found Found Fou'nd sP'ke POST .RO ' IV 87 U. �S W ear T25.80' THE CITY OF DUBLIN 0.500 AC. i r IN57R. 200002 250037974 v PERIMETER PLACE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM C. P.B. 183, PGS 77 -81 INSTR, 200703090042160 314" I.D. Iron Pipe Set JET —LINK DEVELOPMENT LTD. 3.616 AC. INS7R. 200611220234321 P.N. 27J-012137 BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE CENTERLINE OF POST ROAD, BEING S 87' 23' 18' E, AS SHOW ON THE PLAT OF AVERY ROAD RETAIL CENTER, SECTION 1, OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 86, PAGES 86, & 87, RECORDERS OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO. PERIMETER WEST, L.L.C. ORIG. 21.718 AC. INSTR. 200408230196478 P.N. 273 - 001900 SCALE. 1' — 100' 0 100 200 300 GRAPHIC SCALE EXHIBIT FOR A 2.000 ACRE TRACT ALONG POST ROAD, WEST OF AVERY —.. MUIRFIELD DRIVE, CITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO (V. M. S. 3452) ,�• . � SCALE: 1' = 100' L 4N MAY 24, 2007 v'r BAXTER 9 5-7fi97 D �� C.F. Bird & R.J. Bull, In 18T 2875 W. Dublin— Granville cS' Surve Kevin L. Baxter — Ohio or No. 7697 Columbus, Ohio 43235 RUE .a �' ExHISITSIPERIMETER _OFFICE— WEST.DWG '""'"' 05 -184 Proximity Report Results Proximity Report Results The selection distance was 500 feet. The selected parcel was 273 - 005937. To view a table showing the IS parcels within the displayed proximity, scroll down. Print Window ® Back to Proxi Report Disdaimer This map Is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It Is compiled from recorded deeds, survey plats, and other public records and data. Users of this map are notified that the public primary information source should be consulted for verification of the Information contained on this map. The county and the mapping companies assume no legal responsibilities for the information contained on this map. Please notify the Franklin County GIS Division of any discrepancies. Proximity Parcels Hint: To copy this report to another program: 1. Hold down the left mouse buttton over the top -left corner of the area you want to get. 2. Drag the mouse to the bottom -left corner of the desired area. 3. Let go of the mouse button. 4. Select edit.Qopy from the menu bar. You can then Paste the report into another application. Parcel Owner Name Address 273 - 012128 BBH PROPERTIES OF OHIO LLC 6860 PERIMETER 273 - 012124 BDB PERIMETER LLC POST 273 - 009360 CITY OF DUBLIN 6648 POST 273 - 009359 CITY OF DUBLIN 6648 POST 273 - 009357 CITY OF DUBLIN 6648 POST 273-009361 CITY OF DUBLIN 6648 POST 273 - 003959 DUBLIN SENIOR COMMUNITY DRV LLC 6470 POST RD 273 - 001898 GLK PROPERTIES LTD LLC 7155 POST RD 273 - 011552 GORDEN FARMS CONVERSION CO LLC 6951 W OLD BRIDGE LN 273 - 012137 JET -LINK DEVELOPMENT LTD POST 273 - 005937 LEHR CAROL S TR 6655 POST RD 273 - 001902 MOUNT CARMEL HEALTH SYSTEM 6594 LIGGETT RD 273 - 012148 NATIONAL CITY BANK POST 273 - 010700 PERIMETER WEST LLC POST 273 - 011310 PERIMETER WEST PROFESSIONAL VILLAGE 6860 PERIMET 273 - 001900 PIV REALTY VENTURES LLC POST 273- 012163 SZ PERIMETER LLC 273 - 003964 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN 6500 POST RD pm*rtd by Page 1 of 1 H iE ct�ob 7 �P 1 �" N LN LOW t. 11fSl) �JSE R ININo l,ttn -flMO S 1 I Q'2 RQhzc /m-,vSrPr A 5/9.4/9.807 Map Search Real Estate Search Auditor Home Image Date: Thu May 24 15:37:012007 JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR Report of parcels touching irregular area 273 - 001898 * Owner: GLK PROPERTIES LTD LLC Address: 7155 POST RD Mail To: GLK PROPERTIES LTD LLC 7155 POST RD DUBLIN OH 43016 DUBLIN OH 43016 273 - 001900 * Owner: PIV REALTY VENTURES LLC Address: POST RD Mail To: PIV REALTY VENTURES LLC 3525 OLENTANGY RIVER RD COLUMBUS OH 43214 273 - 001902 * Owner: MOUNT CARMEL HEALTH SYSTEM Address: 6594 LIGGETT RD Mail To: MOUNT CARMEL HEALTH CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 6150 E BROAD ST FL 3 COLUMBUS OH 43213 -1574 DATE : MAY 25, 2007 273 - 003959 * Owner: DUBLIN SENIOR COMMUNITY DRV LLC Address: 6470 POST RD Mail To: FIRST AMERICAN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICE PO BOX 167928 IRVING TX 75016 -7928 273 - 003964 * Owner: VILLAGE OF DUBLIN Address: 6500 POST RD Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF : 5200 EMERALD PKWY : DUBLIN OH 43017 -1066 273 - 005937 * Owner: LEHR CAROL S TR Address: 6655 POST RD Mail To: LEHR CAROL S TR 2267 MIDDLESEX RD COLUMBUS OH 43220 273 - 009357 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN Address: 6648 POST RD Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017 -1066 273 - 009359 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN Address: 6648 POST RD Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017 -1066 VAN38 MMPC07 Page 1 JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR Report of parcels touching irregular area DATE : MAY 25, 2007 273 - 009360 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN Address: 6648 POST RD Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017 -1066 273 - 009361 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN Address: 6648 POST RD Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017 -1066 273 - 010700 * Owner: PERIMETER WEST LLC Address: POST RD Mail To: PERIMETER WEST LLC : 2041 ARLINGATE IN : COLUMBUS OH 43228 273 - 011310 * Owner: PERIMETER WEST PROFESSIONAL VILLAGE LLC Address: POST RD Mail To: PERIMETER WEST : PROFESSIONAL VILLAGE LLC : 6233 AVERY RD : DUBLIN OH 43016 273 - 012124 * Owner: BDB PERIMETER LLC Address: POST RD Mail To: BDB PERIMETER LLC : 6600 PERIMETER DR STE 100 : COLUMBUS OH 43216 273 - 012128 * Owner: BBH PROPERTIES OF OHIO LLC Address: 6860 PERIMETER DR Mail To: BBH PROPERTIES OF OHIO LLC 41 COMMERCE PARK DR WESTERVILLE OH 43082 273 - 012137 * Owner: JET -LINK DEVELOPMENT LTD Address: POST RD Mail To: JET -LINK DEVELOPMENT LTD : 4930 REED RD : COLUMBUS OH 43220 VAN38 MMPC07 Page 2 JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR Report of parcels touching irregular area 273 - 012148 Owner: NATIONAL CITY BANK Address: POST RD Mail To: * 273- 012163 * Owner: Address: Mail To: SZ PERIMETER LLC SZ PERIMETER LLC 5775 PERIMETER DR STE 275 DUBLIN OH 43017 DATE : MAY 25, 2007 VAN38 MMPC07 Page 3 - TA JOSEPH - UT -, - TES- FRANKLIN'COUNTY AUDITOR 5/25 07. XOIWOAIIlS aw OEM- - CITY OF DUBLIM. Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone: 614 -410 -4600 Fax_ 614 -410 -4141 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION July 12, 2007 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 10. Post/Perimeter Office Building 07- 049Z /FDP 6655 Post Road Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Proposal: A 15,550- square -foot medical office building with associated site improvements including the addition of a curb cut along Post Road within Subarea 3 of the Perimeter West Planned Commerce District, located on the south side of Post Road, approximately 2,700 feet west of the intersection with Avery - Muirfield Drive. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan and a final development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Ray Boll, RJ Boll Realty; represented by Don Meier, Architecture Alliance. Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planner (614)410 -4690, jrauch @dublin.oh.us MOTION 1: To approve this Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan application because it complies with the criteria set forth in Section 153.050 of the Dublin Zoning Code and the existing development standards within the area, with two conditions: 1) A signed and dated copy of the development text that includes the modifications to allow Post Road access and the reduction in the loading space area should be submitted to Planning prior to the issuance of building permits; and 2) The traffic study be finalized to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to the scheduling for a public hearing by City Council. William Loveland, Loveland and Brosius, representing the applicant agreed to the above conditions. Page i of 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION July 12, 2007 10. Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: This Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan application was approved. MOTION 2: To approve this Final Development Plan application because it complies with the criteria set forth in Section 153.050 of the Dublin Zoning Code and the existing development standards within the area, with no conditions: VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: This Final Development Plan application was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION nnifer . Rauch, AICP Planner Page 2of2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2007 — Minutes DRAFT Page 11 of 13 10. Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Mr. Gerber swore in the applicant's representative for this case, William Loveland, Loveland and Brosius, who agreed to the two conditions listed below for the Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan. Motion and Vote — Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Mr. Gerber made a motion to approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan application because it complies with the criteria set forth in Section 153.050 of the Dublin Zoning Code and the existing development standards within the area, with two conditions: 1) A signed and dated copy of the development text that includes the modifications to allow Post Road access and the reduction in the loading space area should be submitted to Planning prior to the issuance of building permits; and 2) The traffic study be finalized to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to the scheduling for a public hearing by City Council. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 6 — 0) Motion and Vote — Final Development Plan Mr. Gerber made a motion to approve this Final Development Plan because it complies with the criteria set forth in Section 153.050 of the Dublin Zoning Code and the existing development standards within the area and Mr. Zimmerman seconded. The vote was as follows: Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Amorose- Groomes, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 6 — 0) CITY OF DUBLIN_ land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone: 614,410 -4600 Fax: 614 -410 -4747 Web Site: www- dublin.oh.us PLANNING REPORT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 12 SECTION I — CASE INFORMATION: 10. Post /Perimeter Office Building 07- 049Z /FDP 6655 Post Road Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Proposal: A 15,550- square -foot medical office building with associated site improvements including the addition of a curb cut along Post Road within Subarea 3 of the Perimeter West Planned Commerce District, located on the south side of Post Road, approximately 2,700 feet west of the intersection with Avery - Muirfield Drive. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan and a final development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Ray Boll, RJ Boll Realty; represented by Don Meier, Architecture Alliance. Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, A1CP, Planner (614)410 -4690, irauch @dublin.oh.us Case Summary This proposal is a request for review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan and a final development plan for a 15,550- square -foot, one -story medical office building with associated site improvements. Case Background The site is located within the Perimeter West PCD, Planned Commerce District. The original rezoning for the 83 -acre Planned District was approved by City Council in 1999 and included three subareas. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a final development plan for the parcel to the east on April 6, 2006 (see Case No. 06- 029FDP) and the Post Road access was discussed as part of the application. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2007 Planning Report Case No- 07 -049Z/FDP Page 2 of 7 Site Description Location The 2 -acre site is located within Subarea 3 and has approximately 280 feet of frontage along Post Road and a site depth of 315 feet. Site Character The site contains an existing single - family house, several outbuildings and a tree stand in the northwest corner. Surrounding Zoning and Uses The site and adjacent properties to the east, south and west are zoned PCD, Planned Commerce District, as part of the Perimeter West plan. The properties northeast of the site are zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District and include the Gorden Farms condominiums. To the northwest is the Northwest Assembly of God Church, zoned R, Rural District. Plan Description Overview This proposal is for a one -story medical office building within the southwestern portion of the site with a retention basin located along Post Road and parking located to the north and east of the building. The main entrance to the building is located at the northeast corner, adjacent to the parking area. Text Modifications The proposal includes two amendments to the previously approved development text to permit Post Road access and decrease the size of the loading space. No additional text modifications are proposed, and all other development details will continue to be governed by the previously approved text. Parking and Loading Code requires a parking ratio of one space per 200 square feet of medical office space. The 15,550- square -foot building requires a minimum of 78 parking spaces; 79 spaces are provided. Code requires a 12 -foot by 50 -foot loading space for buildings between 10,000 to 100,000 square feet. The plan and amended text indicates a reduced loading space of 12 -foot by 40 -foot at the front entrance to the building_ Vehicular Access Access to the site is provided by a full access curb cut onto Post Road, which aligns with the Gorden Farms entrance on the north side of Post Road. An internal drive is provided to the development to the east and connects to the internal roadway system of the Planned District, providing access to Perimeter Drive. Post Road Access Currently, the residential site has full access onto Post Road; however, the approved preliminary development plan states that once Subarea 3 is redeveloped the Post Road access is prohibited. As part of the final development plan for the parcel to the east, Planning, Engineering and the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the reconsideration of Post Road access. The Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2007 Planning Report Case No_ 07- 049Z/FDP Page 3 of 7 discussions resulted in agreement that an access point on Post Road would be beneficial to the development and provide increased vehicular circulation. The amended text indicates the retention of Post Road access with the redevelopment this site. Traffic Study The applicant has submitted a traffic impact study and the information provided is sufficient to determine that the Post Road access point will not have a detrimental effect on the overall traffic network in the area. The plans indicate the installation of a westbound left turn lane on Post Road. Lighting The development text states that lighting shall comply with the Dublin .Exterior Lighting Guidelines and utilize cut -off type fixtures with pole heights not to exceed 28 feet. The applicant is proposing to illuminate the parking lot with a stylized gooseneck fixture (Kim Erem "dark bronze "). A lighting plan has been provided and is consistent with the Exterior Lighting Guidelines. Architecture The approved text requires that the building architecture be harmonious in character throughout the Planned District. The one -story building utilizes cultured limestone along the lower portion of the building facade and a brick veneer along the upper portion of the building facade. Hardiplank detailing will be incorporated on all sides of the buildings and louvered dormers are also incorporated into the architecture. The architecture meets the standards specified in the development text, including four -sided architecture. Building Materials The approved development text requires that the predominant building materials include brick, stone, or decorative precast concrete panels. The proposal utilizes building materials matching those of existing buildings within the Perimeter West PCD. The predominant materials are brick (Glen- Geary, "Rustic Burgundy ") and cultured limestone (Lang Stone, "Ohio Buff'). The trim color will be a natural color to coordinate with the cultured limestone (Sherwin- Williams, "Maccadamia "). The windows will be bronze tinted glass. The roof is proposed with dimensional asphalt shingles (Landmark, "Driftwood "). The proposed materials meet the standards specified in the text. Landscaping The proposal complies with the interior landscaping, vehicular use area and service structure screening requirements. The plans provide the required street trees and landscape plantings along Post Road. Tree Preservation Code requires any trees removed that are greater than six inches in diameter, and considered in good or fair condition be replaced inch -for -inch. The plan indicates the removal of eight protected trees totaling 158 caliper inches, and replacement on -site with 161 inches of 3.5 -inch trees. The availability of 3.5 -inch trees may be limited and a fee must be paid in lieu of any deficiency in replacement inches, which is noted on the landscape plans. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2007 Planning Report Case No 07- 049ZIFDP Page 4 of 7 Proposed Signs The proposed sign, located west of the Post Road access point, meets the Code requirement of one ground sign per use with an area of 50 square feet. The proposed sign will have an opaque, dark green background with three individual tenant panels with white copy. The sign will be internally illuminated. The sign base will consist of stone and brick, which coordinate with the building materials. Stormwater Management The proposed plans show a wet pond in the northern portion of the site. The project must comply with the requirements of the City of Dublin Stormwater Regulations and stormwater calculations have been -submitted. Final calculations will be required at the building permit stage. 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. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2007 Planning Report Case No. 07- 049Z/FDP Page 5 of 7 Criteria met: The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council have established a development theme within this area, which include high- quality office development. The proposal is harmonious with adjacent development within the Planned District and the vicinity. Parks and Open Space (Criteria 5 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 met: This requirement is not applicable to commercial development; however, the proposal includes a water feature with landscaping along'Post Road. Traffic, Utilities and Stormivatcr 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 are met: The plans indicate the installation of a westbound left turn lane into the site. Construction drawings and final details will be required at the building permit stage. The preliminary stormwater management report indicates that the proposed stormwater pond meets the needs of the site and final details will be required at the building permit stage. The plans show the installation of a sidewalk on the south side of Post Road to further increase the accessibility of the site. 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 met: The proposed plans contribute to the orderly development of this site, including proposed use, setbacks, and density. The plans also indicate adequate provisions for parking and pedestrian access. 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 condition: The development text outlines all applicable development standards for this project. The proposal complies with the text requirements of high - quality, four -side architecture which complements the existing buildings within the area. Since the user does not require a larger loading area for its daily operation, the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2007 Planning Report Case No. 07 -049Z(FDP Page 6 of 7 proposal includes a deviation from Code regarding the size of the loading space. The modification from 50 -foot long loading space to 40 -foot long loading space should be reflected within the revised development text (Condition #1). 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 may be met with condition The proposed Post Road access provides efficient vehicular circulation for the entire Planned District. The traffic study demonstrates benefits to the surrounding traffic network and should be finalized to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and modified within the development text (Conditions # 1 and 42). Final Development Plan The purpose of the Planned Unit Development 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 consists of up to three 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 intent of the final development plan is to show conformance with and provide a detailed refinement of the total aspects of the approved preliminary development plan (rezoning). The final development plan includes all of the final details of the proposed development and is the final stage of the PUD process. The Commission may approve as submitted, approve with modifications agreed to by the applicant, or disapprove and terminate the process. If the application is disapproved, the applicant may respond to Planning and Zoning Commission's concerns and resubmit the plan. This action will be considered a new application for review in all respects, including payment of the application fee. Appeal of any action taken by the Commission shall be to the Court of Common Pleas in the appropriate jurisdiction. Following approval by the Commission, the applicant may proceed with the building permit process. In the event that updated citywide standards are applicable, all subsequently approved final development plans shall comply with the updated standards if the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the updated standards would not cause undue hardship. Evaluation and Recommendation based on Final Development Plan Criteria Section 153.055(B) of. the Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a final 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: Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2007 Planning Report Case No. 07- 049Z/FDP Page 7 of 7 Adopted Policies and Plans (Criteria 1, 3, 9, & 10). The proposed modifications conform to the approved preliminary development plan, have adequate public facilities and open spaces, are carried out in progressive stages, and conform to all other applicable zoning text and Code requirements. Criteria met The proposal conforms to the preliminary development plan in terms of permitted use, lot coverage, and setbacks. Site Safety and Circulation (Criteria 2 & S). The proposed modifications provide for safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation and provide adequate lighting for such uses. Criteria may be met through condition_ The site provides adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation. The addition of the Post Road access provides additional vehicular connectivity for the entire development and significantly improves access for the provision of fire and EMS services (Condition #1). Development Details (Criteria 4, 6, 7, & 8). The details of the development are sensitive to the natural characteristics of the site, include appropriate landscaping and signs, and provide adequate storm drainage. Criteria is met: The proposal conforms to the preliminary development plan requirements for signs, includes appropriate landscaping details, and provides adequate stormwater retention along Post Road. SECTION III — PLANNING OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION: Approval. Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan In Planning's opinion, this proposal complies with the rezoning/preliminary development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area. Approval with two conditions is recommended. Conditions: 1) A signed and dated copy of the development text that includes the modifications to allow Post Road access and the reduction in the loading space area should be submitted to Planning prior to the issuance of building permits; and 2) The traffic study be finalized to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to the scheduling for a public hearing by City Council. Final Development Plan In Planning's opinion, this proposal complies with the final development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area. Approval with no conditions is recommended. I 0 1, om�- M o o a m i m !M 0 ,' �, � � . bra .«. -.•. � Q� PROPOSED ULVLLUF I I LX I MODIFICATIONS PERIMETER WEST OFFICE PARK MODIFICATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS GOVERNING SUBAREA 3 BDB PERIMETER, LLC - A P_PLIC ANT City of Dublin Case No.- 0 7- 049Z The project will in all respects be governed by the General Development Standards for Perimeter West dated November 11, 1999, and the Subarea 3 Development Standards contained in that document except as follows: Standard 3.04 is amended to provide as follows: 3.04 Traffic, Circulation, Parking and Loading: 1. Size, ratio and loading facilities shall be regulated by City of Dublin Zoning Code Sections 153.200 through 153.212, except that the Loading Space for the building to be constructed in this Subarea shall be 41' x 12', as shown on the Drawing. Parking in excess of that required by the Code may be 8' x 16' with 22- foot aisles. 2. Traffic, Circulation, Parking and Loading shall be per the Drawing. 3. Loading areas shall be screened according to City of Dublin Code Sections 153.200 through 153.212. 4. Access to Subarea 3 shall be from Post Road and through internal access via Perimeter Drive, as shown on the Drawing. All other General and Subarea specific development standards as established by the November 11, 1999 Development Plan shall remain effective. L&Bdoa\Rea] Estme\Agre mts\BoU - Lomeo- Reaoning Dc Text Change, 6 -22 -07 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUgARFA 3 (2.0±L-.A D net of road riL-ht-of-ways. 3.01 Description: Subarea 3 is located immediately south of Post Road west of Avery Road. This Subarea may be developed independently of the remainder of the 81 +/- acre balance of the site, or it may be integrated into the overall deirelopment_ 3.02 Permitted Uses: The uses permitted in this Subarea include: ■ Those uses li:.ted in the Dublin Zoning Regulations in Section 153.026(A). R General office = uses including, without limitation, corporate headquarters and offices of major insti Iutional users. = Existing resit trice may he continued without expansion. ■ Reuse of the e= xisting residential structure for office purposes is permitted only in the event the structure is not expanded. 3.03 Permitted Height and Setback Requirements: 1. Setbacks stead be determined as described below: Side and rear ;yards for buildings within the Subarea shall be a minimum of 30 feet. ■ Side and rea: yards for parking areas shall be 10 feet each for a total of 20 feet between area s unless a common parking lot is established adjacent to the site. R The maximum height shall be 2 stories above grade. ■ Buildings sh _dl be limited to 35 feet in height as measured to the midpoint of the gable roof: 2. Pavement sea backs shall be the following: ■ 75 feet from Post Road right -of -way. 3. Building sett lacks shall be the following. ■ 100 feet frown the Post Road right -of -way for any building. 3.04 Traffic, Circulation., Parking and Loading: Size, ratio, and loading facilities shall be regulated by City of Dublin Zoning Code Sections 15- through 153212. Parking in excess of that required by the Code maybe 8' x 16' with 22 -foot aisles_ 2. Exceptions f rom strict application of code standards may be granted at the discretion of the Plann rig and Zoning Commission. 07- 049Z /FDP 12 Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post/Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road 3_ Loading areas shall be screened according to City of Dublin Code Sections 153200 through 153.•12 4. Access to Subarea 3 shall be from Post Road unless the residential structure is expanded or 3ubarea 3 is redeveloped, at which time internal access via Perimeter Drive must lr:: provided. 5. Shared drives will be encouraged throughout the development to reduce the number of curb cuts needed. 3.05 Waste and Refuse: All waste ar. d refuse shall be containerized and fully screened, according to the Dublin zonir_g code, with walls constructed of materials that coordinate with the materials utilized in the associated structure (i.e. brick, etc). 3.05 Storage and Equip:uent: 1. No materials. supplies, equipment, or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of the parcel outside the permitted structure. 2. Mechanical cquipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground, or buildings shall be set back from the property line or building edge so as not to be visible from the adjacent prol ierty, or shall be screened from public view with landscape materials or materials hai monious with the building. 3.07 Landscaping, Lot Coverage, and Pedestrian Paths: 1. All landscap ng shall, at a minimum, be according to the City of Dublin Zoning Code Section 153,134. Landscaping for each individual building site shall be consistent with other "{lass A" office campus developments in Dublin_ 2. The develo agrees to limit areas of construction activity and implement sedimentatic ri and erosion control measures to minimize erosion during construction. 3.08 Fences/Walls 1. No chain lir:c or wire fencing shall be permitted. 3.09 Signage and Grap :tics: Except as otherwise: herein stated: 1 _ All signage -L d graphics shall conform to the City of Dublin Zoning Code Sections 153.150 through 153.164. 13 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road 2. All signage shall be subject to applicable signage setbacks of Sections 153.150 through 153.164. 3. No signs shz.11 be applied to windows for the purpose of outdoor or exterior advertising. 4_ No roof signs shall be permitted, nor should a sign extend higher than the building. 5. No flashing, g=aveling, animated, or intermittently illuminated signs may be used. 6. No billboard or electrical or other advertising signs shall be allowed, other than a sign carrying - the name of the business occupying the site. 7_ Temporary Development marketing signage shall be permitted. g. No wall signage shall be permitted unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission. 3_16 Lighting: Except as otherwise I,.erein stated, all lighting must conform to the City of Dublin Lighting Guidelines. 1 _ External lighting within all subareas shall be cut -off type fixtures. 2. All types of X aAing, pedestrian, and other exterior lighting shall be on poles or wall mounted cut off fixtures, and shall be of the same type and style. 3. All light poles and standards shall be dark in color and shall either be a dark brown, black or broi ize metal. 4. Parking lot 1: ghting shall be no higher than 28 feet_ 5. Cut -off type sighting and building uplighting shall be permitted. 6. All lights sh�.11 be arranged to reflect light away from any street or adjacent property. 7. All building illumination shall be from concealed sources. 8. No colored lights shall be used to light the exterior of the buildings. 9. All lighting <if parking/driving areas and buildings will be designed and constructed so that it will be directed away from adjacent residential properties_ 10. A lighting p.an conforming to the City's Lighting Guidelines must be submitted to 14 07 -049 Z /FD P Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road the City as part of the Development Plan - 3. 11 Architectural Standards: The following standards shall apply and be placed as deed restrictions, also: 1 _ All buildings and associated structures shall be harmonious in character, and reflect an upscale, high quality, residential style, office park development_ Final architectural drawings shall be presented for approval according to the process identified by the Final Development Plan. 2. All buildings shall have the same degree of exterior finish on all sides. Stone, brick, or decorative;. precast concrete panels shall be dominant exterior materials. Dryvit and other ace mt materials shall be limited to a maximum of 15% of the total exterior - areas of the 1 n ilding. 3. Facade colc:ts and materials on individual buildings shall be coordinated to complement inch other. Facade colors of high chroma or intensity are not permitted. 4_ Glass and cu stain wall color should be coordinated to complement each other and the color palette of the building. Highly reflective "mirror - like" glass shall not be permitted or building facades. 5. All building structures constructed shall be of residential style_ Roofs shall be 6:12 pitch and nn.insard roofs shall be prohibited_ 3c:1ri[es\periweSAdcv sids_01 15 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road CITY OF DUBLIN_ Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 ShierRings Road Dublin Ohio 43016 1736 Phone: 614-410 -4600 laic 614 - 410 -0747 Web We WWW dublin oh us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 7, 2006 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3_ Final Development Plan 06- 115FDP /AFDP — Perimeter West PCD, Subarea 1 — Perimeter West Office Park — 6700 Perimeter Drive Location: 326 acres located on the south side of Post Road, approximately 1,900 feet west of Avery- Muirfield Drive_ Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter West plan)_ Request: Review and approval of a Final Development Plan under the PUD provisions of Code Sections 153.050_ Proposed Use: A two -story 30,000- square -foot medical and general office building and minor text modification for lot coverage_ Applicant: Rob Ryan, Ruscilli Development Company, Ltd_, 5747 Perimeter Drive, Suite 130, Dublin, Ohio 43017_ Staff Contact: Tanury Noble, Senior Planner. Contact Information: (614) 4104649/Email_ tnoble @dublin_oh_us MOTION: To approve this Final Development Plan because the proposal provides a high - quality office building that continues the standard of development within the Perimeter West PCD, the site plan and associated design elements comply with Code and text modifications remain consistent to the original intent of the requirements of the PCD, with seven conditions_ I) That the landscape plan be revised prior to building permit submittal to address the comments and recommendations in the staff report, subject to staff approval 2) That the applicant utilize the regional stormwater basin approved with the National City Final Development Plan and show conformance with the City's Storinwater Management requirements before building pennit issuance; 3) That the design of private drive pavement meet the approval of the City Engineer; 4) That only the white tenant copy on the monument sign be illuminated, in order to be consistent with other approved signs within the Perimeter West PCD; 5) That a man -door be included in the design of the dumpster enclosure to permit access for uses, outside of waste removal; 6) That architectural elements be added to the exterior of the building to add detail and effectively break up the brick exterior, subject to staff approval; and Page I of 2 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 7, 2006 3. Final Development Plan 06- 115FDP /AFDP — Perimeter West PCD, Subarea i — Perimeter West Office Park — 6700 Perimeter Drive (Continued) 7) That the plans be correctly labeled to reflect the total number of parking spaces_ *Rob Ryan agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 7 -0 RESULT: This Final Development Plan was approved. ,,STAFF CER- IFICATION Tammy N ie Seiunr Planner Page 2 of 2 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post/Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 16 of 27 3) That driv utis be limited to a m mum of one drive - thru either Subarea B or C �zd not be all ed to serve an eat , r drinking establishme and that the stacking quirement la uage be revised; �l hat the alternate layo or Subarea D be purse for the final developm plan and that the text be modified t learly define the assn tion of a detached c ash with the service facility; S) That the d- elopment text provisio remain allowing a cc ination of wall and and signs f a single tenant in Sub a D with the maxim quare footage of the nd sign sub ct to review and ap val by the Planning d Zoning Commissio at the final velopment plan stage; That the text be mo i ied to include a require ent for buildings to be two- to three -story design similar to e architectural renden' for Subareas B and C 7) That the app - ant continue to work \, i 3 staff to finalize the tr is study prior to subm ing for fina evelopment plan an hat the recornmenda - ns required by the dy be cony led; 8) t the design of private ive pavement meet the proval of the City I;rigi er; 9 That the rights -of -wa and any necessary ments be dedicated b < < plat prior to the issuance of any b - ing permits; 10) That stormwa management is in co iance with the current tormwater Regulations o the satisfa - on of the City Engince ` d l 1) That outlined in the Tax ceement Financing A cement, the applicant atticipate fi cially in the Shantro Boulevard Roadway twork, and the B r Drive and toneridge Lane extens s to the satisfaction of e City Engineer; and 2) That the developm text be modified to - urinate the setback re ements along West Dublin Granvill oad. Z Mr_ Hale avye'ed to the above conditi Mr. ishman seconded the tr ion and the vote was a allows; Ms_ Jones, ye , r_ Saneholtz, s; Mr_ Fishman, yes; 'alter, yes; Mr. Zini an, yes; and Mr. Gel , yes. (Approved 6 — 0_) (Mr_ McCash cased himself at the b inning of the meetin our this case due to business associatjofi conflict_) 3. Final Development Plan /Amended Final Development Plan 06- 11SFDP /AFDP — Perimeter West PCD, Subarea 1 — Perimeter West Office Park — 6700 Mr_ Gerber swore in the representative of the applicant, Rob Ryan, who then agreed to the seven conditions as amended_ Motion and Vote: Mr_ Gerber moved to approve this Final Development Plan because the proposal provides a high - quality office building that continues the standard of development within the Perimeter West PCD, the site plan and associated design elements comply with Code and text modifications remain consistent to the original intent of the requirements of the PCD, with seven conditions: I That the landscape plan be revised prior to building permit submittal to address the comments and recommendations in the staff report, subject to staff approval; 2) That the applicant utilize the regional stormwater basin approved with the National City Final Development Plan and show conformance with the City's Stormwater Manavernent 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development PIan Post /Perimeter Office Building «« T)--. n__A Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 7, 2006 Page 17 of 27 requirements before building permit issuance; 3) That the design of private drive pavement meet the approval of the City Engineer; 4) That only the white tenant copy on the monument sign be illuminated, in order to be consistent with other approved signs within the Perimeter West PCD; 5) That a man -door be included in the design of the dumpster enclosure to permit access for uses, outside of waste removal; 6) That architectural elements be added to the exterior of the building to add detail and effectively break up the brick exterior, subject to staff approval; and 7) That the plans be correctly labeled to reflect the total number of parking spaces_ Mr_ Zimmerman seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. McCash, yes; Ms_ Jones, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr_ Gerber, yes_ (Approved 7 — 0.) 4_ Concept an 06 -131CP — Star YjRfage Mixed Use Devel nent — 420Z s. Gra a Road Perimeter Dri Dan liabaum presented this a and slides. He said is was a request for and feedback for mixed use developme concept under the PU t Development District visions of the Code. He id the site is 2.59 the sated on the south side of West Dubt 'ranville Road, approx ately 350 feet west of S >K nirock Boulevard. He said the si lar �the ompletely developed d existing structures i ude a 17,308- square -f ;Ie ". urant east p roperty line d a 736- square -foot g e located at the rear of t site_ the remai nder of the s` contains a large parki area. Mr. Phillabaum ated that Bridge Lane end at the thcast corner of the pro y and continues as a pr t to drive aisle along the rear, providin cress to the La Scala urant and the La Seal illa Apartments_ He said a shared ac s drive to the apartmen ns along the western edge of the site. :Ile r. Phillab m said the main portion this site is zoned CC, [; munity Commercial D tct, th t estem drive aisle that esses the apartment, zai It-12, Urban Residenti istrict. id the site is also locat within the CDD, Coriid evelopment District. e said to the rth, across West Dub . - Granville Road is We s International Head ers, also zoned CC, to the east is un eloped land zoned SO burban Office and Inst' tonal District with a proposed rezom to PUD, Planned Unit D elopment District whir on this agenda. He sai the propose and use is a mix of of e, retail, restaurant, and sidential uses which ar tot permit[ his district, and therefor ezoning is necessary. N r_ Phillabaum said the 7 Community Plan reC911frriended a sense of con lion to Historic Dublin be establishe tth new buildings orie to the street and link s between the uses He presented a A showing an image of a nceptual drawing of the Sian of the West Dublin - Granville Ro Corridor which had be discussed at various Jot work sessions as part o e Commu Plan Update. He sal a direction provided i xese work sessions addr ed the ove character of the West ublin- Granville Road etscape, including plac ent of the tidings at the street, in orating a mix of hi , intensity Land uses, cr ing significant entryways, and more estrian- friendly enviro ent. 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road CITY OF DUBLIN_ land Use and long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Obia 43016 -1236 Phone_ 614 - 410-4600 Fax- 614AIOA741 Web Site: www.dublin-oh -us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION APRIL 6, 2006 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting_ 4. Final Development Plan 06- 029FDP — Perimeter West PCD, Subarea I — Perimeter West Office Park — 6730 to 6790 Perimeter Drive Location: 5.45 acres located on the south side of Post Road, approximately 1,900 feet west of Avery- Muirfield Drive. Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter West plan). Request: Review and approval of a Final Development Plan under the PUD provisions of Section 153.053(E). Proposed Use: An office park consisting of two 8,888 square -foot and four 5,878 square -foot professional and medical office buildings with associated site improvements. Applicant: Perimeter West, LLC., 5747 Perimeter Drive, Suite 130, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented by Don Meier, Architectural Alliance, 165 N_ Fifth Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Jennifer M_ Rauch, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410- 4690/Email jrauch @dublin.oh.us. MOTION: To approve this Final Development Plan because the plan is consistent with the PCD plan for Perimeter West PCD and the new planned district ordinance, the proposal incorporates high- quality building materials and four -sided architecture, and the plan complies with the regulations and the intent of the rezoning, with eight conditions: 1) That the proposed vehicular use area lighting be modified to eliminate light/tree conflicts; subject to staff approval; 2) That the plans be revised to show the alignment of the access points to existing curb cuts located along the south side of Perimeter Drive 3) That the applicant continue to work with staff on the concern of the impact their future development will have on the public roadway system; 4) That all utility connections and/or extensions meet or exceed the requirements and standards of the Engineering Division, the City of Columbus and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; 5) That the site stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 6) That the sign be revised to meet Code regarding the size, that the internal illumination be limited to the white copy, and the address numbers be relocated; subject to staff approval 07- 049Z /FDP Page l of 2 Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION APRIL 6, 2006 4. Final Development Plan 06- 029FDP — Perimeter West PCD, Subarea I — Perimeter West Office Park — 6730 to 6790 Perimeter Drive (Continued) 7) That ponds and mounding along Post Road be reconfigured for a more naturalized character with the inclusion of public art or other focal points, subject to staff approval; and 8) That the cross access easement be relocated to the northwest corner of the site, subject to staff approval. * Don Meier, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 5-1. RESULT: This Final Development Plan was approved_ STAFF CERTIFICATION /e J dm - fer M_ Rauch .J Planner Page 2 of 2 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — April 6, 2006 Page 13 of 27 Mr. Gerbe nade the motion to a ove this Corridor De •lopment District ap ation because the site mprovements enlian the quality of this elopment and are i eeping with the exi. g land use charact and it allows a s cessful Dublin busu ss to continue safe eration, with six con . ons: I ) That the south parcel (used car de rship site) be used f parking only in asso 'ation with the lm a Auto Group camp nd if it becomes dis ; ociated in the future - must be brought i compliance with all plicable Code sectiut 1) That t design of private dri pavement meet the a roval of the City En ' er; 2) IF the site design meets ormwater Regulatio o the satisfaction of City Engineer; 3) iat the applicant wo with staff to revise landscape plans to ect comments in thi staff report; 4) That a tree rep - ement fee be paid p r to the issuance of ilding permits, if ne ssary; and 5) That ad tonal striping and s nage of the FAAR e implemented to e - ure the safe man Bring of fire equi ent, to the satisfaet n of the Washingto Township Fire D artment. r. Zimmerman seco ed the motion, and tl vote was as follows: r. Walter, yes; Ms. J es, yes; Mr. Fishman es; Mr. McCash, yes; Zimmerman, yes; z t. Mr. Gerber, yes_ ( roved 6 -0 -) 4. Final Development Plan 06- 029FDP — Perimeter West Office Park — Perimeter West PCD, Subarea 1 -6730 to 6790 Perimeter Drive Chair Rick Gerber swore in those who intended to speak in regards to this case- Jennifer Rauch presented this case and slides. She said the 5 -45 -acre site is zoned PCD, Planned Commerce District, as part of the Perimeter West plan- She said the areas to the south and west are also located within this PCD. Ms. Rauch said the proposed site plan includes six one -story office buildings- She said the four smaller buildings are located towards the center of the site with the two larger buildings located on each end of the site. She said shared parking, serving all six buildings, is located throughout the site. A retention pond with two seven -foot mounds is located along the northern portion of the site, nearest to Post Road. Ms. Rauch said access to the site is gained by two drives that connect to Perimeter Drive to the south which includes one full access point at Hospital Drive. She said a future internal access point will be provided at the southwest comer of the site and connect to Subarea 3 which is located to the west. She said currently, there is no access onto Post Road as specified at the time of the rezoning, however, due to the large amount of office and the relative length of frontage along Post Road, staff is taking the restriction under consideration and would like the Commission's feedback regarding the desire for this access point along Post Road. She -stated that staff realized such an amendment would require this applicant or a future applicant to modify plans and gain approval from the Commission and City Council_ Ms- Rauch said the text outlines several architectural provisions, including utilizing building 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — April 6, 2006 Page 14 of 27 materials that match the existing buildings within the Perimeter West PCD_ -She stated this proposal meets the development text. Ms. Rauch explained the proposed signage and said due to the landscaping required around the base, staff is recommending that the address numbers be moved in order to promote adequate visibility_ She said in addition, the applicant is proposing an internally illuminated sign_ Ms_ Rauch said staff recommends that only the white tenant copy be illuminated in order to be consistent with other signs within the Perimeter West PCD_ Ms. Rauch said staff believes that the proposal provides six high- quality office buildings that continue the standard of development within the Perimeter West PCD. She said the site plan and associated design elements require only minor modifications to comply with text. Ms_ Rauch said staff recommends approval of this final development plan with the following conditions as listed in the staff report: I) That the proposed vehicular use area lighting be modified to eliminate light/tree conflicts; subject to staff approval; 2) That the plans be revised to show the alignment of the access points to existing curb cuts located along the south side of Perimeter Drive; 3) That the applicant continue to work with staff on the concern of the impact their future development will have on the public roadway system; 4) That all utility connections and/or extensions meet or exceed the requirements and standards of the Engineering Division, the City of Columbus and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; 5) That the site stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and 6) That the sign be revised to meet Code regarding the size, that the internal illumination be limited to the white copy, and the address numbers be relocated; subject to staff approval_ Don Meier, Architecture Alliance, representing the applicant, said this is a medical office complex. He said each building, although two different sizes, will most likely have two tenants each which will total ten doctors' offices_ He said the final design of the buildings have been modified from the original submittal in working with staff, primarily with attention to the rooflines, adding some roof elements in the form of dormers_ Mr. Meier agreed to the six conditions as listed in the staff report_ He said they would work with staff to see if they could put the address numbers on the masonry portion of the sign, otherwise, he said they would modify the sign accordingly_ Mr. McCash said he was concerned about the pond and mound along Post Road being so linear_ He said the pond on the corner of Avery- Muirfield Drive and Post Road was more curvilinear_ He said he wanted the pond and mounding to be more natural looking to coincide with the scenic corridor along Post Road_ He asked if the size of pond was designed to handle only this development's stormwater or if the pond was designed to handle future developments' stormwater too. Ms_ Rauch said the location and shape of the retention pond was approved at the time of 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 6, 2006 Page 15 of 27 rezoning_ Mr_ McCash asked whether the pond needed to be that large, which dictated the linear shape. Kristin Yorko said this site is very restricted with the stormwater. She said they were allowed 0.15 CSF offsite between this acreage, the National City development, and the parcels to the south and west. She said this pond and the pond located north of the National City development are needed to handle the stormwater for this remaining 15 acres within the PCD. She said their release rate was 0.01 CSF, so the 15 acres was only allowed 0.15 CSF_ She said this pond had to be large to restrict the water flow_ She said the volume needed for the pond associated with this development is very constricted_ Mr. Meier said there will be two pond fountains, consistent with the ones in the existing pond_ Mr_ Gerber asked if there was mounding on Post Road in front of this pond_ Todd Faris, Fans Planning and Design, said there was no mounding in front of the pond along Post Road_ He said the required volume restricted them_ He agreed to work with staff to re- shape the pond as much as possible. Mr. McCash asked if this applicant owned the property to the south also_ Mr_ Fans said no. Mr. McCash said he would be inclined to reduce the setback along the south property line to allow more undulation to occur with the pond along Post Road because this property line was more internal. Mr. Gerber said he was inclined to table this case so that the applicant could work with staff to solve the issue related to the pond's shape_ Mr. McCash said he was more inclined to let staff work with the applicant to try to make the pond look more natural. Mr. McCash said that additional landscaping may be necessary to help break up the edge. Mr_ Fishman suggested the pond be brought around into the treed area_ He also suggested that another fountain be added in the center of the pond_ Mr. Faris asked if Mr. Fishman meant a fountain similar to that at Nationwide. Mr. McCash said a piece of artwork would be interesting_ Mr. Gerber suggested that a condition be drafted that included the reshaping of the pond and the inclusion of sculptured artwork. 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post/Penmeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — April 6, 2006 Page 16 of 27 Mr. Gerber asked staff about the future access point, although it was not part of this application. He suggested that guidance be provided_ Ms. Rauch said staff was looking at the potential addition of an access point along Post Road_ She stated that at the time of rezoning, it was determined that no access to Post Road would be allowed_ She stated that there were two potential locations for this access point, either on the eastern side of the site, lining up with the Red Trabue Nature Preserve or on the western edge of the site, which would affect mostly Subarea 3, lining up with the Gorden Farms entrance. She said if the applicant was interested, they would have to come back to modify their site plan. She suggested that if at this time the applicant gains approval of this application, and if they choose to entertain this idea in the future, then they could return to the Commission with an Amended Final Development Plan_ Mr_ McCash stated that if a similar type of layout or intensity of the office buildings would happen on the south side of this development, it was a long drive for fire access from the Perimeter West entrance back to this development. He said having the access off Post Road might be a good idea_ Ms. Rauch said that was also staff's concern_ She stated that staff also had concerns about the additional traffic that would be funneled to Perimeter Drive with the future development within this PCD_ Mr_ Gunder said serious site design modifications would have to occur to deal with the stormwater detention, mounding, and landscaping, etc_ He stated that a revised site plan would be necessary if the access point was to be located on this development. He said if the access point were located to the west, within Subarea 3, then potentially, if this condition was lifted, a future development could incorporate a driveway from the beginning. He said he suspected if this happened, the western edge of this proposed development might incur minor changes in its driveway configuration and parking, and most likely it would not impact any of the buildings. Mr_ Gerber said that access could serve other parcels in the area. Mr. Gunderman agreed that with the cross access between the various developments would serve all of the PCD_ Mr_ McCash asked if Ruscilli owned the property to the south and west_ Ms. Rauch stated that she believed this to be the case_ Mr. Faris said they already had the future access on Post Road in mind. He said they could facilitate access to the west to this site. Mr. Walter said he was not comfortable with the way which the road network was developed within the adjacent Riverside North PCD. He said it was very confusing to drive_ He stated his concern that this PCD furthers this problem, especially given that the access to this site is only permitted from Perimeter Drive_ He said while this site complies with Code, he thought a 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post/Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — April 6, 2006 Page 17 of 27 parcelized development would occur throughout this entire site_ Mr. Walter said he saw this continuing with the approved office development to the west_ He said he was concerned about the number of buildings, the fire and safety access, traffic flow with the medical offices and handicap spaces_ He said overall he did not like the entire development and was inclined to stop this type of development before all the parcels sell. Mr. Gerber said when other applications -for the Perimeter West PCD come before the Commission, Mr. Walter will have the opportunity to express those concerns_ Mr. Gerber asked where ground sign would be located_ Ms. Rauch demonstrated the sign location at the southwestern entrance to the development. She stated that it will not be seen from Post Road, only from the internal access drive. Mr. McCash said complaints about patients not being able to a find doctors' offices have occurred on other sites and as proposed, these building addresses will not be seen from the public right -of -way, which he believes is a potential problem for the tenants_ He stated if future shared access to Post Road was located along the western property, it would resolve the potential issues for fire - fighting access and the signage could be located along Post Road where it can be seen. He said he did not want to see an application come back requesting a relocation of the sign after everything developed because the sign at this location is not visible. He said a sign on Perimeter Drive would not be permitted by Code because it would be considered an off-premise sign. Mr. Meier said the applicant realizes that signage is very important, especially for doctors' offices. He said this is a very challenging site because it does not have frontage on Perimeter Drive. He said a sign on Post Road was useless because there is no access point into the development. He said originally, during discussions with staff, it was thought there would be a sign facing Post Road, however that was changed. He said this proposed location is the best location available. Mr. McCash agreed that a sign on Post Road is useless without access. He suggested having a curbcut and access on Post Road and locating the sign there, while still providing a connection to the property to the south and to Perimeter Drive. He said the main access could be Post Road, not Perimeter Drive_ He stated the proposed sign location would be useless_ Mr. Meier said at the initial meetings with staff it was stated that there would not be any access permitted to Post Road, so they designed the site according to that requirement. Mr_ McCash asked if staff had changed their position regarding the Post Road access. He stated this was a very deep site to access from Perimeter Drive for an office use and still have the ability to have the necessary fire access_ Mr. Gunderman said at the rezoning stage there was a very flat statement on the preliminary development plan that there would be absolutely no access onto Post Road. He said staff raised concerns about the traffic flow in this area, not only with this project, but with previous projects. He said staff asked Ruscilli if they would consider a through - access point from Post Road to 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post/Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — April 6, 2006 Page 18 of 27 Perimeter Drive, but Ruscilli had a number of contracts and were not able to undertake that change. Mr. Gunderman said staff believed the next best thing was to provide a driveway connection at Post Road_ He said this applicant was already in the process of turning in a final development plan that had to comply with the requirements of the preliminary development plan. However, Mr. Gunderman said staff supported the change to the preliminary development plan and felt it was a useful topic for discussion_ Mr_ Gunderman asked the Commission to remember that to the east are the Shoppes at Avery, etc. He said that a traffic study was done with that project, and it spoke directly to a number of issues that the Engineering department is very concerned about, particularly the intersection at Perimeter Drive and Avery Road_ He said it was clear that there was some benefit to providing driveway access onto Post Road_ He stated that the developments are the same super -block pattern, located between Post Road and Perimeter Drive, and the traffic issues are almost exactly the same between these two developments_ Mr. Gunderman said that based on the results of the traffic study, more is known now about the traffic impacts than were probably known by the Commission when the preliminary development plan was approved_ Mr. McCash asked where the potential Post Road curbcut would be located if it aligned with the Gorden Farms property_ Ms_ Rauch said it would be located along the western property line of the proposed site. Mr. McCash asked if this development's western property line would end up being the centerline of the roadway, or if the roadway would be entirely on the property to the west. Ms. Rauch said the majority of the roadway would be located on the western property and that it would line up almost exactly with the western property line. She then asked if the Commission would prefer directional signage, perhaps an address number, on Post Road. Mr_ McCash said he could see the sign relocated to the northwest corner of the site, if and when the access point to Post Road was constructed_ He said the access point onto Post Road was really needed_ Mr_ Gunderman said should either this applicant choose to submit a plan that shows an access point alignment with the driveway to the east, or if a new final development plan application is received for the property to the west, there would be a chance to relocate the signage. Mr. Gerber summarized by saying that if the access point should occur onto Post Road the location of the sign should be considered on the northwest corner of this development. He said it also makes sense that the cross - access provided between this development and Subarea 3 to the west be retrofitted. Mr. Gunderman said if this access point occurs on Subarea 3 the northwest corner of this development would need revisions_ Mr_ McCash referred to the parking located along the western property line. He suggested that 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — April 6, 2006 Page 19 of 27 rather than providing cross- access in the southwest corner, it should be provided at the northwest corner of the site and the parking along the west property line can be shifted to the south_ He stated that the cross - access would align across the top of this development and provide an easy connection to Post Road, a minimal change to this plan. Mr. Walter asked if that was done, would the two southern connections to Perimeter Drive be retained_ Mr. McCash said those connections could remain. Mr. Gunderman said staff believed they received the input necessary from the Commission regarding the Post Road access_ Ms. Jones asked if the access were changed to Post Road would the entry sign have a Post Road address or Perimeter Road address. Mr. Gunderman thought it would be a Post Road address if that were convenient for them. Mr. Gerber said it would be ideal if there could be a condition in the event that the western access occurs. Mr. Gunderman said would be difficult to do since there is currently no pending application proposing this access point. Mr. McCash suggested that a condition be made to relocate the cross - access connection from the southwest corner to the northwest corner_ Mr. Meier asked if that condition were included and the curbcut did become a reality, would there be any safety or Code related issues with to the relocation of the cross - access. Mr. Gunderman said he wanted to consult the fire department before responding to the question. Mr. McCash asked if Engineering had a concern about switching the location of the cross - access. Barb Cox said she was concerned that moving the cross - access point would create a shorter stacking distance to make a left turn onto Post Road. She said there was a similar concern with cross - access drive at the southern end of the PCD and the intersection of Hospital Drive and Perimeter Drive. She said it appeared to be far enough, but it had not been studied. Mr_ Gerber asked that the additional Conditions 7 and 8 be read. Dan Phillabaum read Condition 7: That the ponds and mounding along Post Road be reconfigured for a more naturalized character with the inclusion of public art or other focal point, subject to staff approval. Mr. Phillabaum read Condition 8: That if access is available to this site from Post Road in the 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — April 6, 2006 Page 20 of 27 future, that the cross access casement be relocated to the northwest corner of the site, subject to staff approval_ Mr. McCash noted that the applicant wanted to shift the parking now and have the cross access easement moved in the northwest section. Mr_ Phillabaum amended Condition 8: That the cross access easement be relocated to the northwest corner of the site, subject to staff approval. Mr. Meier agreed with the eight conditions as listed below_ Mr. Gerber made the motion to approve this Final Development Plan because the plan is consistent with the PCD plan for Perimeter West PCD and the planned district ordinance, it incorporates high - quality building materials and four -sided architecture, and complies with the regulations and the intent of the rezoning, with eight conditions: l) That the proposed vehicular use area lighting be modified to eliminate tight/tree conflicts; subject to staff approval; 2) That the plans be revised to show the alignment of the access points to existing curb cuts located along the south side of Perimeter Drive; 3) That the applicant continue to work with staff on the concern of the impact their future development will have on the public roadway system; 4) That all utility connections and/or extensions meet or exceed the requirements and standards of the Engineering Division, the City of Columbus and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; 5) That the site stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 6) That the sign be revised to meet Code regarding the size, that the internal illumination be limited to the white copy, and the address numbers be relocated; subject to staff approval; 7) That ponds and mounding along Post Road be reconfigured for a more naturalized character with the inclusion of public art or other focal points, subject to staff approval; and 8) That the cross access easement be relocated to the northwest corner of the site, subject to staff approval. Mr_ Zimmerman seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Walter, no; Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr_ McCash, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 5 -1.) Mr. Gerber called a short recess at 8:20 p-m. 5. Final c:► clopment Plan 5- 167FDP — Emc ld /Cent ter T/Ko . D, Su area E — Emerald arkway and Waer cr Te Ch. Rick Gerber swor n those who intend to testi to this Judson Rex prese d this case by sh ing slides ang the _ Rex said this is a pr posal for 33,000 s are feet of retais statiod site improvemen . He discussed th layout of the site itectur four 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road (AT) OF Ut QL1 N Division of Planning 5800 shier -Rags Road DAn. Ohio 43016 -1236 Ptnw/tD0 614 - 161 -6550 tux 614 - 161-6566 Wet Site www dublin oh-m AMENDED DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION October 7, 1999 The Plaruung and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting 3. Rezoning Application 99 -04OZ - Composite Plan - Perimeter West Office Park Location: 83 acres located on the south side of Post Road, north of US 33, approximately 900 feet west of Avery- Muirfreld Drive_ Existing Zoning: R, Rural District_ Request: PCD, Planned Commerce District. Proposed Use: An office campus totaling 747,000 square feet and additional permitted uses (including hotels and ancillary commercial /restaurant uses in an office or hotel)_ Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road will also be extended. Applicant: BJL, LP, c/o Jeff Mclnturf, 283 South State Street, Suite 201, Westerville, Ohio 43081; Carol Lehr, 2267 Middlesex Road, Columbus, Ohio 43220; and Ruscilli Development Company, c/o William Tippmann, 2041 Arlingate Lane, Columbus, Ohio 43228; represented by Ben W_ Hale, Jr-, Stnith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. MOTION #l: To approve this rezoning application with 12 conditions- l) 2) 3) 4) 5) That the text be revised to clarify the means to administer the density and lot coverage requirements That the text be revised to state that the existing structure in Subarea 3 is permitted access onto Post Road unless the structure is expanded or the site redeveloped, at which time internal access via Perimeter Drive must be provided; That the text prohibit commercial use of the existing structure in Subarea 3 if the structure is ever expanded That the text be revised to state compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan and the Stormwater Regulations, That mansard roofs be strictly prohibited from Subareas t and 3, 07- 049Z /FDP Page l of 2 Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post/Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road AMENDED DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION October 7, 1999 3_ Rezoning Application - Composite Plan 99 -040Z - Perimeter West Office Park (Continued) 6) `11iat the landscape treatment, including street trees, along all roads be consistent with the property to the east, subject to staff approval, 7) That the text be revised to limit signs to ground signs with a maximum height of six feet; 8) That the average density for the entire project not exceed 9,000 square feet per acre; 9) That the absolute maximum height, including mechanicals, in Subarea 2 be limited to 80 feet, and that the absolute maximum height, including mechanicals, in Subarea 1 be limited to 35 feet; 10) That the text be revised to increase the minimum roof pitch to 6.12 in all Subareas; 11) That buildings over 60 feet in height along the south side of Perimeter Drive have a minimum setback of 150 feet; and 12) That all conditions are met prior to this case being scheduled for City Council. * Ben W_ Hale, Jr_ agreed to the above conditions_ VOTE: 7 -0_ RESULT: This rezoning application will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation_ MOTION #2: To recommend to City Council that a study of the Post Road interchange with US 33 /SR 161 be undertaken as a high priority at the beginning of 2000_ VOTE: 7 -0_ RESULT: A recommendation will be forwarded to City Council to undertake a study of the Post Road interchange with US33 /SR 161 with a high priority early in 2000_ STAFF CERTIFICATION Chad Gibson Planner 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -- October 7, 1999 Page 10 Mr_ FishmY agreed that t ere should be an strong lent _ ordinance w ich reflects character c Dublin_ Sma lots should ha c split rail fen ng only withi+ the building I' e, and there , hottld be no pr' acy fences pe titled Messy _ [tartan, Fisht an, and Leckli •r agreed that e rotative, orna i�-ntal type len -s only slim d be permitted 'tt the front yar Vlr_ [ ecklider a ecd with the is, es expr /aatr Mr_" McCasti. He was not in avor of rear yard privacy f e n h igher the : four fes for safety ound swimmi g pools_ He would make lowances for p tva . fencet of a deck He opposed lit rail fenc around the wrimeter, exec t for large lany kind of fencing uI ow of the f building I �c Ornamental encing along [ walk, n y be okay Mr_ l l[leton asked if stone wall fet ing should be variance situ tion, such as n Old fiEas n M /mathe 'r said yes. M _ Clarke sugge ed lots along t river_ She s ggested of mas es be limited scenic roads. motion to table this Cod revision_ Mr McCash seco ed, and the vote was as Mr. Pep w, yes; Mr_ S ague, yes; Mr. xcklider, yes Mr_ Fishman, yes; Mr_ Ha Mr_ [Wash, yes an( r_ Eastep ye _ (Tabled 7 -0_ Mr_ LeckYiider called it sh(Ai recess. 3. Rezoning Application — Composite Plan 99 -04OZ — Perimeter West Office Park Chad Gibson said this composite plan is for 83 acres between Post Road and US 33 /SR 16 L The revised application includes 888,000 square feet of office, hotel, and related commercial uses_ This is the second downward revision from the initial proposal of tM square feet_ The current application is for 10,700 square feet per acre_ Mr_ Gibson showed several slides_ The site is zoned R, Rural District, and the request is for PCD, Planned Commerce District_ Subarea 3 contains- a house, and the rest of the site is undeveloped- Ile said the development text for Subarea 1, along Post Road, permits two - story office buildings, a maxin7um height of 35 feet, and requires residential character. Subarea 2 is along US 33 and will permit five -story offices and seven -story hotels with an 80 -foot height maximum_ Subarea 3 has access to Post Road until any modification or expansion of that site, at which time access will be limited to Perimeter Drive_ He said the traffic study indicated several road improvements are necessary, and in some off - site areas, landscaping will need to be removed and right- of-way acquired_ He said architecture is to be harmonious within the development and will feature brick, stone, and decorative pre -cast materials- Water features with pedestrian access will be included_ Mr_ Gibson said staff recommends approval with ei0ht condifinwQ 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 7, 1999 Page 11 1) That the text be revised to clarify the administration of the density and lot coverage requirements; 2) That the text be revised to state that the existing structure in Subarea 3 is permitted access onto Post Road unless the structure is `expanded or the site redeveloped at which time internal access via Perimeter Drive must be provided; 3) That the text prohibit commercial use of the existing structure in Subarea 3 if the structure is ever expanded; 4) That the text be revised to state compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan and Stormwater Regulations; 5) That mansard roofs be strictly prohibited from Subarea l; 6) That the landscape treatment, including street trees, along all roads be consistent with the property to the east; 7) That the text be revised to limit signs to ground signs with a maximum height of six feet; and 8) That all conditions are met prior to this case being scheduled for City Council_ Mr. McCash asked about the service level at US 33/Hyland-Croy- Mr. Gibson said it was "D +" for 944,000 square feet, but it was not re- tested for 888,000 square feet_ Mr. Peplow said the overall gross density is 10,700 square feet per acre. Mr_ Gibson said the density for each subarea was not provided_ He expected the highest densities along US 33. Mr. Lecklider was also concerned about density, and lowering the density was previously discussed. He said mechanicals should not be roof- mounted in Subarea 1; this conflicts with a residential look_ Also the height limit should be 35 feet without exceptions_ Mr. Gibson said the lot coverage was lowered from 70 to 65 percent on any one site, and to 60 percent for the entire 83 -acre development_ Mr_ Lecklider said the staff report pointed out the potential or likelihood of having to relocate street lights, fire hydrants, etc. along Avery- Muirfield Drive to allow for widening, etc_ He asked who would pay for the relocation_ Mr_ McCash said it could be included in the TIF_ Mr_ Lecklider asked about the impacted or reduced greenspace along Muirfield -Avery Drive_ Mr. Gibson said in order to achieve the desired level of service, additional right turn lanes are needed, and this will require the removal of portions of greenspace in front of the Fifth- Third Bank, for example. Mr_ Lecklider was disappointed that any encroachments would be permitted on the limited greenspace provided_ Ben W_ Hale, Jr_, attorney for the applicant, said Subarea 2 was proposed at a maximum height of 70 feet, plus mechanicals_ They will remove the reference to mechanicals from the text for Subarea 1 _ That subarea will have pitched residential type roofs. It will be difficult to meet setback and other requirements and build above 9,000 square feet per acre_ Mr_ Hale said the site plan for Rail Van indicates a 65 percent lot coverage. lie said relocation of the streetlights, hydrants, etc_, are in the TIF approved for this site. When the 07- 0492 /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post/Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 7, 1999 Page 12 Community Plan was done, the level of service desired was "D "_ Going to "C, will require right turn lanes_ Mr. Hale agreed to the eight conditions listed above_ Mr_ Eastep thought the site should have a density of 9,000 square feet per acre overall- Mr. Hale said this application was first filed by the Alter Group at 15,526 square feet per acre_ In August, the application was revised down to 13026 square feet per acre which operated at a level of service - D". The Commission requested a "C" level of service, and it was revised down to 11,458 square feet per acre. It is now down to 10,700 square feet per acre_ He said the Preserve on Frantz Road has a density of 11,000 square feet, Parkwood has 17,300; Blazer was 13,900; and Upper Metro was at 12,845 square feet_ Mr_ [late said this is under those examples, has 60 percent lot coverage, and the traffic works at a level of service "C_" Mr_ Eastep said if the Commission continued to approve densities higher than the Community Plan, they were over-building- He said the Preserve is a fantastic development on a wooded lot which gave something back to the Community. He said the level of service is to be considered, and the Commission asked for 9,000 square feet_ The proposal is too high. Mr_ Eastep is very concerned about the interchange which is not yet even being studied_ He feels this development needs an improved Post Road interchange to take the heat off the Avery Road interchange_ He does not want Avery- Muirfield widened further_ Mr. Hale said the TIFs will not only come from these buildings_ There will be a considerable amount of income tax above and beyond what is needed for this TIF. Mr_ Eastep said the majority of the developments with higher density are directly off I -270 or US 33 with free- flowing access_ There is no infrastructure planned here_ Mr_ McCash said Council has been very aggressive in moving up roadway projects, and about 65 percent of the CIP is devoted to roads_ He thought the Hyland - Croy /Post Road interchange would be considered soon, but there are more pressing traffic needs elsewhere_ With development, it will be moved forward_ The "D +" level of service results from the entire 888,000 square feet of development_ He suggested a limiting development to 210,000 square feet until the road goes through, or 550,000 square feet until there are major improvements to the US 33 /SR 161 /Hyland -Croy interchange_ Mr. Eastep said Dublin should be proactive in its road improvements_ Mr_ Sprague suggested 9,000 square feet as an aggregate limit_ If those improvements are done to Hyland -Croy, etc., the applicant could apply for more density based on traffic: Mr_ McCash suggested a limit of a density of 9,000 square feet until the road improvements were made _ Mr. Eastep thought the development and road improvements should be installed hand in hand. He said private money moves faster than public money which would require approvals of MORPC and ODOT, etc_ Mr_ Lecklider said another 50 acres to the west will also develop_ Mr_ Hale said this was also tested in the traffic study_ 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning /Final Development flan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 7, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Fishman said he waits for four or more cycles at some traffic signals to get through_ Doyle Clear, Parsons Transportation, said if a driver waited more than one traffic signal cycle, generally that is - F" level of service_ Mr_ Fishman said given that, Dublin gets an "F" all over_ Mr_ Clear disagreed, and he recounted his own experiences_ He said Council is spending a lot on road improvements to improve the level of service_ He noted several areas are under construction at once, and many will be finished in one or two years_ Mr_ Clear said a "D" level means stopping about 45 to 60 seconds on a average_ He said the adopted Community Plan level was "D," and it is used many places. He noted that 9,000 square feet per acre is a Community Plan standard. Mr_ Eastep was concerned about another 2M square feet of offices_ He wondered if traffic will be improved enough to satisfy most residents_ Mr. Clear said the development is being staged with a set of road improvements_ He said if the concern was the interchange, perhaps another trigger point could tie it to square feet of development or number of employees_ Staging of roadway improvements is totally fair according to Mr_ Clear_ He stands by the projected levels of service in 2020_ Mr_ Hale said Hyland -Croy Road is the farthest west Dublin can annex, and Union County has extended sewers. He assumes jobs will come to that area, and no Dublin taxes will be paid_ The township has limited ability to make improvements. He said Metro Parks bought 800 acres of developable land in Jerome Township, north of McKitrick Road_ Mr_ Clear said hundreds of cars turning to and from Hyland -Croy Road, outside Dublin, onto Post Road have been considered_ He said there are no good left turn lanes existing today. He said it cannot be totally fixed because the columns underneath limit the area needed to create right /left turn lanes. It will take state cooperation. Mr_ Eastep did not disagree, but he is concerned about the traffic trade -off for increased density_ He said this project needs the proposed road_ Mr. McCash though the extension of Perimeter Drive was needed now. Mr. Clear said all of the development in the Riverside PCD, this site, and the site to the west was tested in his study in the 2020 numbers_ Mr_ Lecklider was also concerned about the volume of homes recently approved_ Their access will be down Avery - Muirfield Drive_ He expected Hyland -Croy Road would also be loaded with new resident traffic_ Mr_ Clear said these were included also in the 2020 projections_ The existing conditions are known, and a growth rate is added to that roadway plus the development_ He said the City Engineer requires analysis based on existing conditions and the 2020 projections_ Mr. Fishman and Mr_ Clear traded their driving experiences on Avery - Muirfield Drive_ Mr_ Fishman said Dublin needs to be even more proactive about traffic because much development has been approved in outlying areas_ He was uncomfortable annrovinQ this 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post/Perimeter Office Building Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 7, 1999 Page 14 project with a density of even 9,000 square feet per acre, because the needed infrastructure is lagging behind_ He said no one in Dublin is happy with the traffic_ Mr. Clear said things are getting better. Ten years ago, none of the roads were in place, but Pat Bowman and others were doing the planning_ Now the roads are coming on line and being funded by new sources of revenue_ Mr_ Fishman disagreed that things are developing according to the long- standing plan. Compromises were made_ The reality of driving in Dublin on a daily basis is not pleasant_ Mr_ hale said the development will stay at 9,000 square feet per acre until the US 33 /1 Road interchange is fixed to a "C" level of service_ Mr. Clear said a completely rebuilt interchange is needed_ Mr. Sprague said he has been looking at traffic numbers for five years_ lie now questions the whole methodology_ He said half of the development area was not accounted for on the exhibits_ The residents' number one issue is traffic_ The Avery interchange needed improvement four years ago, and Hyland -Croy Road is not even programmed for improvement_ He was not happy about removing landscaping for additional lanes_ The density should be capped at 9,000 square feet per acre. If things do get better, the applicant could ask for additional square footage through a rezoning. Until proved otherwise, 9,000 square feet is the absolute limit_ The traffic experience is abysmal, simply unacceptable_ Mr_ Lecklider said current PM peak backs traffic up through the intersections. Mr_ Clear said more turn lanes are needed at the intersections, and he does not believe the signals are interconnected as yet_ He again said traffic will greatly improve in a few years_ Mr_ Eastep suggested using more police to direct peak hour traffic onto the freeway and to route some traffic to Hyland -Croy Road temporarily_ He said the civic associations are adamant about not increasing densities because people are sick of the traffic_ Mr_ Hale said they believe strongly that the traffic will work_ He believes that the Riverside PCD will develop at a lower density_ He agreed to come back later with a rezoning for more than 9,000 square feet per acre. He is confident the traffic numbers will bear him out_ Mr_ Fishman feels traffic is always in a "catch up" situation, and it will take years and years to solve the problem. He still could not support anything over 9,000 square feet per acre. Mr_ Hale agreed to an average density of 9,000 square feet per acre and an average lot coverage of 60 percent, with no site exceeding 65 percent. There was agreement among the Commissioners with this. Mr_ Lecklider said a signature office park should have more than one water feature. Mr Hale said the stormwater design is not yet planned_ He said the water flows to the north_ Regarding signs, Mr. Lecklider wanted it to be clear that the Commission would not accept signs in excess of the Code. There should be no wall signs_ Mr_ Hale agreed_ 07- 0492 /FDP Rezoning /Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building ((S S Pnct R nali Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 7, 1999 Page 15 Regarding building height in Subarea 1, along Post Road, Mr_ Lecklider wanted no deviations from the 35 feet height limit. He was concerned that 80 feet in height just south of Perimeter Drive is too high. It is too close to the residential use to the north_ Mr. Hale said the Rail Van building will be about 40 feet tall and will be set back about 160 feet from Perimeter Drive_ Mr. Bill Tippmann, Ruscilli, said that height would be typical- Mr- Lecklider thought this would be great_ Mr_ McCash noted the text does require a 100 -foot setback along Perimeter Drive for buildings over 50 feet in height_ There was some discussion of sight lines and blockage of this site by the seniors' housing structure to the north. Mr. Fishman said he likes the proposal with the limitations just added_ He said the rezoning is at the stage where the expectations for development are to be included_ He wanted water features and for the developer to exceed the Landscape Code_ He said the new benchmark for landscape excellence is the corner of SR 161 and Frantz (Upper Metro Place). He said this is a gateway, and he asked fora similar commitment_ Mr_ Tippmann said a commitment to do "Class A" landscaping is in the text. Mr_ Hale concurred_ Regarding the setback on the south side of Perimeter Drive, buildings up to 50 feet are required to have a 50 -foot setback. After some discussion, Mr. Hale agreed to a setback of 150 feet for buildings over 50 feet. Mr_ Hale agreed to an absolute maximum building height of 80 feet; mechanicals, etc_ will not exceed this_ Mr_ Hale agreed to increase the minimum roof pitch from 5 =12 to 6 =12_ He reiterated that density will be capped at 9,000 square feet in this application_ if the interchange is improved or the surrounding area is developed at a lower density, Mr_ Hale said he may be back with another rezoning request_ Mr_ Harian appreciated the applicant's flexibility_ tic can support this application_ Mr. Fishman agreed and said he respected the developer and the concessions made_ Mr. Eastep appreciated the efforts of Mr. Hale and the applicants for the Dublin community_ Mr. Sprague apologized for raising his voice earlier_ He said the duty of each Commissioner is to express the will of the community within reasonable, legal limits_ lie expressed deep respect for Mr_ Hale_ He appreciated Mr_ Clear's work and the flexibility of the applicant_ He hopes Rail Van will be satisfied in this new, attractive building_ Mr_ Lecklider commended the staff effort and the applicant's team_ Ile is much more comfortable with the revised application than was with the original case_ He will vote yes with his fingers crossed, as he does on very large projects_ Ms. Clarke asked for clariftcation on the use of the residence in Subarea 3 _ She said both the Commission and City Council have opposed the commercial reuse of houses. Expansion of a house often makes the house very difficult to eliminate. 07- 0492 /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 7, t999 Page 16 Mr_ Hale said Subarea 2 was not in the original application, and it was included because the City requested it. The owner has agreed to participate in this application_ He agreed not to expand the house_ If he builds an office building, he will eliminate his access onto Post Road and will use Perimeter Drive for the sole access_ Ruscilli has agreed to grant him access to Perimeter Road_ The house can be used as a residence or an office with access to Post Road_ The building will be eliminated with new construction, and it will not be expanded_ There is also a barn on the two -acre site_ He appreciated that this owner participated in this rezoning_ Mr_ Eastep suggested that Commission should recommend to City Council that the Post Road interchange should be sped up as much as humanly possible. Mr. McCash made a motion to approve this rezoning with 12 conditions: 1) That the text be revised to clarify the means to administer the density and lot coverage requirements 2) That the text be revised to state that the existing structure in Subarea 3 is permitted access onto Post Road unless the structure is expanded or the site redeveloped, at which time internal access via Perimeter Drive must be provided, 3) That the text prohibit commercial use of the existing structure in Subarea 3 if the structure is ever expanded; 4) That the text be revised to state compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan and the Stormwater Regulations; 5) That mansard roofs be strictly prohibited from Subareas l and 3; 6) That the landscape treatment, including street trees, along all roads be consistent with the property to the east, subject to staff approval; 7) That the text be revised to limit signs to ground signs with a maximum height of six Let; 8) That the average density for the entire project not exceed 9,000 square feet per acre; 9) That the absolute maximum height, including mechanicals, in Subarea 2 be limited to 80 feet, and that the absolute maximum height, including mechanicals, in Subarea 1 be limited to 35 feet; 10) That the text be revised to increase the minimum roof pitch to 6 :12 in all Subareas; I l) That buildings over 60 feet in height along the south side of Perimeter Drive have a minimum setback of 150 feet, and 12) That all conditions are met prior to this case being scheduled for City Council_ Mr_ Fishman seconded the motion_ Mr_ Hale agreed to the above conditions_ The vote was as follows_ Mr. Eastep, yes; Mr_ Peplow, yes Mr_ Sprague, yes, Mr_ Lecklider, yes; Mr_ Harian, yes; Mr_ Fishman, yes, and Mr. McCash, yes_ (Approved 7 -0_) Mr. Eastep made a motion to City Council that a study of the Post Road interchange with US 33 /SR 161 be undertaken as a high priority at the beginning of 2000_ Mr_ Fishman seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows Mr_ Harian, yes; Mr_ McCash, yes; Mr. Leckhder, yes, Mr_ Sprague, yes, Mr_ Peplow, yes, Mr_ Fishman, yes; and Mr. Eastep, yes_ (Approved 7 -0_) 07- 049Z /FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Post /Perimeter Office Building 6655 Post Road