Loading...
Ordinance 31-10RECORD OF ORDINANCES 31 -10 Ordinance No. Passed 20 AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 15.19 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 430 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH AVERY - MUIRFIELD DRIVE WITHIN PERIMETER CENTER, FROM PCD, PLANNED COMMERCE DISTRICT (PERIMETER CENTER, SUBAREA F) TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PERIMETER CENTER, SUBAREA F4, PERIMETER CENTER SHOPPING CENTER/GIANT EAGLE – CASE 09- 115Z/PDP) NOW, THEREFQRE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, —/ of its elected members concurring: Section 1 . That the following described real estate (see attached legal description marked Exhibit "A ") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2 . That the application, Exhibit `B ", including the list of contiguous and effected 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 13A day of �i 1 2010. Mayor - Preo8i* Officer ATTEST: Clerk of Council Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 Phone: 614- 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 CITY OF DUBLIN.. Memo To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Terry Foegler, City Manager'i i Date: September 9, 2010 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Ordinance 31 -10 —Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan —Perimeter Center PCD, Subarea F — Perimeter Center Shopping Center /Giant Eagle, 6015 6804 Perimeter Loop Road (Case No. 09- 115Z /PDP) Summary Ordinance 3 1 -10 was introduced at the August 23, 2010 City Council meeting. The ordinance is a request for review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan for 15.19 acres from PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter Center, Subarea F) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Perimeter Center, Subarea 1 7 4) to allow the expansion of the square footage of the existing Giant Eagle grocery store; the inclusion of a pharmacy drive -thru for the grocery store and a fuel station as conditional uses as part of the development text; and an increase in the amount of outdoor dining areas in the shopping center. Based on the concerns raised by Council Members, the following are addressed below: Development Text Council Members raised concerns about the lack of Council input and review if a potential fuel station is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as a conditional use /final or amended final development plan application as proposed in the development text. Council Members were also interested in prohibiting window signs for the shopping center. The applicant has worked with Planning and the Law Director to revise the text to require a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to City Council regarding a conditional use and /or final or amended final development plan application for a fuel station. The proposed language gives City Council the jurisdiction over the final details of a fuel station on the site. The text was also revised to clarify that conditional uses are subject to additional review and approval as prescribed by the Dublin Zoning Code; to prohibit window signs; and to address typographical errors as requested by Council. (A redline version of the proposed text is included in addition to the clean version.) Signs The grocery store within Perimeter Center (originally Big Bear) was approved with an internally illuminated 100 - square -foot sign that included the tenant name and logo. An externally illuminated Memo re. Ordinance 31 -10 Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Perimeter Center Shopping Center /Giant Eagle September 9, 2010 Page 2 of 2 wall sign was also permitted below the tenant name. The area to the south of the grocery store currently has eight tenants and therefore eight signs are located along that elevation. The proposed text permits a total of three signs auxiliary along the front fagade, where currently one is permitted for the grocery store and a sign for the pharmacy drive -thru. At the final development plan stage, the Commission approved a sign for the cafe, the pharmacy and a bank along the front fagade of the building and for the pharmacy drive -thru sign above the canopy. The previously approved wall sign below the grocery store name will be removed. Overall, the proposal is for one internally illuminated grocery store identification sign and three auxiliary wall signs along the building fagade and one sign above the drive -thru canopy. A total of five signs are proposed instead of the ten existing signs (eight tenant signs, two grocery store signs). Window Treatment The applicant has provided additional information regarding the window treatment and the spandrel glass color in the southern portion of the building. A detail for the appearance of the space behind the window in the tower portion of the southern fagade is also included. Planning will provide a sample of the spandrel glass at the meeting for Council review. Pedestrian/Cyclist Connections Council Members were concerned with pedestrian and cyclist connections to and interior to the site. The applicant will install a five -foot sidewalk along the entire site frontage of Perimeter Loop Road. A five - foot sidewalk connection exists toward the northern site boundary off Perimeter Loop Road. Bike racks either exist or are proposed at the west end and east end of the northern two buildings and in front of the grocery store. Once the applicant pursues the fuel station, which requires that the entry be redesigned, Planning and Engineering will work with the applicant on interior pedestrian and cyclist connections. - - ��° $'d J 3 KE'ISACK 1 BIK EXJS SIDEW tE� I w. I PROPOS D SIDEW 1' I- ° i U ` u � e 5i 61 I, I d 1 ", H. a:w 4 �» 'I� Recommendation Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 31 -10 at the second reading/public hearing on September 13, 2010. Proposed Development Text As submitted to City Council September 13, 2010 Subarea F4 (15.196 acres) - Retail Center ( 2010) Subarea Development Standards: Subareas F4 shall comply with the general subarea development standards contained in the original Perimeter Center zoning (general, signs and graphics, lighting and Perimeter Center primary identification sign design criteria) unless otherwise indicated in this text or in the submitted site plans. Percentage of lot coverage shall be no greater than 90% in Subarea F4. Subarea F4: The retail center will have a maximum total building gross square footage of 170,000 with a maximum 99,850 square feet permitted for a single tenant on the ground floor for retail purposes and 20,000 square feet on the mezzanine floor above. The mezzanine shall not be used for general retail purposes or other open to public use. Outdoor dining areas and the fuel station canopy shall not be considered part of the building square footage. This retail center may be developed in phases. Servicing for the proposed center will be totally screened from view by passer -by traffic. This total screening height shall be fourteen feet at the time of planting from the elevation of adjacent drives or parking. Special attention will be provided to design of all elevations of the center to maintain an established architectural theme with good aesthetic quality throughout the development of the retail and services zone. The same or compatible building materials and a common lighting, signage and landscaping aesthetic will also be incorporated to blend with the surrounding proposed uses for total site compatibility. Permitted Uses All those permitted uses for in the SO, Suburban Office & Institutional District and CC, Community Commercial District including but not limited to the following: 1. Retail stores, including General Merchandise, Food, Personal Services and Large Format 2. Eating and Drinking Establishments 3. Medical Services and Offices of Physicians, Dentists and Other Health Practitioners 4. Administrative, Technical, and Professional Offices Page 1 of 7 Proposed Development Text As submitted to City Council September 13, 2010 5. Accessory Uses for Multi- Family Dwellings 6. Outdoor Dining Areas up to 3,000 total sq. ft. of seating space within the retail center area that can be allotted to the various tenants to be administratively approved by Land Use and Long Range Planning. Those outdoor dining areas shall employ matching amenities (fences, tables, chairs, flower boxes where appropriate) and must be of a black, wrought -iron design. 7. Outdoor Display Area for Live Plant Material as regulated by the Dublin Zoning Code. 8. Parking and a garage that serves the condominiums to the south via an easement (shown on the development plan). Conditional Uses The following uses shall be allowed within this Subarea subject to additional review and approval as prescribed by the Dublin Zoning Code: 1. Drive -thrus 2. Day Care 3. Training, Tutoring and Supplemental Skills 4. Animal Care Facilities 5. Theaters 6. Motor Vehicle Rental 7. Fuel Stations Upon application for a conditional use, a final development plan or an amended final development plan that contemplates the development of a fuel station ( "the Application(s)"), the Planning and Zoning Commission shall provide a recommendation to City Council. City Council shall have jurisdiction to review the Application(s) on the following terms: A. Following the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission on the Application(s), City Council shall hold a public hearing, which shall be held no later than the date that is 30 days following the Planning and Zoning Commission's action on the Application(s). In the event that City Council has no meetings scheduled during this 30 -day time period, then City Council shall hold the public hearing and vote on the Page 2 of 7 Proposed Development Text As submitted to City Council September 13, 2010 Application(s) at the first regularly scheduled City Council meeting following the expiration of the 30 -day period contemplated in the preceding sentence. B. City Council shall apply the review criteria outlined in the Dublin Codified Ordinances for a conditional use or a final /amended development plan when considering the Application(s). C. City Council shall vote to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the Application(s). In reviewing the Application(s), City Council shall use the review criteria for each respective Application set forth in the Dublin Codified Ordinances. City Council shall act through a majority vote of those City Council members that are present at the meeting in which the Application(s) are presented. City Council's vote to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the Application(s) shall become a final appealable order and the applicant shall have 30 days from the date of City Council's vote to file an administrative appeal pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506. Yard and Setback Requirements 1. Along Perimeter Loop Road, pavement setbacks shall be 35', building setback 50'. 2. Along Perimeter Drive, pavement setbacks shall be 35'; building setbacks 75'. 3. All other public street pavement setbacks shall be 25', building setback 50'. 4. Total building square feet for Subarea F4 shall not exceed 12,000 square feet per acre. Height Requirements Maximum height for buildings in Subarea F4 shall be 45' as measured per Dublin Zoning Code, except for fuel station canopies which can be no higher than 25' as measured per Dublin Zoning Code. Parking and Loading Page 3 of 7 Proposed Development Text As submitted to City Council September 13, 2010 1. Parking spaces shall be provided at a minimum of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet for the first floor building areas located within the Shopping Center unless the parking ratio is reduced by the Planning Commission. Those areas above ground level will not be counted in the parking calculations as long as they are used for non - customer use activities. Outdoor dining areas and the fuel canopy shall be exempt from the parking requirement. 2. Pharmacy drive up windows shall provide three (3) stacking spaces per lane. 3. Bank drive -thru stacking requirements shall be three stacking spaces per teller windows or transaction point, including automatic teller machines. Circulation 1. Perimeter Drive shall have a 100' right -of -way, and a 56' pavement width. 2. Perimeter Loop Road shall have a 60' right -of -way, and a 36' pavement width. 3. All other local public access streets shall have a 60' right -of -way, and a 32' pavement width, which widens towards Avery- Muirfield Drive to a 80' right -of- way and a 55' pavement width at the west end of the site's frontage. 4. Opposing curb cuts on Perimeter Drive and the Perimeter Loop Road shall be offset no less than 100' (as measured from the driveway's centerline) or directly aligned wherever possible consistent with prudent traffic engineering principles and practices, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineers. Waste, Refuse Storage and Equipment 1. All waste and refuse shall be containerized and fully screened from view in accordance with the Dublin Zoning Code. 2. Except as otherwise permitted by this development text or the Dublin Zoning Code, no materials, supplies, equipment or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of a parcel outside a permitted structure. Permitted outside storage shall not be located in pedestrian spaces unless permitted under the Dublin Zoning Code. 3. All grocery carts shall be stored in cart corrals as approved by Planning Commission as part of the Final Development Plan or inside a principal building. 4. There shall be no outside sales of retail merchandise around the fuel station kiosk. Page 4 of 7 Proposed Development Text As submitted to City Council September 13, 2010 Landscaping: 1. All landscaping shall conform to the Dublin Zoning Code. 2. In addition, landscaping within the Perimeter Loop Road setback, Perimeter Drive and Mercedes Drive shall include a continuous three foot hedge with stone pilaster fifty feet on center with street trees planted fifty feet on center within the R.O.W. and planted +1 from R.O.W. 3. Street trees for the subarea will be selected from Appendix E, Group A, of the Dublin Planning and Zoning Code. Architecture: The architectural design of the buildings shall be consistent with the architectural elevation plans submitted with the preliminary development plan. The development shall be constructed with the same architectural style and roof treatment with the exception of service corridors. The facade shall consist of brick and manufactured stone and the sloped roof shall be constructed of cedar wood shake shingles. The brick shall be selected from the approved Perimeter Center palette. The manufactured stone shall be "Ohio limestone (buff)" by manufacturer Carriage Hill Stone or approved equal and used throughout the project as a water table and as a facade treatment in select areas. The store front system shall be designed in a historic style using windows with mullions and raised panel details. The roof slops shall be 8/12, 10/12 or 12/12 pitch depending upon location of the roof element. The rear areas of the building shall be given special treatment so as to present an architecturally appropriate facade to the traveling public. The rear walls of buildings shall be constructed of stucco or synthetic stucco in order to complement the architectural style found on the front facade and scoring and/or lights or other relief elements shall be used to break up the back of the center. Screening to a height of six (6) feet shall be placed along the west property line of Subarea F4 to provide additional screening for the north elevations of these buildings. Further, there shall also be a hedge of bushes along the front of the shopping center walkway similar to those along the rights -of -way within the subject area that shall provide continuity with the entire area and an architectural feature that enhances the appearance of the development. Brick pavers, scored concrete, benches, bollards and street lamps shall be incorporated into select areas of the walkway to provide variety and interest for pedestrian traffic. With the exception of service corridors that are screened, the buildings shall have the same degree of exterior finish on all sides. No merchandise shall be stacked along the interior of the grocery store in front of windows higher than the height of the window sill or three feet, whichever is lower. Page 5 of 7 Proposed Development Text As submitted to City Council September 13, 2010 Signs and Graphics All signs shall comply with the Dublin Zoning Code unless varied by this text or approved preliminary or final development plan. Perimeter Retail Center signage: 1. Each tenant store front is limited to one externally illuminated wall sign and one projecting sign. The background color of wall signs and projecting signs shall be selected from the existing Perimeter Center palette of trim colors or a compatible color approved administratively. Sign panel colors shall match the background color of that particular tenant's wall sign. The sign color shall be aesthetically compatible with the awning fabric. All wall and projecting signs shall meet Code relative to permitted sign face area and wall signs may not exceed 16 feet in height. Wall sign faces shall not exceed one square foot in area for each one lineal foot in store frontage not to exceed 80 square feet. Sign color maximums shall meet the Dublin Zoning Code. 2. Projecting sign faces shall not exceed three square feet in area and shall be of uniform size and design. 3. Goose neck fixtures for sign lighting shall be comprised of the same exterior finish and color throughout the shopping center. 4. All wall and hanging signs shall have "gold" (Chroma — Gold) letters on a dark colored background. 5. The grocery store shall be permitted an internally illuminated wall sign at a maximum height of 26' above the finished walkway which shall consist of the name of the grocery store (100 sq. ft. in size). Additional permitted signage shall include a three auxiliary wall signs of 28 sq. ft. for the grocery store located along the front fagade of the grocery store. Each sign shall adhere to the wall signage criteria established by this text and the Dublin Zoning Code. 6. Drive -thru signage shall be permitted on the front fagade of the canopy and shall adhere to the wall signage criteria established by this text and the Dublin Zoning Code. Directional entry and exit signs shall be permitted as shown on the final development plan. 7. A single monument sign will be permitted along Perimeter Loop Road to identify a fuel station and provide gasoline pricing information to the public and will be installed only with the approval of a conditional use for the fuel station by City Council. The sign shall not exceed six feet in height and ten foot in width with the sign and pricing information permitted on both sides of the sign. The maximum area of sign per side shall be 20 square feet. The sign has materials shall match the retail Page 6 of 7 Proposed Development Text As submitted to City Council September 13, 2010 center materials and the sign colors shall match those employed by the grocery store. Sign color maximums shall meet the Dublin Zoning Code. 8. No signs shall be applied to or mounted within three feet behind windows for the purpose of outdoor or exterior advertising or tenant identification. Applicant Signature & Date Page 7 of 7 Proposed Development Text As submitted to City Council September 13, 2010 - redline- Subarea F4 (15.196 acres) - Retail Center ( 2010) Subarea Development Standards: Subareas F4 shall comply with the general subarea development standards contained in the original Perimeter Center zoning (general, signs and graphics, lighting and Perimeter Center primary identification sign design criteria) unless otherwise indicated in this text or in the submitted site plans. Percentage of lot coverage shall be no greater than 90% in Subarea F4. Subarea F4: The retail center will have a maximum total building gross square footage of 170,000 with a maximum 99,850 square feet permitted for a single tenant on the ground floor for retail purposes and 20,000 square feet on the mezzanine floor above. The mezzanine shall not be used for general retail purposes or other open to public use. Outdoor dining areas and the fuel station canopy shall not be considered part of the building square footage. This retail center may be developed in phases. Servicing for the proposed center will be totally screened from view by passer -by traffic. This total screening height shall be fourteen feet at the time of planting from the elevation of adjacent drives or parking. Special attention will be provided to design of all elevations of the center to maintain an established architectural theme with good aesthetic quality throughout the development of the retail and services zone. The same or compatible building materials and a common lighting, signage and landscaping aesthetic will also be incorporated to blend with the surrounding proposed uses for total site compatibility. Permitted Uses All those permitted uses for in the SO, Suburban Office & Institutional District and CC, Community Commercial District including but not limited to the following: 1. Retail stores, including General Merchandise, Food, Personal Services and Large Format 2. Eating and Drinking Establishments 3. Medical Services and Offices of Physicians, Dentists and Other Health Practitioners 4. Administrative, Technical, and Professional Offices Page 1 of 7 Proposed Development Text As submitted to City Council September 13, 2010 - redline- 5. Accessory Uses for Multi- Family Dwellings 6. Outdoor Dining Areas up to 3,000 total sq. ft. of seating space within the retail center area that can be allotted to the various tenants to be administratively approved by Land Use and Long Range Planning. Those outdoor dining areas shall employ matching amenities (fences, tables, chairs, flower boxes where appropriate) and must be of a black, wrought -iron design. 7. Outdoor Display Area for Live Plant Material as regulated by the Dublin Zoning Code. 8. Parking and a garage that serves the condominiums to the south via an easement (shown on the development plan). Conditional Uses The following uses shall be allowed within this Subarea subject to additional review and approval as prescribed by the Dublin Zoning Code: 1. Drive -thrus 2. Day Care 3. Training, Tutoring and Supplemental Skills 4. Animal Care Facilities 5. Theaters 6. Motor Vehicle Rental 7. Fuel Stations Upon application for a conditional use, a final development plan or an amended final development plan that contemplates the development of a fuel station (`the Application(s)"), the Planning and Zoning Commission shall provide a recommendation to City Council. City Council shall have jurisdiction to review the Application(s) on the following terms: A. Following the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission on the Application(s), City Council shall hold a public hearing, which shall be held no later than the date that is 30 days following the Planning and Zoning Commission's action on the Application(s). In the event that Page 2 of 7 Proposed Development Text As submitted to City Council September 13, 2010 - redline- City Council has no meetings scheduled during this 30 -day time period, then City Council shall hold the public hearing and vote on the Application(s) at the first regularly scheduled City Council meeting following the expiration of the 30 -day period contemplated in the preceding sentence. B. City Council shall apply the review criteria outlined in the Dublin Codified Ordinances for a conditional use or a final /amended development plan when considering the Application(s). C. City Council shall vote to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the Application(s). In reviewing the Application(s), City Council shall use the review criteria for each respective Application set forth in the Dublin Codified Ordinances. City Council shall act through a majority vote of those City Council members that are present at the meeting in which the Application(s) are presented. City Council's vote to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the Application(s) shall become a final appealable order and the applicant shall have 30 days from the date of City Council's vote to file an administrative appeal pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506. Yard and Setback Requirements 1. Along Perimeter Loop Road, pavement setbacks shall be 35', building setback 50'. 2. Along Perimeter Drive, pavement setbacks shall be 35'; building setbacks 75'. 3. All other public street pavement setbacks shall be 25', building setback 50'. 4. Total building square feet for Subarea F4 shall not exceed 12,000 square feet per acre. Height Requirements Maximum height for buildings in Subarea F4 shall be 45' as measured per Dublin Zoning Code, except for fuel station canopies which can be no higher than 25' as measured per Dublin Zoning Code. Page 3 of 7 Proposed Development Text As submitted to City Council September 13, 2010 - redline- Parking and Loading 1. Parking spaces shall be provided at a minimum of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet for the first floor building areas located within the Shopping Center unless the parking ratio is reduced by the Planning Commission. Those areas above ground level will not be counted in the parking calculations as long as they are used for non - customer use activities. Outdoor dining areas and the fuel canopy shall be exempt from the parking requirement. 2. Pharmacy drive up windows shall provide three (3) stacking spaces per lane. 3. Bank drive -thru stacking requirements shall be three stacking spaces per teller windows or transaction point, including automatic teller machines. Circulation 1. Perimeter Drive shall have a 100' right -of -way, and a 56' pavement width. 2. Perimeter Loop Road shall have a 60' right -of -way, and a 36' pavement width. 3. All other local public access streets shall have a 60' right -of -way, and a 32' pavement width, which widens towards Avery- Muirfield Drive to a 80' right -of- way and a 55' pavement width at the west end of the site's frontage. 4. Opposing curb cuts on Perimeter Drive and the Perimeter Loop Road shall be offset no less than 100' (as measured from the driveway's centerline) or directly aligned wherever possible consistent with prudent traffic engineering principles and practices, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineers. Waste, Refuse Storage and Equipment 1. All waste and refuse shall be containerized and fully screened from view in accordance with the Dublin Zoning Code. 2. Except as otherwise permitted by this development text or the Dublin Zoning Code, no materials, supplies, equipment or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of a parcel outside a permitted structure. Permitted outside storage shall not be located in pedestrian spaces unless permitted under the Dublin Zoning Code. 3. All grocery carts shall be stored in cart corrals as approved by Planning Commission as part of the Final Development Plan or inside a principal building. Page 4 of 7 Proposed Development Text As submitted to City Council September 13, 2010 - redline- 4. There shall be no outside sales of retail merchandise around the fuel station kiosk. Landscaping: 1. All landscaping shall conform to the Dublin Zoning Code. 2. In addition, landscaping within the Perimeter Loop Road setback, Perimeter Drive and Mercedes Drive shall include a continuous three foot hedge with stone pilaster fifty feet on center with street trees planted fifty feet on center within the R.O.W. and planted +1 from R.O.W. 3. Street trees for the subarea will be selected from Appendix E, Group A, of the Dublin Planning and Zoning Code. Architecture: The architectural design of the buildings shall be consistent with the architectural elevation plans submitted with the preliminary development plan. The development shall be constructed with the same architectural style and roof treatment with the exception of service corridors. The facade shall consist of brick and manufactured stone and the sloped roof shall be constructed of cedar wood shake shingles. The brick shall be selected from the approved Perimeter Center palette. The manufactured stone shall be "Ohio limestone (buff)" by manufacturer Carriage Hill Stone or approved equal and used throughout the project as a water table and as a facade treatment in select areas. The store front system shall be designed in a historic style using windows with mullions and raised panel details. The roof slops shall be 8/12, 10/12 or 12/12 pitch depending upon location of the roof element. The rear areas of the building shall be given special treatment so as to present an architecturally appropriate facade to the traveling public. The rear walls of buildings shall be constructed of stucco or synthetic stucco in order to complement the architectural style found on the front facade and scoring and/or lights or other relief elements shall be used to break up the back of the center. Screening to a height of six (6) feet shall be placed along the west property line of Subarea F4 to provide additional screening for the north elevations of these buildings. Further, there shall also be a hedge of bushes along the front of the shopping center walkway similar to those along the rights -of -way within the subject area that shall provide continuity with the entire area and an architectural feature that enhances the appearance of the development. Brick pavers, scored concrete, benches, bollards and street lamps shall be incorporated into select areas of the walkway to provide variety and interest for pedestrian traffic. With the exception of service corridors that are screened, the buildings shall have the same degree of exterior finish on all sides. Page 5 of 7 Proposed Dcvclopmcnt Text As submitted to City Council September 13, 2010 - redline- No merchandise shall be stacked along the interior of the grocery store in front of windows higher than the height of the window sill or three feet, whichever is lower. Signs and Graphics All signs shall comply with the Dublin Zoning Code unless varied by this text or approved preliminary or final development plan. Perimeter Retail Center signage: 1. Each tenant store front is limited to one externally illuminated wall sign and one projecting sign. The background color of wall signs and projecting signs shall be selected from the existing Perimeter Center palette of trim colors or a compatible color approved administratively. Sign panel colors shall match the background color of that particular tenant's wall sign. The sign color shall be aesthetically compatible with the awning fabric. All wall and projecting signs shall meet Code relative to permitted sign face area and wall signs may not exceed 16 feet in height. Wall sign faces shall not exceed one square foot in area for each one lineal foot in store frontage not to exceed 80 square feet. Sign color maximums shall meet the Dublin Zoning Code. 2. Projecting sign faces shall not exceed three square feet in area and shall be of uniform size and design. 3. Goose neck fixtures for sign lighting shall be comprised of the same exterior finish and color throughout the shopping center. 4. All wall and hanging signs shall have "gold" (Chroma — Gold) letters on a dark colored background. 5. The grocery store shall be permitted an internally illuminated wall sign at a maximum height of 26' above the finished walkway which shall consist of the name of the grocery store (100 sq. ft. in size). Additional permitted signage shall include a three auxiliary wall signs of 28 sq. ft. for the grocery store located along the front fagade of the grocery store. Each sign and shall adhere to the wall signage criteria established by this text and the Dublin Zoning Code. 6. Drive -thru signage shall be permitted on the front fagade of the canopy and shall adhere to the wall signage criteria established by this text and the Dublin Zoning Code. Directional entry and exit signs shall be permitted as shown on the final development plan. Page 6 of 7 Proposed Development Text As submitted to City Council September 13, 2010 - redline- 7. A single monument sign will be permitted along Perimeter Loop Road to identify a fuel station and provide gasoline pricing information to the public and will be installed only with the approval of a conditional use for the fuel station by City Council. The sign shall not exceed six feet in height and ten foot in width with the sign and pricing information permitted on both sides of the sign. The maximum area of sign per side shall be 20 square feet. The sign has materials shall match the retail center materials and the sign colors shall match those employed by the grocery store. Sign color maximums shall meet the Dublin Zoning Code. 8. No signs shall be applied to or mounted within three feet behind windows for the purpose of outdoor or exterior advertising or tenant identification. Applicant Signature & Date Page 7 of 7 0 5 z 0 a U U A rs7 F Q A VVV W r F� V W EXISTING BUILDING AND F STRUCTURE. Z d CLEAR WINDOW FLUORESCENT LIGHTING CLEAR WINDOW BEYOND ALL INTERIOR SURFACES TO BE FINISHED WITH GYP. BOARD AND - -- PAINTED WHITE. W PLYWOOD ON CANOPY c Z STRUCTURE o ¢ a z a a W �E� °z � xa a a ACCESS PANEL z41 Z NEW CANOPY PIER BEYOND a A ~ W p W cQ W a DATE March 8, 2010 DATE: 09 MCG JOB #: 08347/01 TOWER SECTION DETAIL GIANT EAGLE #6520 (PERIMETER LOOP) SCALE DATE REVISIONS Giant Eagle DUBLIN, OHIO • N.T.S. JOB NO. 7100 East Pleasant Valley Road, Suite 120 © MCG ARCHITECTS 2006 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Cleveland, Ohio 44131 2009 -0152 NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject to F 216.520.1551 CJ 216.520.1567 adjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, and SHEET Governmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties , of any kind are given or implied by the Architect. mcgarchilecture.com am A300b z 0 5 0 a U U A W Q A T.O. ROOF ELEV. 38' -8" AFF W a C7 , r1 .- �1 W d T.O. ROOF ELEV. 29' -2" AFF = TY FOR ENLARGED DETAIL — = — - CLEAR GLAZING, TYP. SEE SHEET A302 _ _wrz „Yr_ti= _LVr - =;� -- -` - = =' J UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE T.O. ROOF 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i t , I =_ =_ == --_ _ ------ o W d _= = A B.O. SOFFIT U a ELEV. 10' -0” AFF ] - -_ - - -- - �: r h liffiffilw z w a a cc W p o a w� � W FINISH FLOOR ELEV. 0' -0" AFF a A Q ~ W A SPANDREL GLAZING A W �Fd Pik >4 W z U � � a DATE September 8, 2010 DATE: 09/08/10 MCG.JOB #: 08.347.01 WEST ELEVATION GIANT EAGLE #6520 (PERIMETER LOOP) SCALE REVISIONS • N.T.S. Giant Eagle DUBLIN, OHIO 7100 East Pleasant Valley Road, Suite 120 JOB NO. © MCC ARCHITECTS 2006 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Cleveland, Ohio 44131 2009 -0152 NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject to F 216.520.1551 CJ 216.520.1567 adjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, and SHEET Governmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties , of any kind are given or implied by the Architect. mcgarchiteeture.eom am A301 a CITY OF DUBLIN.. Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 Phone: 614 -410 -4400 • Fax: 614- 410 -4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Terry Foegler, City Manager T/ Date: August 19, 2010 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director, Land Use and Long Range Planning Summary Re: Ordinance 3 1 -10 - Rezoning - Perimeter Center Shopping Center /Giant Eagle (Case No. 09- 115Z /PDP) Ordinance 31 -10 is a request for review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan for 15.19 acres from PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter Center, Subarea F) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Perimeter Center, Subarea F4). If approved, the rezoning would permit the expansion of the existing Giant Eagle grocery store, an increase in the amount of outdoor dining areas in the shopping center, and provide for conditional use approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for a pharmacy drive -thru for the grocery store and a possible future fuel station. History The Perimeter Center Planned Commerce District, originally approved in 1988, included a large expanse between Avery - Muirfield Drive and Emerald Parkway, divided into subareas A through M. Permitted uses include commercial, industrial, residential, and office. Subarea F, the subject of this rezoning/preliminary development plan, was originally zoned for an enclosed shopping mall in excess of 250,000 square feet. In 1994, a rezoning/preliminary development plan was approved that modified Subarea F for an unenclosed, 250,000- square -foot retail center with a grocery store and freestanding multi- tenant buildings. A subsequent rezoning in 1995 increased the square footage of the grocery store from 76,000 to 85,000 square feet, in accordance with the final development plan that was approved in December of 1994 by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Description The site is located on the north side of Perimeter Loop Road, approximately 430 feet east of the intersection with Avery- Muirfield Drive. The irregularly shaped parcel contains no topographic feature and includes a shopping center along the east boundary with the Giant Eagle grocery store as the main tenant, two multi- tenant retail buildings in the north portion of the site, a stand -alone ATM in the southwest corner, and a garage for the Craughwell Village condominiums in the southeast. Memo re. Ordinance 31 -10 -Rezoning -Perimeter Center -Giant Eagle August 19, 2010 Page 2 of 6 A 732 -space parking lot is located in the western portion of the site. The main access is from Perimeter Loop Road with an entry feature including a fountain and landscaping, and a landscape median dividing the ingress /egress lanes. Additional access points are on Perimeter Drive to the north with a landscaped median and a 220 -foot section of Mercedes Drive (private) to the south portion of the site. Service court and parking spaces are located behind the buildings. The site includes a landscape hedge with intermittent pillars along Perimeter Loop Road (as required in the development text) and several trees on either side of the main entrance as part of the entry feature. Process Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development District requires approval of a development text to serve as the zoning regulation for the development requirements noted; the Zoning Code covers all other requirements. This development text establishes a new Planned Unit Development District (Perimeter Center, Subarea 174) with development regulations that apply only to the 15.196 acres of this Subarea. However, the site will remain within the Perimeter Center PUD. While the existing Subarea F does not specifically address the Monro Muffler and Bob Sumerel Tire sites, the two parcels are governed by the Subarea F development text. The applicant was unable to secure the owners' permission to include both sites in the modification to the existing Subarea. Therefore, this rezoning will create a new Subarea F4. The existing Subarea F will remain at a lesser acreage to maintain development standards for the Monro Muffler and Bob Sumerel Tire sites. Neighborhood Contact The Planning and Zoning Commission expressed concern about the potential negative effects of the pharmacy drive -thru on adjacent residents. The applicant contacted the homeowners' association, conducted door -to -door contacts, and mailed a letter to the owners of each unit, all in an attempt to ensure the residents, owners and their representatives were aware of this proposal. Planning sent meeting notices to the condominium owners within the building adjacent to the pharmacy drive -thru, to each individual address for the Manor at Craughwell Village and posted meeting notices at each mailbox kiosk. Previously, the applicant met with residents of the Manor at Craughwell Village condominiums. The residents' main concerns were current traffic circulation with employees using the condominium development's drive to reach the back of the shopping center. The applicant has agreed to provide a gate to prevent this movement. The residents also requested, and the applicant will provide a sidewalk connecting the condos to the shopping center along the southern property line. Planning and Zoning Commission Reviews The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this rezoning request and simultaneous final development plan and conditional use requests at three different meetings. Following is a summary of the Commission's reviews of this proposal. Memo re. Ordinance 31 -10 - Rezoning - Perimeter Center - Giant Eagle August 19, 2010 Page 3 of 6 April 8, 2010 This meeting was the Commission's initial review. Concerns included the proposed uses in the development text, vehicle stacking for the fuel station and pharmacy drive -thru, signs, and cart corrals. Other comments related to changes to the building fagade; the additional signs for the grocery store; the layout, size, stacking and circulation pattern, architecture, height and landscaping for the proposed fuel station; the proximity of the proposed pharmacy drive -thru to residential uses; and the proposed shopping center parking requirements. At the request of the applicant, the Commission tabled all three application components. June 10, 2010 The Commission suggested that the fuel station be included as a conditional use in the development text, but requested the removal of the fuel station from the preliminary development plan. Accordingly, the Commission did not undertake any further review of the fuel station's preliminary layout, architecture or signs. As a result, the review of the fuel station will be accomplished by a conditional use application to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the time a fuel station is desired by the applicant. The Commission further instructed the applicant to include dramatic changes to the building fagade of the expanded grocery store to avoid making it appear as vacant store fronts. The revisions included a tower -like element reminiscent of the grocery store entrance. The Commission commented on the notification process for condominiums and instructed the applicant to work with Planning to ensure that the owners and residents were notified. At the request of the applicant, the Commission tabled all three application components. July 22, 2010 The Commissioners requested that the applicant include requirements for matching patio furniture, permitted three additional wall signs for the grocery store, and limited the height of merchandise displays against the interior windows. At the request of the applicant, the Commission tabled the final development plan and conditional use to allow time for architectural changes to visually diminish the sign band appearance along the store's front fagade. The final development plan and conditional use requests are scheduled for Commission review on August 19, 2010. The Commissioners generally supported the other aspects of the application and appreciated the applicant's and Planning's efforts in notifying surrounding property owners regarding the plans for a pharmacy drive -thru. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation The Commission recommended approval of the rezoning to City Council at the July 22, 2010 meeting with four conditions: Memo re. Ordinance 31 -10 - Rezoning - Perimeter Center - Giant Eagle August 19, 2010 Page 4 of 6 1) That the proposed text be modified to permit three auxiliary 28- square -foot wall signs for the grocery store in addition to the main grocery store identification sign; 2) That the Subarea map be revised and updated to reflect the new Subarea F4; 3) That the proposed text be modified to limit merchandise to the height of the window sill or three feet, whichever is lower; and 4) That the proposed text be modified to require matching patio furniture and fencing of a black, wrought iron design coordinated throughout the shopping center with flower boxes, if appropriate. Subsequent to the recommendation of approval to City Council at the July 22, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant has modified the proposed development text to address all recommended conditions. Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Details Proposed Development Text The applicant has made significant changes to the previously approved development text to reflect current development patterns and requirements, while incorporating previously granted development details, particularly in terms of signs. Use The proposed development text refers to the permitted uses in the Zoning Code's Community Commercial and Suburban Office and Institutional Districts, specifically listing ten use categories that include permitted commercial and office uses. The text also permits outdoor dining areas up to 3,000 square feet, which can be allotted by the developer to tenants within the shopping center. Other permitted uses are outdoor display areas for live plant material as regulated by Code. The proposed development text requires conditional use approval for a fuel station, drive- thrus, motor vehicle rentals, daycares, educational services (tutoring), animal care facilities, and theaters. Density /Lot Coverage The proposed text specifies a maximum building square footage of 170,000 and limits any single tenant to 99,850 square feet of retail on the ground floor, and up to 20,000 square feet of second floor mezzanine space not open to the public. The proposed maximum lot coverage is 90 percent; 10 percent greater than the existing text. Parking Code requires 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA) or 928 parking spaces. The proposed text requires parking at four spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA for the first floor, and exempts second floor mezzanine area and outdoor dining areas from the parking requirement. The parking requirement using the development text is 595 spaces and the preliminary development plan indicates 630 spaces (the final parking number included the fuel Memo re. Ordinance 3 1 -10 - Rezoning - Perimeter Center - Giant Eagle August 19, 2010 Page 5 of 6 station to account for the potential loss of spaces should the fuel station be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission). Planning agrees that the Code required parking ratio is excessive, and a ratio of four spaces per 1,000 square feet is widely accepted as an adequate requirement for parking for shopping center developments. Second floor and outdoor seating areas are minimal and should not have a significant effect on available parking. Sims The proposed text has individual sign requirements for the shopping center, grocery store, fuel station, and pharmacy drive -thru. References to shopping center identification signs have been eliminated and will be regulated by Code. Appendices A and D of the approved development text include graphic and sign specifications from the 1996 final development plan, none of which are changing. The proposed development text permits two signs per tenant - a wall sign and a projecting sign - and eliminates previously permitted awning signs, thereby limiting each tenant to two signs instead of three. Specific design requirements are provided for these signs, including a specific gold color for the lettering. The wall signs may be installed at a maximum height of 16 feet. The text permits an internally illuminated 100- square -foot wall sign at a maximum height of 26 feet above the finished walkway (the existing Giant Eagle sign). The proposed text requires the pharmacy drive -thru sign to meet the wall sign standards for the shopping center and permits it to be located on the drive -thru canopy. As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission the text also permits three additional 28- square -foot wall signs for uses located within the grocery store, which must also meet the wall sign design standards for the shopping center. The proposed development text permits a monument sign for the fuel station not exceeding six feet in height, ten feet in width, and 20 square feet in area. The sign base materials must match the building materials of the shopping center. The proposed development text prohibits exterior TV screens for the fuel station. Final Development Plan The applicant has requested simultaneous review by the Commission of a final development plan for all planned site improvements (with the exception of the fuel station), including the grocery store expansion and the conditional use for the drive -thru pharmacy at the grocery store. Because the Commission specifically requested that any details regarding the fuel station be omitted from the preliminary development plan, the final development plan fulfills both requirements and is attached to this ordinance. The final development plan has not been approved as this packet is distributed, but is scheduled for Commission review on August 19, 2010. If approved, it would not be effective until the rezoning/preliminary development plan is approved and the ordinance effective date is reached. Memo re. Ordinance 3 1 -10 - Rezoning - Perimeter Center - Giant Eagle August 19, 2010 Page 6 of 6 Should Council make significant changes to the development text and/or preliminary development plan, the final development plan would have to be changed to reflect Council's actions (as needed). Recommendation Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 31 -10 at the second reading/public hearing on September 13, 2010. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 31 -10 Passed . 20 AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 15.19 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 430 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH AVERY - MUIRFIELD DRIVE WITHIN PERIMETER CENTER, FROM PCD, PLANNED COMMERCE DISTRICT (PERIMETER CENTER, SUBAREA F) TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PERIMETER CENTER, SUBAREA F4, PERIMETER CENTER SHOPPING CENTER/GIANT EAGLE — CASE 09- 115Z/PDP) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of its elected members concurring: Section 1 . That the following described real estate (see attached legal description marked Exhibit "A ") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2 . That the application, Exhibit `B ", including the list of contiguous and effected 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 2010. Mayor - Presiding Officer ATTEST: Clerk of Council Post =Road PCD PCD P_ostRoad R -� 1 - PCD I I U PCD R -12 PCD PCD PCD PCD R -12 R -12 P erk r»�termDrN Perimeter_Drive M PCD PCD PCD PCD PLR O PCD v PCI 101W Per �hi PC D <o �o o� PCD PCD PLR PLR 'D PLR � II .33 WB � 33 -EB o; PIP PCD �: PIP -- z 09- 115FDP /CU N City of Dublin Final Development Plan/ Conditional Use n Land Use and Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle Long Range Planning 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road mmmmmmmmKzzzzz= Feet 0 250 500 CITY OF DUBLIN,.. Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone / TDD: 614 -410 -4600 Fax: 614 -410 -4747 Web Site: www dublin oh us February 2009 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATION (Code Section 153 232) I. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: ❑ Informal Review ❑ Final Plat (Section 152.085) ❑ Concept Plan ® Conditional Use (Section 153.056(A)(1)) (Section 153.236) ❑ Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning ❑ Corridor Development District (CDD) (Section 153.053) (Section 153.115) © Final Development Plan (Section 153.053(E)) Amended Final Development Plan 12 (Section 153.053(E)) ❑ Standard District Rezoning (Section 153.018) ❑ Preliminary Plat (Section 152.015) ❑ Corridor Development District (CDD) Sign (Section 153.115) ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Right -of -Way Encroachment ❑ Other (Please Specify): Please utilize the applicable Supplemental Application Requirements sheet for additional submittal requirements that will need to accompany this application form. II. PROPERTY INFORMATION This section must be completed. PropertyAddress(es): 6644 -748 Peri Loop Road Tax ID /Parcel Number(s): 273 -00783 Parcel Size(s) (Acres): 15.541 acres Existing Land Use /Development: Shopping Center IF APPLICABLE, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: Proposed Land Use /Development: Redevelopment of the existing shopping center with addition of pharmacy drive thru and fueling station Total acres affected by application: 15.541 acres Ill. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER(Sl: Please attach additional sheets if needed. Name (individual or Organization): DDR Continental L.P., an Ohio Limited Partnership Mailing Address: 3300 Enterpri §e Parkway FI LE C 011 (Street, 1 City, State, zip Code) Beachwood, Ohio 44122 Daytime Telephone: (216) 755 -5500 Fax: (216) 755 -1500 y� T � 1, p� Email or Alternate Contact Information: www . DEL 2 2 1009 CITY OFDUSLIN Page 1 of 3 , OW IV. APPLICANT(S): This is the person(s) who is submitting the application if different than the property owner(s) listed in part III. Please complete if applicable. Name: Giant Eagle Inc. Applicant is also property owner: yes El no ❑ Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): Tenant Mailing Address: 216 Kap Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15238 (Street, City, State, Zip Code) pp g Daytime Telephone: (412) 967 -4919 Fax: (412) 967 -4984 Email or Alternate Contact Information: pat.avolio@gianteagle.com V. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF APPLICANT / PROPERTY OWNER: This is the person(s) who is submitting the application on behalf of the applicant listed in part IV or property owner listed in part III. Please complete if applicable. Name: Ben Hale /Jack Reynolds, Smith & Hale LLC Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): Attorneys Mailing Address: (Street, City, State, Zip Code) 37 W.. Broad St., Ste. 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215 Daytime Telephone: (614) 221 -4255 Fax: (614) 221 -4409 Email or Alternate Contact Information: jreynolds@smithandhale.com VI. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT or REPRESENTATIVE(S): If the applicant is not the property owner, this section must be completed and notarized. Daniel M. Herman SOA V Presid the owner, hereby authorize Ben Hale /Jack Reynolds to act as my applicant or 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 :n� ~�&1 ;,--- I Date: / -) , // n Check this box If the Authorization for Owner's ADnlieant or RenrP%antativPrSI iS attarhad ac a canarafa rincumant Subscribed and sworn before me this : / day of m , 20 �• State of �r� { ANDREA L. MESTEK Notary Public - State of Ohio County of 'C{.11.111 hd 11 Notary Public Lake County ..Y My Commission Expires VII. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by i�yi;i pr>asa ` esser0iW0prot4s24M2 application. The Owner /Applicant, as noted below, hereby authorizes City repro seiltatiVes,fG _ islz p aph and post a notice on the property described in this application, i. I Jac Reynolds the owner or authorized representative, hereby authorize City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. I Signature of applicant or authorized representative: A v /44e/L---I Date: Wo / I Page 2 of 3 VIII. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The Owner /Applicant acknowledges the approval of this request for review by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission and /or Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said Owner /Applicant. I Jack Reynolds ' the owner or authorized representative, acknowledge that approval of this request does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said OwnerlApplicant. Signature of applicant or authorized representative: / k / I Date: / IX. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: This section muit be completed and notarized. I Jack Reynolds , the owner or authorized representative, have read and understand the contents of this application. The information contained in this application, attached exhibits and other information submitted is complete and in all respects trug*d correct, to jhe best of my knowledge and belief. I Signature of applicant or authorized representative I Date:` "```` 417zN / � ZZZZZZ !!! llliii Subscribed and sworn to before me this State of ) r County o f ` . kn day of Notary Public NATALIE C. PATRICK ' Metary Putlic, State of Ohio !Ay toem ? +lien Ex0lses 09 -04-10 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Amount Received:.- ( Application No:61 J i (� P &Z Date(s): l Z 2 - 0 P&Z Action: Receipt No: ? r�3C�( �j Map Zone: Date Received: i 7 �'� a C4 Received By: r City Council (First Reading): b Z 3 . `3 City Council (Second Reading): 1 - k0 City Council Action: ::Ordinance Number: f Type of Request: t/t`6 P YL PUrL tti N, T, E, W (Circle) Side of: EL N, S�E, III (Circle) Side of Nearest Intersection: Distance from Nearest I ntersectl o n: � 7 Existing Zoning District: FC/P Requested Zoning District: q�v� Page 3 of 3 obsvip1 [I Nu. 98160053 _�M EXHIBIT A 7J 63 E JMIn Cir�l" F.E., P.S. Fran coumy PARCEL I 07 / 3) of 0rta�� SITUATED IN THE STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, C IN, IN VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NO, 2999; B13ING A PORTION OF RESERVE "A" IN PERIMETER CENTER, AS SHOWN OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOR 72, PAGES 47 AND 48, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUITJ'Y, OHIO, AND BEING A PORTION OF AN ORIGINAL 44.482 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED AS PARCEL 1 TO MUIRFIELD DRIVE PARTNERS BY DEED OF RECORD IN OFFICIAL RECORDS VOLUME 19322, PAGE B09, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO, AND BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING, FOR REFERENCE, AT A POINT AT THE EAST END OF A CURVE CONNECTING THE SOUTH LINE OF PERIMETER DRIVE (100 FEET WIDE) WITH THE EAST LINE OF AVERY ROAD (VARIABLE WIDTH) AND IN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A "y THENCE N 85 DEG. 22' 22" E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF PERIMETER DRIVE AND ALONG A PORTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A" A DISTANCE OF 631.35 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREIN INTENDED TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING N 95 DEG. 22' 22" E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF PERIMETER DRIVE AND ALONG A PORTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A' A DISTANCE OF 66.86 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, DATA OF WHICH IS RADIUS EQUALS 34.50 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 25 DEG. 46' 17 ', A CHORD DISTANCE OF 15.39 FEET BEARING S 8 DEG. 15' 31" W TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE S 4 DEG. 37 38" E A DISTANCE OF 242.83 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 34.50 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 90 DEG. 00' 00 ", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 48.79 FEET BEARING S 49 DEG. 37' 36" E TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 85 DEG. 22' 22" E A DISTANCE OF 107.16 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 150.50 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 60 DEG. 00' 00 ', A CHORD DISTANCE OF 150.50 FEET BEARING S 64 DEG. 37' 38" E TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE S 34 DEC. 37' 38" E A DISTANCE OF 107.61 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 50.00 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 30 DEC. 00' 00", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 25.88 FEET BEARING S 19 DEG. 37' 38" E TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE S 4 DEC. 37' 38" E A DISTANCE OF 93.42 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SEC AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 50.00 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 45 DEG. 00' 00 ', A CHORD DISTANCE OF 38.27 FEET BEARING S 27 DEG. 07' 38" B TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE S 49 DEG. 37' 38" E A DISTANCE OF 165.60 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; In9:A- /I4ry04 1 RECEIVED �ECZ.:zoU CITY OF DUSUN LONG RANGE PI VG EXHIBIT A -THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 50.00 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 45 DEG. 00' 00 A CHORD DISTANCE OF 36.27 FEET BEARING S 27 DEG. 07 38" E TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE S 4 DEG. 37' 38" E A DISTANCE OF 211.72 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET; THENCE S 2 DEG. 29' 52" W A DISTANCE OF 60.62 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET; THENCE S 4 37' 38" E A DISTANCE OF 362.12 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET IN A SOUTH LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 44.462 ACRE TRACT AND IN THE NORTH LINE OF AN ORIGINAL 5.000 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED OUT OF SAID RESERVE "A" TO DWAYNE AND PEGGY HAWKYNS BY DEED OF RECORD IN OFFICIAL RECORDS VOLUME 15975, PAGE B01, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO. THENCE S 85 DEG. 46' 38" W ALONG A PORTION OF A SOUTH LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 44.482 ACRE TRACT AND ALONG A PORTION OF THE NORTH LING OF SAID ORIGINAL 5.000 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 338.74 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVED SOUTH LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 44.482 ACRE TRACT, ALONG THE CURVED NORTH LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 5.000 ACRE TRACT AND WITH A CURVE TO THE LEFT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 180.00 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 36 DEG. 24' 34 A CHORD DISTANCE OF 112.47 FEET BEARING S 67 DEG. 34' 21" W TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE S 49 DEG. 22' 04" W ALONG A SOUTH LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 44.482 ACRE TRACT AND ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 5.000 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 52.79 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG A CURVED LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 44.482 ACRE TRACT, ALONG A CURVED WEST LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 5.000 ACRE TRACT AND WITH A CURVE TO THE LEFT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 30.00 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 90 DEG. 00' 00 ", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 42.43 FEET BEARING S 4 DEG. 22' 04" W TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET IN THE NORTHEAST LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD (60 FEET WIDE), IN A WEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A ". AT A CORNER OF SAID ORIGINAL 44.482 ACRE TRACT AND AT A CORNER OF SAID ORIGINAL 5.000 ACRE TRACT; THENCE N 40 DEG. 37' 56" W ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD, ALONG A SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A" AND ALONG A SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 44.482 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 231.01 FRET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CURVED EAST LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD, ALONG A CURVED WEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A ", ALONG A CURVED WEST LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 44.462 ACRE TRACT AND WITH A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 370.00 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 25 DEG. 45' 00 ", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 164.89 FEET BEARING N 27 DEG. 45' 26" W TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 14 DEG. 52' 56" W ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE PERIMETER LOOP ROAD, ALONG A WEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE " A" AND ALONG A NEST LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 44.482 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 297.48 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A CORNER OF SAID RESERVE "A" AND AT A CORNER OF SAID ORIGINAL 44.482 ACRE TRACT; THENCE N 10 DEG. 50' 00" W ALONG THE EAST LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD, ALONG A WEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A" AND ALONG A NEST LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 44.482 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 111.10 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF NON- CURVATURE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVED NORTHEAST LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD, ALONG A PORTION OF A CURVED SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A ", ALONG A CURVED SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 44.482 ACRE TRACT AND WITH A CURVE TO THE LEFT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 400.00 FEET AND SUB -DELTA EQUALS 26 DEG. 58' 04 ", A SUB -CHORD DISTANCE arnmw:nSw-ns OF 186.54 FEET BEARING N 34 DEG. -,' 02" W TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET A'i . EXHIBIT A CORNER OF SAID ORIGINAL 44.482 ACRE TRACT AND AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF A 1.680 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO BANCOHIO NATIONAL BANK BY DEED OF RECORD IN OFFICIAL RECORDS VOLUME 19380, PAGE FOS, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO. THENCE N 42 DEG. 11' 56" E RADIAL TO THE LAST SAID CURVE, ALONG A WEST LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 44.482 ACRE TRACT AND ALONG AN EAST LINE OF SAID 1.680 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 51.43 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG A CURVED WEST LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 44.482 ACRE TRACT, ALONG A CURVED EAST LINE OF SAID 1.680 ACRE TRACT AND WITH A CURVE TO THE LEFT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 125.00 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 46 DEG. 49' 34 ", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 99.34 FEET BEARING N SB DEC. 41' 09" E TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY; 77MCZ N 4 DEG. 37' 36" W ALONG A PORTION OF A WEST LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 44.482 ACRE TRACT AND ALONG A PORTION OF AN EAST LINE OF SAID 1.680 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 217.63 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET; THENCE N 85 DEG. 22' 22" E A DISTANCE OF 196.44 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET A A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 34.50 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 90 DEG. 00' 00 " , A CHORD DISTANCE OF 48.79 FEET BEARING N 40 DEG. 22' 22" E TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 4 DEG. 37' 36" W A DISTANCE OF 242.83 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 34.50 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 25 DEG. 46' 17 ", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 15.39 FEET BEARING N 17 DEG. 30' 46" W TO THE TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 18.470 ACRES OF LAND MORE OR LESS. THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY RICHARD J. BULL, OHIO SURVEYOR NO. 4723, OF C.F. BIRD i R.J. BULL, INC., CONSULTING ENGINEERS 6 SURVEYORS, WORTHINGTON, OHIO, FROM AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION IN NOVEMBER, 1994. BASIS OF BEARINGS IS THE SOUTH LINE OF PERIMETER DRIVE, BEING N 85 DEG. 22' 22" E, AS SHOWN OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 72, PAGES 47 AND 46, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PREMISES: SITUATED IN THE STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, CITY OF DUBLIN, IN VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NO. 2999, AND BEING A PORTION OF AN 18.470 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED OUT OF RESERVE "A" IN PERIMETER CENTER, AS SHOWN OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 72, PAGES 47 AND 46, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO, SAID 18.470 ACRE TRACT HAVING BEEN CONVEYED TO PERIMETER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY DEED OF RECORD IN OFFICIAL RECORDS VOLUME 28161, PAGE E08, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO, AND BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS- BEGINNING, FOR REFERENCE, AT A POINT AT THE EAST END OF A CURVE CONNECTING THE NORTH LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD (80 FEET WIDE) WITH THE CURVED EAST LINE OF AVERY- MUIRFIELD DRIVE (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVERY ROAD) (VARIABLE WIDTH) AND AT A CORNER OF SAID RESERVE "A•; THENCE N 85 DEG. 22' 22" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD AND ALONG A SOUTH LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A" A DISTANCE OF 38.69 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE CURVED NORTHEAST LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD, ALONG A CURVED SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A" AND WITH A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 400.00 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 73 DEG. 47. 38 ", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 480.30 FEET BEARING S 57 DEG. 43' 49" E TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF w."Zon- lintwn NON - TANGENCY; THENCE S 10 DEG. 50' 00" E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD (VARIABLE WIDTH_), ALONG A WEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A' AND ALONG A WEST LINE OF SAID 18.470 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 111.10 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A CORNER OF SAID RESERVE 'A" AND AT A CORNER OF SAID 18.470 ACRE TRACT; THENCE S 14 DEG. 52' 56" E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD (60 FEET WIDE), ALONG A WEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A" AND ALONG A WEST LINE OF SAID 16.470 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 297.46 FEET TO A 3/4 -INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CURVED NORTHEAST LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD, ALONG A PORTION OF A CURVED SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A", ALONG A PORTION OF A CURVED SOUTWEST LINE OF SAID 18.470 ACRE TRACT AND WITH A CURVE TO THE LEFT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 370.00 FEET AND SUB -DELTA EQUALS 1 DEG. 23' 15 A SUB -CHORD DISTANCE OF 8.96 FEET BEARING S 15 DEG. 34' 34" E TO A POINT AT THE TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREIN INTENDED TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE N 85 DEG. 22' 22" E A DISTANCE OF 307.36 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 29.50 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 90 DEG. 00' 00 ', A CHORD DISTANCE OF 41.72 FEET BEARING S 49 DEG. 37' 3B" E TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE S 4 DEG. 37' 38' E A DISTANCE OF 132.37 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 29.50 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 79 DEG. 01' 09 A CHORD DISTANCE OF 37.54 FEET BEARING S 34 DEG. 52' 56' W TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 215.50 FEET AND SUB -DELTA EQUALS 25 DEG. 01' 27 ", A SUB -CHORD DISTANCE OF 93.37 FEET BEARING S 61 DEG. 52' 47" W TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE S 49 DEG. 22' 04' N A DISTANCE OF 52.79 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE= THENCE WESTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 30.00 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 90 DEG. 00' 00 ", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 42.43 FEET BEARING N 85 DEC. 37' 56' W TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY IN THE NORTHEAST LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD, IN A SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE 'A" AND IN A SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID 18.470 ACRE TRACT; THENCE N 40 DEG. 37' 56" N ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD, ALONG A PORTION OF A SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A' AND ALONG A PORTION OF SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID 18.470 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 135.50 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CURVED NORTHEAST LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD, ALONG A PORTION OF THE CURVED SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE 'A', ALONG A PORTION OF THE CURVED SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID 16.470 ACRE TRACT AND WITH A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 370.00 FEET AND SUB -DELTA EQUALS 24 DEG. 21' 45 A SUB -CHORD DISTANCE OF 156.14 FEET BEARING N 26 DEG. 27' 04' W TO THE TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 1.476 ACRES OF LAND MORE OR LESS. THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY RICHARD J. BULL, OHIO SURVEYOR NO. 4723, OF C.F. BIRD & R.J. BULL, INC., CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, COLUMBUS, OHIO, FROM AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY OF SAID 18.470 ACRE TRACT PERFORMED UNDER HIS SUPERVISION IN NOVEMBER, 1994. BASIS OF BEARINGS IS THE SOUTH LINE OF PERIMETER DRIVE, BRING N 85 DEG. 22' 22" E, A SHOWN OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 72, PAGES 47 AND 48, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, 0910. EXHIBIT A m.TRraN.:f"-Jrs EXHIBIT A FURTHER•EXCEPTING THEREFROM A CERTAIN 1.594 ACRE PARCEL MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: SITUATED IN THE STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, CITY OF DUBLIN, IN VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NO. 2999; BEING A PORTION OF RESERVE "A" IN PERIMETER CENTER, AS SHOWN OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 72, PAGES 47 AND 48, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO, AND BEING A PORTION OF AN ORIGINAL 16.470 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO PERIMETER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY DEED OF RECORD IN OFFICIAL RECORDS VOLUME 26161, PAGE E08 BEGINNING, FOR REFERENCE AT A POINT AT THE EAST END OF A CURVE CONNECTING THE SOUTH LINE OF PERIMETER DRIVE (100 FRET WIDE) WITH THE EAST LINE OF AVERY- MUIRFIELD DRIVE (FORMERLY AVERY ROAD) (VARIABLE WIDTH) AND IN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A "; THENCE N 85 DEG. 22' 22" E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF PERIMETER DRIVE AND ALONG A PORTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A" A DISTANCE OF 698.21 FEET TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE AT A CORNER OF SAID ORIGINAL 18.740 ACRE TRACT; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY ALONG EAST AND NORTH LINES SAID ORIGINAL 18.470 ACRE TRACT THE FOLLOWING THIRTEEN (13) COURSES: 1. SOUTHERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 34.50 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 25 DEG. 46' 17 A CHORD DISTANCE OF 15.39 FEET BEARING S 8 DEG. 15' 31" W TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY; 2. S 4 DEG. 37' 38" E A DISTANCE OF 242.83 FEET TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; 3. SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 34.50 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 90 DEG, 00' 00 ", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 48.79 FEET BEARING S 49 DEG. 37' 38" E TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY; 4. N 85 DEG. 22' 22" E A DISTANCE OF 107.16 FEET TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; 5. SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 150.50 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 60 DEG. 00' OD ", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 150.50 FEET BEARING S 64 DEG. 37' 38" TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY; 6. S 34 DEG. 37' 38" E A DISTANCE OF 107.61 FEET TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; 7. SOUTHERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 50.00 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 30 DEG. 00' 00 ", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 25.88 FEET BEARING S 19 DEG. 37' 38" E TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY; 8. S 4 DEG. 37. 38" E A DISTANCE OF 93.42 FEET TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; 9. SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 50.00 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 45 DEG. 00' 00 ", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 38.27 FEET BEARING S 27 DEG. 07. 38" E TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY; 10. S 49 DEG. 37' 38" E A DISTANCE OF 185.80 FEET TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; 11. SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 50.00 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 45 DEG. 00' 00 ", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 38.27 FEET BEARING S 27 DEG. 07' 38" E TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY; tt7Rm -ljzL +•us 12. S 4 DEG. 37' 38" E A DISTANCE OF 211.72 FEET TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPL T AND EXHIBIT A 13. S 2 DEG. 29' 52" W A DISTANCE OF 80.62 FEET TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET; THENCE S 4 DEG. 37' 36" E ALONG A PORTION OF AN EAST LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 18.470 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 148.12 FEET TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREIN INTENDED TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING S 4 DEG. 37' 38" E ALONG A PORTION OF AN EAST LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 18.470 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 214.00 FEET TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID ORIGINAL 18.470 ACRE TRACT AND IN A NORTH LINE OF AN ORIGINAL 5.000 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED OUT OF SAID RESERVE "A" TO DWAYNE AND PROW HAWMS BY DEED OF RECORD IN OFFICIAL RECORDS VOLUME 15975, PAGE B01, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO. THENCE S 85 DEG. 46' 38 W ALONG A PORTION OF A SOUTH LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 18.470 ACRE TRACT AND ALONG A PORTION OF A NORTH LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 5.000 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 327.00 FEET TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET; THENCE N 4 DEG. 13' 22" W PERPENDICULAR TO A SOUTH LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 18.470 ACRE TRACT AND PERPENDICULAR TO A NORTH LINE OF SAID ORIGINAL 5.000 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 211.70 FEET TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET; THENCE N 85 DEG. 22' 22" E A DISTANCE OF 325.50 FEET TO THE TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 1.594 ACRES OF LAND MORE OR LESS, THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY RICHARD J. BULL, OHIO SURVEYOR NO. 4723, OF C.F. BIRD i A.J. BULL, INC., CONSULTING ENGINEERS i SURVEYORS, COLUMBUS, OHIO, FROM AN ACTUAL, FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER HIS SUPERVISION IN OCTOBER, 199 BASIS OF BEARINGS IS THE SOUTH LINE OF PERIMETER DRIVE, BEING N B5 DEG. 22' 22" E, AS SHOWN OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 72, PAGES 47 {%ND 48, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO- TOGETHER WITH NON - EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR INGRESS, EGRESS 4 PARKING OVER THAT CERTAIN 1.476 ACRE PARCEL AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN OFFICIAL RECORDS VOLUME 29152, PAGE C04, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO. FURTHER TOGETHER WITH A NON- EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER A CERTAIN 0.574 ACRE PARCEL (MERCEDES DRIVE) AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN OFFICIAL RECORDS VOLUME 15918, PAGE C18, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO. FURTHER TOGETHER WITH A NON- EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER A CERTAIN 0.891 ACRE PARCEL (ROAD EASEMENT) AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN OFFICIAL RECORDS VOLUME 28161, PAGE EOB, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COMM, OHIO, AND BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FURTHER TOGETHER WITH A NON - EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND G ENERAL UTITLITIES OVER A CERTAIN 1.594 ACRE PARCEL AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT NO. 199710080115273, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COMM, OHIO. FURTHER TOGETHER WITH A NON- EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER A CERTAIN 0.029 ACRE PARCEL AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT NO. 199711120141901. RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO. FURTHER TOGETHER WITH A NON- EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER A CERTAIN 0.753 ACRE PARCEL AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN OFFICIAL RECORDS VOLUME 35074, PAGE BIB, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO. PARCEL II SITUATED IN THE STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, CITY OF DUBLIN, IN VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NO. 2999, AND BEING A 0.141 ACRE TRACT OF LAND FOR USE WITH AN ATM MACHINE OUT OF A 1.476 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED OUT OF RESERVE "A" IN PERIMETER CENTER, AS SHOWN OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 72, PAGES 47 AND 46, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO, SAID 1.476 ACRE TRACT HAVING BEEN CONVEYED TO PERIMETER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY DEED OF RECORD IN OFFICIAL RECORDS VOLUME 29152, PAGE CIS, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO, AND BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING, FOR REFERENCE, AT A POINT AT THE EAST END OF A CURVE CONNECTING TUB NORTH LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD (60 FEET WIDE) WITH THE CURVED EAST LINE OF AVERY MURIFIELD DRIVE (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVERY ROAD) (VARIABLE WIDTH) AND AT A CORNER OF SAID RESERVE "A'; THENCE N 65 DEG. 22' 22" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD AND ALONG A SOUTH LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A" A DISTANCE OF 38.69 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE CURVED NORTHEAST LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD, ALONG A CURVED SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A" AND WITH A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, DATA OF WHICH IS RADIUS EQUALS 400.00 FEET AND DELTA EQUALS 73 DEG. 47' 38 ', A CHORD DISTANCE OF 480.30 FEET BEARING S 57 DEG. 43' 49" E TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF NON - TANGENCY; THENCE 5 10 DEG. 50' 00" E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD (VARIABLE WID'T'H) AND ALONG A WEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A" A DISTANCE OF 111.10 FEET TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A CORNER OF SAID RESERVE "A "; THENCE S 14 DEG. 52' 56" E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD (60 FEET WIDE) AND ALONG A WEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE 'A" A DISTANCE OF 297.48 FEET TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CURVED NORTHEAST LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD, ALONG A PORTION OF A CURVED SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A" AND WITH A CURVE TO THE LEFT, DATA OF WHICH IS: RADIUS EQUALS 370.00 FEET AND SUB -DELTA EQUALS 1 DEG. 23' 15 ", A SUB -CHORD DISTANCE OF 8.96 FEET BEARING S 15 DEG. 34' 34" E TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 1.476 ACRE TRACT AND THE TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING OF TEE TRACT HEREIN INTENDED TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE N 85 DEG. 22' 22" E ALONG A PORTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID 1.476 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 84.85 FEET TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET; THENCE S 4 DEG. 37' 38" E PERPENDICULAR TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID 1.476 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 84.62 FEET TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET; THENCE S 85 DEG. 22' 22" W PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID 1.476 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 56.42 FEET TO A 3/4 INCH I.D. IRON PIPE SET IN THE CURVED EAST LINE OF PERIMETER LOOP ROAD, IN THE CURVED WEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A" AND IN THE CURVED WEST LINE OF SAID 1.476 ACRE TRACT; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE CURVED EAST LINE OF PERIMETFR LOOP ROAD, ALONG A PORTION OF THE CURVED WEST LINE OF SAID RESERVE "A', ALONG A PORTION OF A CURVED WEST LINE OF SAID 1.476 ACRE TRACT AND WITH A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, DATA OF WHICH IS RADIUS EQUALS 370.00 FEET, SUB -DELTA EQUALS 13 DEC. 51' 26 ", A SUB -CHORD DISTANCE OF 89.27 FEET BEARING N 23 DEC. 11' S4" W TO THE TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 6,138 SQUARE FEET (EQUALS 0.141 ACRE) OF LAND MORE OR LESS. THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY KEVIN L. BARTER, OHIO SURVEYOR NO. 7697, OF C.P. BIRD i R.J. BULL, INC., CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1, SURVEYORS, COLUMBUS, OHIO, FROM AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY OF SAID 1.476 ACRE TRACT PERFORMED UNDER HIS SUPERVISION IN EXHIBIT A w l"CO1N/34"M JANUARY, 1997. BASIS OF BEARING. THE SOUTH LINE OF PERIMETER DRIVE, BEING . zi EXHIBIT A AdG. 22, 22" E AS SHOWN OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 72, PAGES 47 AND 48, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO. TOGETHER WITH A NON- EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR GENERAL UTILITY PURPOSES OVER A CERTAIN 0.753 ACRE PARCEL AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN OFFICIAL RECORDS VOLUME 35074, PAGE 802, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO. FURTHER TOGETHER WITH A NON- EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR GENERAL UTILITY PURPOSES OVER A CERTAIN 0.015 ACRE PARCEL IN INSTRUMENT NO. 199112160168735, RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO. ELTROON -1 JU 91.1K OWNER APPLICANT 09 -115 PERIMETER CENTER — SUB F — GIANT EAGLE * Giant Eagle, Inc. Jackson B. Reynolds * DDR Continental LP 261 Kappa Drive Smith and Hale c/o Developer's Diversified Realty Pittsburgh, PA 15238 37 West Broad Street 3300 Enterprise Blvd. Columbus, OH 43215 Beachwood, OH 44122 OWNERS Monro Muffler Brake Tireless LP Grace Professional Building Ltd 200 Holleder Pkwy. PO Box 75113 6251 Perimeter Dr. Rochester, NY 14615 -3808 Cincinnati, OH 45275 Dublin, OH 43017 Malibu Investments Ltd. 3S Real Estate Hawkins Family Partnership Ltd. 27940 Seine Circle c/o Godard School Dwayne Hawkins Mission Viejo, CA 92692 6239 Perimeter Dr. 600134 th St. N. Dublin, OH 43017 St. Petersburg, FL 33714 Bundera LLC AERC Perimeter Lakes, Inc. 2075 Fair Ave. FHIT LLC 5025 Swetland Ct. Columbus, OH 43209 6695 Perimeter Loop Rd. Richmond Heights, OH 44143 Dublin, OH 43017 Rennob Inc. Timothy Reardon FW and Benjamin Englefield 5380 Havenhill Dr. Perimeter Emerald LLC 447 James Pkwy Ste. 1 Columbus, OH 43235 PO Box 165 Heath, OH 43056 Dublin, OH 43017 Paul Gelpi Dublin Resident Eriter Capital LLC 1535 Bethel Rd. 6001 Craughwell Lane P.O. Box 3773 Columbus, OH 43220 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6003 Craughwell Lane 6007 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6013 Craughwell Lane 6015 Craughwell Lane 6017 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6019 Craughwell Lane 6021 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6025 Craughwell Lane 6027 Craughwell Lane 6029 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6031 Craughwell Lane 6033 Craughwell Lane 6035 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6043 Craughwell Lane 6045 Craughwell Lane 6047 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6049 Craughwell Lane 6059 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6067 Craughwell Lane 6069 Craughwell Lane 6071 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6073 Craughwell Lane 6077 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6101 Craughwell Lane 6103 Craughwell Lane 6105 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6107 Craughwell Lane 6109 Craughwell Lane 61 1 1 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6113 Craughwell Lane 6115 Craughwell Lane 6117 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6119 Craughwell Lane 6121 Craughwell Lane 6123 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6125 Craughwell Lane 6127 Craughwell Lane 6129 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6131 Craughwell Lane 6133 Craughwell Lane 6135 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6137 Craughwell Lane 6139 Craughwell Lane 6141 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6143 Craughwell Lane 6145 Craughwell Lane 6147 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6149 Craughwell Lane 6151 Craughwell Lane 6159 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6161 Craughwell Lane 6157 Craughwell Lane 6165 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6167 Craughwell Lane 6163 Craughwell Lane 6171 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6173 Craughwell Lane 6169 Craughwell Lane 6177 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6205 Craughwell Lane 6175 Craughwell Lane 6203 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6211 Craughwell Lane 6201 Craughwell Lane 6209 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6217 Craughwell Lane 6207 Craughwell Lane 6215 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6223 Craughwell Lane 6213 Craughwell Lane 6227 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6229 Craughwell Lane 6219 Craughwell Lane 6233 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6235 Craughwell Lane 6225 Craughwell Lane 6239 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6241 Craughwell Lane 6231 Craughwell Lane 6245 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6247Craughwell Lane 6237 Craughwell Lane 6251 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6253 Craughwell Lane 6243 Craughwell Lane 6257 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6265 Craughwell Lane 6249 Craughwell Lane 6263 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6271 Craughwell Lane 6255 Craughwell Lane 6275 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6277 Craughwell Lane 6261 Craughwell Lane 6002 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6004 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6022 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6267 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6273 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Manor at Craughwell Village HOA Dublin Resident 6034 Inishmore Lane Delilah Nunez Giardini 6106 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 6039 Craughwell Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6040 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6006 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6112 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6102 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6108 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6114 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6120 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6036 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6042 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6104 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6110 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6118 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6124 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6130 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6136 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6126 Inishmore Lane 6116 Inishmore Lane 6142 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6138 Inishmore Lane 6122 Inishmore Lane 6148 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6144 Inishmore Lane 6128 Inishmore Lane 6146 Perimeter Lakes Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6150 Inishmore Lane 6134 Inishmore Lane 6206 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6154 Inishmore Lane 6212 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6202 Inishmore Lane 6146 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6208 Inishmore Lane 6152 Inishmore Lane 6224 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6214 Inishmore Lane 6156 Inishmore Lane 6230 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6220 Inishmore Lane 6236 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6226 Inishmore Lane 6210 Inishmore Lane 6242 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6232 Inishmore Lane 6248 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6238 Inishmore Lane 6222 Inishmore Lane 6254 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6244 Inishmore Lane 6228 Inishmore Lane 6005 Castlemaine Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6256 Inishmore Lane 6234 Inishmore Lane 6159 Lakeshire Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6161 Lakeshire Drive 6240 Inishmore Lane 6165 Lakeshire Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6167 Lakeshire Drive 6246 Inishmore Lane 6177 Lakeshire Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6173 Lakeshire Drive 6252 Inishmore Lane 6183 Lakeshire Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6163 Lakeshire Drive 6189 Lakeshire Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6169 Lakeshire Drive 6195 Lakeshire Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6191 Lakeshire Drive 6175 Lakeshire Drive 6201 Lakeshire Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6197 Lakeshire Drive 6181 Lakeshire Drive 6215 Perimeter Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6203 Lakeshire Drive 6187 Lakeshire Drive 6235 Perimeter Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6239 Perimeter Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6193 Lakeshire Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6525 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6251 Perimeter Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6644 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6656 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6665 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6700 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6716 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6725 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6199 Lakeshire Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6205 Lakeshire Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6225 Perimeter Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6500 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6580 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6660 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6600 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6652 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6664 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6676 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6695 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6712 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6724 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6740 Perimeter Loop Road 6708 Perimeter Loop Road 6732 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6780 Perimeter Loop Road 6720 Perimeter Loop Road 6776 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6804 Perimeter Loop Road 6748 Perimeter Loop Road 6820 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident Dublin Resident 6784 Perimeter Loop Road 6768 Perimeter Loop Road 6796 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Pat Kintz Carolyn J. Davis Dublin Resident 6202 Inishmore Ln. 6204 Inishmore Ln. 6810 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Rebecca E. & Susan E. Watson Noriko Ito Neil P. Carter 6208 Inishmore Ln. 6212 Inishmore Ln. 6232 Inishmore Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Candace A. De Val Amy J. Goebel Matthew A. Kiefer 6238 Inishmore Ln. 2585 Glenmawr Ave. 6214 Inishmore Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Columbus, OH 43202 Dublin, OH 43017 Angela D. Whitaker Kent T. & Rita D. Anders Bruce W. Moore, Jr. 6234 Inishmore Ln. 9225 Brock Rd. 6228 Inishmore Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Plain City, OH 43064 Dublin, OH 43017 Christine E. Dipaolo Jerry L. & Cynthia L. Miller Anne K. Ellis 6254 Inishmore Ln. 9830 Malibu Ct. 6252 Inishmore Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Plain City, OH 43064 Dublin, OH 43017 Luke R. Powers Tracey A. Samms 6248 Inishmore Ln. 6246 Inishmore Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Neil T. Pitruzzell 6224 Inishmore Ln. Aaron D. & Julie E. Grener William J. Merz Dublin, OH 43017 6220 Inishmore Lane 6216 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Havilah C. Hernandez 6230 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Eric Piotrowicz 6242 Inishmore Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Carla Dachille Meeran & Rania Darwish Christopher & Sharon K. Kozar 2625 Horsehoe Road 2367 Antigua Drive, Apt. 2A 6236 Inishmore Lane Delaware, OH 43016 Columbus, OH 43235 Dublin, Oh 43017 Proposed Development Text As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 22, 2010 and as submitted to City Council August 23, 2010 Subarea F4 (15.196 acres) - Retail Center ( 2010) Subarea Development Standards: Subareas F4 shall comply with the general subarea development standards contained in the original Perimeter Center zoning (general, signs and graphics, lighting and Perimeter Center primary identification sign design criteria) unless otherwise indicated in this text or in the submitted site plans. Percentage of lot coverage shall be no greater than 90% in Subarea F4. Subarea F4: The retail center will have a maximum total building gross square footage of 170,000 with a maximum 99,850 square feet permitted for a single tenant on the ground floor for retail purposes and 20,000 square feet on the mezzanine floor above. The mezzanine shall not be used for general retail purposes or other open to public use. Outdoor dining areas and the fuel station canopy shall not be considered part of the building square footage. This retail center may be developed in phases. Servicing for the proposed center will be totally screened from view by passer -by traffic. This total screening height shall be fourteen feet at the time of planting from the elevation of adjacent drives or parking. Special attention will be provided to design of all elevations of the center to maintain an established architectural theme with good aesthetic quality throughout the development of the retail and services zone. The same or compatible building materials and a common lighting, signage and landscaping aesthetic will also be incorporated to blend with the surrounding proposed uses for total site compatibility. Permitted Uses All those permitted uses for in the SO, Suburban Office & Institutional District and CC, Community Commercial District including but not limited to the following: 1. Retail stores, including General Merchandise, Food, Personal Services and Large Format 2. Eating and Drinking Establishments 3. Medical Services and Offices of Physicians, Dentists and Other Health Practitioners 4. Administrative, Technical, and Professional Offices Proposed Development Text As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 22, 2010 and as submitted to City Council August 23, 2010 5. Accessory Uses for Multi- Family Dwellings 6. Outdoor Dining Areas up to 3,000 total sq. ft. of seating space within the retail center area that can be allotted to the various tenants to be administratively approved by Land Use and Long Range Planning. Those outdoor dining areas shall employ matching amenities (fences, tables, chairs, flower boxes where appropriate) and must be of a black, wrought -iron design. 7. Outdoor Display Area for Live Plant Material as regulated by the Dublin Zoning Code. 8. Parking and a garage that serves the condominiums to the south via an easement (shown on the development plan). Conditional Uses 1. Drive -thrus 2. Day Care 3. Training, Tutoring and Supplemental Skills 4. Animal Care Facilities 5. Theaters 6. Fuel Stations 7. Motor Vehicle Rental Yard and Setback Requirements 1. Along Perimeter Loop Road, pavement setbacks shall be 35', building setback 50'. 2. Along Perimeter Drive, pavement setbacks shall be 35'; building setbacks 75'. 3. All other public street pavement setbacks shall be 25', building setback 50'. 4. Total building square feet for Subarea F4 shall not exceed 12,000 square feet per acre. Proposed Development Text As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 22, 2010 and as submitted to City Council August 23, 2010 Height Requirements Maximum height for buildings in Subarea F4 shall be 45' as measured per Dublin Zoning Code, except for fuel station canopies which can be no higher than 25' as measured per Dublin Zoning Code. Parking and Loading 1. Parking spaces shall be provided at a minimum of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet for the first floor building areas located within the Shopping Center unless the parking ratio is reduced by the Planning Commission. Those areas above ground level will not be counted in the parking calculations as long as they are used for non - customer use activities. Outdoor dining areas and the fuel canopy shall be exempt from the parking requirement. 2. Pharmacy drive up windows shall provide three (3) stacking spaces per lane. 3. Bank drive -thru stacking requirements shall be three stacking spaces per teller windows or transaction point, including automatic teller machines. Circulation 1. Perimeter Drive shall have a 100' right -of -way, and a 56' pavement width. 2. Perimeter Loop Road shall have a 60' right -of -way, and a 36' pavement width. 3. All other local public access streets shall have a 60' right -of -way, and a 32' pavement width, which widens towards Avery- Muirfield Drive to a 80' right -of- way and a 55' pavement width at the west end of the site's frontage. 4. Opposing curb cuts on Perimeter Drive and the Perimeter Loop Road shall be offset no less than 100' (as measured from the driveway's centerline) or directly aligned wherever possible consistent with prudent traffic engineering principles and practices, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineers. Waste, Refuse Storage and Equipment 1. All waste and refuse shall be containerized and fully screened from view in accordance with the Dublin Zoning Code. Proposed Development Text As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 22, 2010 and as submitted to City Council August 23, 2010 2. Except as otherwise permitted by this development text or the Dublin Zoning Code, no materials, supplies, equipment or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of a parcel outside a permitted structure. Permitted outside storage shall not be located in pedestrian spaces unless permitted under the Dublin Zoning Code. 3. All grocery carts shall be stored in cart corrals as approved by Planning Commission as part of the Final Development Plan or inside a principal building. 4. There shall be no outside sales of retail merchandise around the fuel station kiosk. Landscaping: 1. All landscaping shall conform to the Dublin Zoning Code. 2. In addition, landscaping within the Perimeter Loop Road setback, Perimeter Drive and Mercedes Drive shall include a continuous three foot hedge with stone pilaster fifty feet on center with street trees planted fifty feet on center within the R.O.W. and planted +1 from R.O.W. 3. Street trees for the subarea will be selected from Appendix E, Group A, of the Dublin Planning and Zoning Code. Architecture: The architectural design of the buildings shall be consistent with the architectural elevation plans submitted with the preliminary development plan. The development shall be constructed with the same architectural style and roof treatment with the exception of service corridors. The facade shall consist of brick and manufactured stone and the sloped roof shall be constructed of cedar wood shake shingles. The brick shall be selected from the approved Perimeter Center palette. The manufactured stone shall be "Ohio limestone (buff)" by manufacturer Carriage Hill Stone or approved equal and used throughout the project as a water table and as a facade treatment in select areas. The store front system shall be designed in a historic style using windows with mullions and raised panel details. The roof slops shall be 8/12, 10/12 or 12/12 pitch depending upon location of the roof element. The rear areas of the building shall be given special treatment so as to present an architecturally appropriate facade to the traveling public. The rear walls of buildings shall be constructed of stucco or synthetic stucco in order to complement the architectural style found on the front facade and scoring and/or lights or other relief elements shall be used to break up the back of the center. Proposed Development Text As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 22, 2010 and as submitted to City Council August 23, 2010 Screening to a height of six (6) feet shall be placed along the west property line of Subarea F4 to provide additional screening for the north elevations of these buildings. Further, there shall also be a hedge of bushes along the front of the shopping center walkway similar to those along the rights -of -way within the subject area that shall provide continuity with the entire area and an architectural feature that enhances the appearance of the development. Brick pavers, scored concrete, benches, bollards and street lamps shall be incorporated into select areas of the walkway to provide variety and interest for pedestrian traffic. With the exception of service corridors that are screened, the buildings shall have the same degree of exterior finish on all sides. No merchandise shall be stacked along the interior of the grocery store in front of windows higher than the height of the window sill or three feet, whichever is lower. Signs and Graphics All signs shall comply with the Dublin Zoning Code unless varied by this text or approved preliminary or final development plan. Perimeter Retail Center signage: 1. Each tenant store front is limited to one externally illuminated wall sign and one projecting sign. The background color of wall signs and projecting signs shall be selected from the existing Perimeter Center palette of trim colors or a compatible color approved administratively. Sign panel colors shall match the background color of that particular tenant's wall sign. The sign color shall be aesthetically compatible with the awning fabric. All wall and projecting signs shall meet Code relative to permitted sign face area and wall signs may not exceed 16 feet in height. Wall sign faces shall not exceed one square foot in area for each one lineal foot in store frontage not to exceed 80 square feet. Sign color maximums shall meet the Dublin Zoning Code. 2. Projecting sign faces shall not exceed three square feet in area and shall be of uniform size and design. 3. Goose neck fixtures for sign lighting shall be comprised of the same exterior finish and color throughout the shopping center. 4. All wall and hanging signs shall have "gold" (Chroma — Gold) letters on a dark colored background. 5. The grocery store shall be permitted an internally illuminated wall sign at a maximum height of 26' above the finished walkway which shall consist of the name of the grocery store (100 sq. ft. in size). Additional permitted signage shall Proposed Development Text As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 22, 2010 and as submitted to City Council August 23, 2010 include a three auxiliary wall signs of 28 sq. ft. for the grocery store located along the front fagade of the grocery store. Each sign and shall adhere to the wall signage criteria established by this text and the Dublin Zoning Code. 6. Drive -thru signage shall be permitted on the front fagade of the canopy and shall adhere to the wall signage criteria established by this text and the Dublin Zoning Code. Directional entry and exit signs shall be permitted as shown on the final development plan. A single monument sign will be permitted along Perimeter Loop Road to identify a fuel station and provide gasoline pricing information to the public and will be installed only with the approval of a conditional use by the Planning Commission of the fuel station. The sign shall not exceed six feet in height and ten foot in width with the sign and pricing information permitted on both sides of the sign. The maximum area of sign per side shall be 20 square feet. The sign has materials shall match the retail center materials and the sign colors shall match those employed by the grocery store. Sign color maximums shall meet the Dublin Zoning Code. Applicant Signature & Date G G1 oarF 'G1 Notes: B2 & 133: Ord. 13 -04 rezoned this subarea to PUD for the Village at Coffman Park B along south side of Post Road: Ord. 12 -88 rezoned this parcel to SO- Suburban Office & Institutional District C1 J $ 0 4 cD .. 'G 3 Subareas D & A south of Emerald Parkway CITY OF DUBLIN.. Land Use and Long Range Planning S800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 4361 6 -1 236 Phone/ TDD: 614- 410 -4600 Fax: 614 -410 -4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us Creating a Iegacy PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JULY 22, 2010 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Perimeter Center PCD, Subarea F — Giant Eagle 60 04 Perimeter Loop Road 09- 115Z/PDP/FDP /CU Rezoning wit inary Development Plan Final p Plan /Conditional Use MOTIO To forward commendation for approval of this Rezoning with Preliminary Developmen n to Ci ouncil because it complies with the criteria and existing development sta s w he area, with four conditions: 1) That the plWsed text be modified to permit three auxiliary 28- square -foot wall signs for the grocery store in addition to the main grocery store identification sign; 2) That the Subarea map be revised and updated to reflect the new Subarea 174; 3) That the proposed text be modified to limit merchandise to the height of the window sill or three feet, whichever is lower; and 4) That the proposed text be modified to require matching patio furniture and fencing of a black, wrought iron design coordinated throughout the shopping center with flower boxes, if appropriate. * Ben Hale, on behalf of the applicant, agreed to the above conditions. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JULY 22, 2010 1. Perimeter Center PCD, Subarea F — Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road 09- 115Z/PDP/FDP /CU Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan /Conditional Use VOTE: 3— 1. MOTION #3: VOTE: M itionalae application as requested by the applicant. ion, this Conditional Use application was tabled. STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia D. Husak, AICP Planner II Page 2 of 2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 13 DRAFT 1. Perimeter Center PCD, Subarea F — Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road 09- 115Z/PDP/FDP /CU Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this application requesting a rezoning for a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) to establish Subarea F4 for 15.9 acres currently in Subarea F of the Perimeter Center Planned Commerce District (PCD). She said the rezoning is intended to facilitate the expansion of the existing Giant Eagle grocery store, the addition of a pharmacy drive -thm for the grocery store, increase the amount of outdoor dining areas in the shopping center, and permit a fuel station as a conditional use in the proposed development text. She explained that the application consists of three components, the rezoning with the preliminary development plan, the final development plan, and the conditional use. She said the Commission will need to make three motions, and the rezoning /preliminary development plan will go to City Council for final decision. Ms. Amorose Groomes explained that the Commission is the final authority on the final development plan and the conditional use. She swore in those wishing to speak in regards to those parts of the application, including the applicant's representative, Ben W. Hale, Jr., Jason Hockstok, Matt Majeed, MCG Architecture, Brian Haggerty, Pat Avolio, and City re . 4aa96. 4�aaaaa�9aa e . Claudia Husak presented this case and slides. She said the rezoning /preliminary development plan is the development text in this instance, as the preliminary development plan is the same as the final development plan and acts as both of the requirements. She explained that the final development plan was the last step in the PUD process, and it includes the expansion of the grocery store, the pharmacy drive -thru, the revised cart corrals, the building architecture, additional signs, patios and furniture, and all other site improvements. She said the proposed development text requires the Commission to approve a conditional use for the use of the pharmacy drive -thru. Ms. Husak said at the last review of this application, the Commission stated a preference for not including the fuel station, which is one of the rezoning /preliminary development plan components as part of the preliminary site plan. She said the Commission felt it would be better to leave it off the plan and then get back to it if the applicant decides to move forward with construction at a future final development plan stage. She explained that the fuel station is included as a conditional use in the development text, but all other references to that portion of the application have been eliminated as requested. Ms. Husak said that this presentation would highlight the building architecture that was discussed at the last meeting, particularly regarding how the building is going to be finished on the south side and how the pharmacy drive -thm is being treated architecturally. She said that the applicant is proposing to include an element of the main entry for the Giant Eagle store, which are `tower -like pieces' on both sides of the main entry to what is the last portion of the building. She said the existing three window panels would continue to exist so there is a walk -thm opening. Ms. Husak said that Planning is concerned that it is tall compared to where the main entrance of the building is and the end of the building does not warrant as big of a statement Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 13 DRAFT piece. She said that the roof should be lowered to coincide with what is now the height of the roof pitch at the main entry of those towers, but not the main entry roof itself. Ms. Husak said the pharmacy drive -thru canopy has not changed. She said since the additional drive -thru canopy is now eliminated, a decorative low fence is proposed in the island between the ingress and egress lanes, however Planning suggests that the applicant may want to consider a pillar and hedge treatment, rather than a pillar and fence treatment. Ms. Husak said that the issue with the bank sign remains. She said the pharmacy sign has been moved to the front and centered on that portion of the building. She said the floor plans indicate a `bank' area as a line on the plan and not a physical separation of the bank's space from the grocery store, and Planning remains concerned with eligibility for the sign and is requesting that it be removed. Ms. Husak said regarding the pharmacy drive -thru issues raised at the last meeting, the City has notified all the addresses within the condominiums and the applicant has provided the City with a list of addresses for people that live and own units within the building immediately south of the drive -thru. She said the applicant has sent correspondence to all of those owners explaining this proposal and the City has included them in the regular meeting notification mailings. She said meeting notifications have also been posted within the complex in public areas. Ms. Husak said in the review of the list of property owners, it was apparent that 80 percent of them were actually within the particular building, so it seemed as though it was mostly owner occupied. Ms. Husak explained that a six -foot tall screen along the island that separates the parking lot area for the Craughwell Village Condominiums from the exit lane of the drive -thm is proposed. She said the screen has the pillar treatment common within this area and a board and batten screen in between will match the color of the garage building. Ms. Husak presented an AutoTURN demonstration prepared by the applicant that showed an SUV maneuvering from the lane out through the drive -thru and through the exit lane. Ms. Husak said that Planning continues to recommend approval of the rezoning /preliminary development plan with two conditions regarding the development text, the final development plan with six conditions, and the conditional use with one condition, all as listed in the Planning Report. Brian Haggerty, 5787 Wilcox Road said he understood bicycle racks were added at the last meeting. He asked what the capacity was for the total number of racks. Ms. Husak pointed out the existing and proposed U- shaped bicycle racks. She estimated there were 8 or 10 bicycle spaces per the U- shaped rack. Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicants, Developers Diversified Realty and Giant Eagle, Inc., said that they generally agreed with the conditions for each of the application components. He said that a letter was sent to all the neighbors giving them the law firm's office phone number and an email address to contact, but no one responded. He said they went door to door and spoke to a majority of the neighbors. Mr. Hale said they still believe that the bank sign is Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 13 DRAFT warranted and needed because when you enter the door, you are in the bank's lobby and the tellers are there and they think it is an entry to the bank's leased space. Matt Majeed, MCG Architecture, explained that the intent of the proposed building end element was to create more of a terminus point for that whole elevation. He said they were working with limitations of the windows and piers. He said from a scaling standpoint, the end element looked to be the right size and scale. He said it may look massive, but in the overall scale, it is not that tall. Mr. Majeed said it could be lowered a little, but for them to match it with the same level as the field, it looks too stocky and defeats what they were trying to do the last time they were here, which is creating more of a natural terminus to that elevation. Mr. Majeed said they were trying to keep the clear glass glazing along the whole area, and he had a sample of the spandrel glass available if the Commissioners were interested. He said the spandrel glass would occur in the lower windows of the last three bays and the rest of the area would have clear glass. Mr. Majeed said they were proposing clear glass for the lighting in the high bays. Todd Zimmerman asked if the three -story condominium building to the south was comparable in size to this new addition. Mr. Hardt asked how the gutter line of the two compared to the gutter line of those. Mr. Majeed said they were identical and will be lower than the condominiums. Steve Langworthy asked how the applicants intended to make sure that the three -foot stacking limit would happen. Pat Avolio, director of real estate development and construction for Giant Eagle, said that they would have this condition, as well as all of these documents indentified and put in part of their store planning. Mr. Langworthy said an operational method was needed to ensure that the store managers understand that they cannot stack anything higher than three feet. Mr. Avolio said could convey the information to the stores and when they transition managers, they can provide that information on their merchandising plan. He said he could not guarantee that the details will be followed, but they would convey the information with their printed Merchandising Plan with photographs. He said they intended to convey and comply with the restriction, but a notice or reminder for personnel may be needed. Mr. Avolio said the store director and regional team leader handle compliance issues. Mr. Langworthy said that the City was just asking for best efforts. Mr. Hardt preferred that Condition 3 refer to merchandise instead of shelving. Mr. Majeed said that the height of the window sill was three feet. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Discussion Mr. Hardt said that at first, permissibility of a drive -thru in this location on the site and its proximity to residents was extraordinary. He said he agreed that the attempts to contact Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 13 DRAFT neighbors and the owners of the condominium units were extraordinary as well. Mr. Walter said he agreed. Mr. Zimmerman asked that the record state that it was found that the applicant went above and beyond trying to locate and contact the owners. He said it was very difficult for the Commission to vote for because in the future, the Commission did not want this to be something that somebody can use to say that they had done it here. He said there was nobody in the audience this evening to talk about the drive -thru. He reiterated that he wants to make sure that this was a special circumstance that a drive -thru for a pharmacy was being considered within 60 feet of residential and hopefully, it may never be done. Mr. Hale said there had also been meetings with the condominium association and they have written a letter of support to the City. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted not only did they not find anyone against this, but also people were for it. Ms. Husak explained there were two conditions for the rezoning /preliminary development plan, and one was more of a clerical issue that dealt with updating the Subarea Map, and the other talks about the bank sign for the grocery store, which is permitted in the development text. She said the detail of where the sign is located is part of the final development plan, and the fact that it can actually be there is in the development text, so it is there twice. Mr. Hardt referred to the partial floor plan and asked if the black lines shown were walls. Mr. Majeed said the black lines were the delineation of an area where most likely the bank customers will congregate or stand in line. Mr. Hardt said that if there was a barrier that physically separated the bank from the rest of the store that could be closed at times, so that the bank could operate independently, then he would be in favor of the sign, and in the absence of that, he was not. Ms. Amorose Groomes said there were no walls around the cafe or the pharmacy and they cannot operate independently. She asked why there need to be walls around the bank for it to operate independently. Mr. Zimmerman explained that the bank was independent, and the pharmacy was part of Giant Eagle. Mr. Walter asked who the cafe owner /operator was. Mr. Majeed said Eagle was_the _ _ - comment [cDH1]: Are we sure that owner /operator of the cafe. - - - - - wasn Pat Avolio? Mr. Hardt asked who the was the bank operator. Mr. Majeed said most likely, an independent bank owner. Mr. Zimmerman said if the bank had their space with a glass wall around it, with a door to the west to get out, and an exit to get in to the store from the outside, to him it was a separate entity and they could have the sign over the door. He said without that, they are just part of this floor plan. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 13 DRAFT Mr. Majeed said if the concern was the fact that there is no true delineation, they had discussed adding a wall that would create a vestibule -like entrance that forces customers to enter the bank space. He said a storefront framing or half- height wall barrier could be added. He asked if that would count as a bank space. Mr. Zimmerman said he would have to refer that to Planning. He said if the bank could not be locked down separately from the store, then the bank was not a separate entity. Mr. Langworthy said the theory of it has to do with the whole frontage of this portion of the center, and a decision as to what is going to constitute who can have a sign. He said Planning's concern was that if this particular principle is lost what could happen. He said it would be hard to argue against it, if another business was added to the store and wanted a sign, and they were trying to avoid that. Mr. Hale suggested that they all recognized that the sign being there was a good thing for the building and in terms of creating a feeling that it is a center. He suggested that the Commission had the power to eliminate the sign from the preliminary development plan language, approve it as a part of the final development plan, and then it is not permitted, but an exception would be given. He said someone else could not have a sign because it was not included in the preliminary development plan. Mr. Langworthy said that was true, but pointed out that they could ask for an amended final development plan for a sign. Mr. Hale said if it was in the preliminary, anyone would have the right to a sign, as long as it met the Code. Mr. Langworthy explained that was what they wanted to see eliminated. He said if you lose the principle in the first one, then it will be lost from then on because on what basis would you then prohibit or fail to approve an amended final development plan for anybody in the future. Mr. Walter asked why Planning did not have an issue with the cafe entrance sign. Mr. Langworthy said the principle being for example that Gracter's wanted to move to the back of the store and add an ice cream parlor, would they be operating independently as part of the store, and then have rights to a sign on the front. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that the Commission condition the number of signs allowed, saying that there could be one major sign and up to three auxiliary signs for uses within the store. Mr. Langworthy explained that the content of that sign could not be designated by the City and then there was the issue of how many signs they wanted if the content could not be regulated. Mr. Zimmerman suggested the simplest form was to glass wall the bank off with an entrance /exit door for the bank space area. He said to him that automatically gave them a sign. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the problem was that the entire front of the store could be walled off. She said she disagreed with Mr. Zimmerman's suggestion. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 13 DRAFT Mr. Hardt said as long as the function in question has its own entrance that could be opened or locked down independently, it maintains the principle discussed. Mr. Walter asked how many signs this storefront was allowed. Ms. Husak said by Code, one 80- foot square foot sign was allowed. Mr. Hale said each storefront got a sign. Ms. Husak said there was only one storefront now, and it was Giant Eagle. Mr. Walter said he did not understand the difference between the bank, pharmacy, and the cafe having signs. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she would like to see the limit of the total quantity because she did not want to have a vestibule at every one with a sign on the front. She suggested one sign and a maximum of three auxiliary signs indicating areas within the Giant Eagle store. Mr. Langworthy said he was more comfortable with that approach than takh�,,Mr. Hale's suggestion of taking it out of the preliminary development plan. Mr. Walter suggested limiting the number of signs per linear foot or something like that. Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that it was not what went on tonight, but what goes on in the future. Mr. Walter and Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed. Mr. Hardt noted that this building had unique architecture and it was unlike anything else in Dublin. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was more inclined to give Giant Eagle more signage because of the architecture. She asked how the Commission could best not set a bad precedent here. Jennifer Readler said that in the existing text, there is provision for a storefront, and that was the whole jest of the BZA. She said if the Commission wants to limit the total number of signs in the text and then specify the location in the final development plan, she thought that was the best way to distinguish it from the existing court case. Mr. Hale said that they have agreed not to use anything that happens here in the other case. Mr. Hale suggested that if the Commission eliminated it from the preliminary and approved it in the final development plan with a limit of three auxiliary signs, it would put Dublin in the best possible and strongest legal position. Mr. Zimmerman said all he was asking to be done was to have the bank interiorly and then have a sign in front to make everybody happy. Ms. Readler said in terms of precedent, this is a Planned Development, so the text here governs the particular place, and so it is distinguishable from any other development. She said the principle of it is how storefront has been interpreted in every other development when that word is used. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 13 DRAFT Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested they say it was not a storefront related issue, but an architectural issue. Mr. Hale pointed out that when it was taken out of the preliminary and approved in the final, what is being done is approving it as part of the final outside architecture, not about the storefront, but about the architecture. Mr. Hardt said this building had four significant architectural features on the front. Mr. Majeed said there were actually four auxiliary signs and the main sign if the pharmacy drive- thin was counted. He said part of the intent was just the architectural features. Mr. Hardt said if the strategy was to take it out of the preliminary development plan and approve it with the final, there were three Commissioners who may or may not want to vote in favor of the final, so that was the risk if they did not get to the final development plan tonight. Ms. Reacller explained that the option the Commission had available in situations were there are multiple applications, was if they voted on the rezoning tonight, it had to go to City Council anyway, so there was a time lag before their final approval, and then they could come back for subsequent applications. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was comfortable with pulling that from the preliminary, and not labeling them as `storefront' signs, because she did not believe they are and if they were, the cafe and pharmacy would be enclosed. She said she would call them `auxiliary' signs. Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that they were part of Giant Eagle, but the bank was owned separately and that was the key. .566666666.„ -.,,. '8888$6 Mr. Langworthy pointed out that the fourth sign that Mr. Majeed mentioned was included in the development text already as part of the pharmacy, so it was addressed separately. Mr. Hardt asked if the City would be in a better position if they were all treated in the same way and say the total is four signs, where they are located and what is on them. Ms. Husak explained that the only concern with that is that it is specifically listed as on the front fagade of the canopy and not the front fagade of the storefront because it is recessed. She said that was the only difference between that and what specifically is stated in the development text for the drive -thm sign. Mr. Langworthy said ultimately, that could be handled in the final development plan stage. Ms. Husak said on Page 5 of the proposed development text, a lot of Paragraph 5 would be removed. Mr. Hardt said he was comfortable with those signs they were looking at because of the unique and extraordinary architecture of the building, and specifically, about where they are shown. However, he said he did not want to let them have four signs wherever they want them. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that could be done in the final development plan stage Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 13 DRAFT Mr. Hale pointed out that the preliminary development plan submitted had signs shown on it. Ms. Husak explained that there was not a preliminary development plan site plan any longer since the fuel station was taken out. She said the preliminary consists only of a development text. She said the sign location, details, and shape would be included with the final development plan approval. Ms. Amorose Groomes, Mr. Walter, and Mr. Hardt said they were `�' infortable with that, and Mr. Zimmerman was not.. Final Development Plan Discussion Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that the development text codification was taken care of with the conditions. Mr. Walter suggested an additional cart corral was needed where the fuel station was originally proposed. Mr. Avolio agreed to the condition of adding another cart corral in the southwest portion of the lot. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that the Commissioners were all comfortable with the pharmacy drive -thru portion. Mr. Walter asked if the Commissioner's were okay with the bushes as opposed to the fence at the pharmacy. Ms. Husak explained that was addressed as a condition for the Conditional Use. Mr. Langworthy noted that Condition 5 would be eliminated. Mr. Hardt said the word shelving should be changed in Condition 2. Mr. Langworthy said to replace windowsill instead of shelving. Ms. Husak said merchandise was what they wanted to call that. Mr. Walter asked the other Commissioners about the existing sign band treatment and if it was sufficient. Mr. Hardt recalled that at the last meeting, that Mr. Taylor suggested that the roofline be brought down to diminish the size of the sign band to the point that it was a standard fascia with a gutter on it. Mr. Hardt asked if the applicant had considered that or any other possibilities. Mr. Majeed said they looked into restructuring where they could bring the shingles down, but they ran into issues. He said by bringing it out, they were restricting the amount of sidewalk, because the more they brought it out, they obviously had to restructure that area which impacts the pilasters and the piers. He said the way the columns are laid out, they are flush with the signage. He said if they were to bring it out, they would have to build out that whole area which meant they would have an issue where the columns and piers are inset a couple of feet. He was concerned that it would start looking awkward, and then they would start running into the areas where all the bump -outs for the bank and everything else are located and start working with the scale. He said it was almost a like a domino effect. He said looking into introducing different materials and colors was counterproductive to what they were doing because by the time they were done it would have absolutely no coherence to the rest of the center. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 13 DRAFT Mr. Walter said the sign band relief would not be seen from a distance Mr. Hardt agreed. He said he recognized the problems if the roof was extended. He asked if something could be done with landscaping instead of architecture to improve the situation. Mr. Hardt agreed with Mr. Walter that if the edge where the roof shingles end and the vertical surface begins, where there would normally be a gutter, it could have something of an eight or twelve - inch overhang so that the fascia and cave detail along the sign band remain consistent with the existing gutters, eaves, and things around the brick portions of the building. He said it would not involve a structural problem if the roof is extended a little. He said he thought there was a solution. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked how many tree wells were located along the front. Mr. Majeed said three tree wells were shown in the landscape islands on the site plan. Ms. Husak said two tree wells were located by the entrance. Mr. Hardt asked how many existing trees there are in front. Ms. Amorose Groomes counted two trees in each landscape island. She did not think an additional tree there would survive. Mr. Hardt said the trimboards shown built up near the top of the sign band would help, but he was concerned that they eat up the existing overhang. He said if the overhang is pushed out so that it still has the dimension it has today, it would be a reasonable solution. Mr. Majeed said it appears to be an 18 -inch overhang. He said that they will have a buildout and change the gutter system where it hangs out a little more, so there will be a combination of both. He said it would create a shadow line instead of having the buildout trim almost flush with the edge of the gutters, which would eliminate anything that the Commission is trying to do. Mr. Walter confirmed that the roofline would come down and there is going to be a gutter underneath it that will come down four - inches or so. He understood there would be the roof, the gutter, then the relief, then the old signboard, and then the buildout relief. He asked if that would further shrink the horizontal band that is depicted. �ska ass,,. Mr. Majeed said visually, it would look smaller, but walking underneath the three layers could be seen. He said they were trying to avoid having the band too large. Mr. Hardt said he would like to see the trim boards proposed in addition to the 12 -inch or so soffit and the gutter seen on the balance of the building. He said the dimension of the existing overhang should still be apparent, but they may need to add to it to accomplish that. Mr. Majeed said that was a problem structurally. Mr. Walter said they were talking about a couple of inches and it was not a structural problem. Mr. Majeed said he did not know how to word that. Mr. Hale suggested it could be drawn. Mr. Majeed said he could do sketches. Mr. Hardt asked if the applicant wanted the Commission to vote on this tonight. Mr. Hale said they would like them to vote because they would like to start on the building. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 13 DRAFT Mr. Langworthy explained that the rezoning had to go to City Council for two readings, plus a 30 -day effective period. He said by that time, there will be time to get the application back to the Commission to review. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked that the Commission continue their review to make sure that they are comfortable with everything. She said they had discussed the grocery expansion, the pharmacy drive -thru, and the cart corrals. She said they were going to revisit architecture. She said that they had talked about the signs and decided how that can be worded so that it is specific. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked about the patios and furniture. Ms. Husak said there are additional patio areas proposed to the north underneath an existing concrete area and the grocery store is retaining an area close to the front of the store, and there is an additional area just north of the grocery store. ssssssssa' Ms. Amorose Groomes said she had visited the patio the Commission had most recently approved and she thought it looked very nice and fits well there. She asked if the language was included here, that would match the fencing and flower boxes on the interior portion, to make her comfortable with adding additional patios. Ms. Husak agreed to look at that language. She said the applicant had included furniture details in their application. She said basically, they were requesting approval of a few different types of tables and chairs. Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled that the Commission discussed how they were going to carry on with what they had previously approved, and that was going to become the standard. Ms. Husak said that was for the Avery Square shopping center, and the Commission had not approved any furniture yet for this center. She said that Giant Eagle is currently using a wood composite type of furniture. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked that since the Commission was going to revisit the architecture, that they revisit this patio to make sure that the furniture, fencing, and flower boxes are selected. Mr. Walter said he had no problem with the location, size, or number of patios. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed and said her concern was more logistical. She asked that those details are made more solid. She confirmed that no one had an issue doing that. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked about the `All Other Site Improvements' category on the chart presented. Ms. Husak said that a few conditions addressed access management and some details that were not as clear on the plans that Planning had hoped. She said for example, Condition 5 had to do with signs, but it was not as detailed on the plans as Planning would want. She said it was really 3 and 4 that could be lumped into the `All Other Site Improvements' category. She said it also included landscaping and any kind of other thing being done on the plans. Ms. Husak said that Planning had no issues with any of them. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 13 DRAFT Mr. Walter said a pet peeve he had about this center was that in the second -story windows at night, the fluorescent bulbs could be seen. Mr. Hardt agreed that at night, the illuminated attic dormers looked awful. He said the bulbs could be seen. He said he would like to see that resolved by taking out the lights so that the attic and rafters could not be seen. He said that could be accomplished by simply turning the lights off or using translucent or black spandrel glass. Mr. Walter wanted the lights to be deactivated because otherwise they would be used again. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that should be a made a condition. Mr. Hale agreed that all the attic dormer lights in the center would be made inoperable. Mr. Hardt said regarding the tower and the architecture in general, he liked it. He said he thought it appropriate that the tower matches the size of the height of the towers at the other end of the center. Mr. Hardt said the tower takes everything from the cafe entrance to the north, to the pharmacy at the south, and ties it together as Giant Eagle. Mr. Walter noted that there was a window created on the new tower and he asked what they would be doing with it. He said he did not want to see the window illuminated with a view of rafters. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she wanted to see it with etched glass Mr. Majeed agreed to use a background illumination with a frosted glazing on the new tower window, and incandescent lighting. Mr. Hardt asked that it be constructed with a light box behind it with finished surfaces. Mr. Zimmerman said now, you really know that Giant Eagle is the entire piece, and before, you did not know where it began and ended. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed it tied the end of the building together and said that she liked the fact that the pharmacy window was set farther back and was not really part of that. She said she liked the terminus of the building in general. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the Commissioners wanted the condition to say `illuminated appropriately' or `illuminated with a light box'. Mr. Langworthy suggested there be a note on the plan for that. Mr. Walter said that the interior needed to be finished. Ms. Amorose Groomes said also, the glass should be etched `of sorts'. Mr. Hardt said if the interior was done right, the glass did not need to be etched. Mr. Zimmerman said a clear glass could be used. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that in terms of signage, everyone understood what the Commission was asking. Mr. Walter said the changes to the entry, with respect to making the drive entry aisles a little larger was taken out due to the fuel station being removed. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 13 DRAFT Ms. Husak explained that the sizes of the aisles had been increased, and striping and signs were added after the Commission's original review, however it may not be enough to address Planning's concerns immediately as far as the confusing nature of the entry drive. She said if the applicant did pursue a fuel station at a future date that was something they needed to review. Conditional Use Discussion Mr. Hardt confirmed that the conditional use revolves exclusively around the pharmacy drive - thru. He said he had gotten past his concerns on that. Ms. Amorose Groomes concluded that the only thing that the Commission could vote on tonight was the rezoning /preliminary development plan. She said the final development plan would be saved and they could not vote on the conditional use until the final development plan was approved. Ms. Husak suggested that the patio amenities be included with the development text and that it be made a condition of the preliminary development plan. She suggested language be added about patio amenities, including furniture and fencing coordinating throughout the center, utilizing black wrought iron -type furniture, and flower boxes where appropriate. Mr. Langworthy suggested that the same language as used before at Avery Square be used. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed that should be a text modification, not a condition. Mr. Hardt explained that the Commission was suggesting that they would vote on the rezoning /preliminary development plan tonight so that it could proceed onto City Council. He said that meant that if they wanted to have the patio provisions in the text, they had to either craft that text tonight, or craft a condition saying that it will be put in the text. Mr. Hale agreed to use whatever text was used before by the Commission. Ms. Husak confirmed that there would be three conditions. Ms. Husak said the height limitation for window merchandise could be addressed as a condition as part of the development text and then the final development plan could have that requirement noted on it. Ms. Readler indicated that if it was noted in the text, that was where they were most protected Ms. Husak said to do that also. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked Mr. Hale if he requested the Commission table the final development plan and the conditional use. Mr. Hale asked if they could just bring the details back to the Commission. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the Commission could not approve it without the details. Mr. Hale consented to a tabling of the final development plan and conditional use applications. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 13 DRAFT Motion #1 and Vote — Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Mr. Walter made the motion to forward a recommendation for approval of this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan to City Council because it complies with the criteria and existing development standards within the area, with four conditions: 1) That the proposed text be modified to permit three auxiliary 28- square -foot wall signs for the grocery store in addition to the main grocery store identification sign; 2) That the Subarea map be revised and updated to reflect the new Subarea F4; 3) That the proposed text be modified to limit merchandise to the height of the window sill or three feet, whichever is lower; and 4) That the proposed text be modified to require matching patio furniture and fencing of a black, wrought iron design coordinated throughout the shopping center with flower boxes, if appropriate. Mr. Hardt seconded the motion. Mr. Hale agreed to the four conditions as discussed. The vote was as follows: Mr. Zimmerman, no, only on the bases of the sign for the bank and the discussion regarding it; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; and Mr. Walter, yes. (Approved 3 — 1.) Motion #2 and Vote — Final Development Plan Mr. Hardt made the motion to table this Final Development Plan as requested by the applicant. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; and Mr. Walter, yes. (Tabled 4 — 0.) Motion #�� ���� Co nal Use Mr.aa made the'?caxion ble this Conditional Use application as requested by the applicant. Mr. Zimmerman seco the motion. The vote ' as follows: � Walter, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Ha s (Tabled 0.) Administrative Ms. Amorose Groo ed a five - minute recess at 9:26 p.m. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF DUBLIN Planning Repo end u» •nd a•,.••••Pia••1•o Thursday, July 22, 2010 $ sNe'. yROOtl Oobih. Obb4XI 6IMI Phone/ MD -61 H64 I IF— MW Perimeter Center PCD, Subarea F - Perimeter Shopping Center 61 "' wW sile:ww.tlublln.oR. Case Summary Agenda Item 1 Case Number 09-115Z /PDP /FDP /CU Request Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Review and recommendation to City Council of the rezoning with preliminary development plan under the Planned District provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.05. Review and approval of a final development plan under the Planned District provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050. The final development plan will not be in effect until the rezoning with preliminary development plan is approved by City Council. Review and approval of a conditional use for a pharmacy drivathru under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.236. A drive -thru is classified as an auto- oriented commercial facility In the proposed development text, which requires that the Commission approve a conditional use. Site Location 60156804 Perimeter Loop Road Located on the north side of Perimeter Loop Road, approximately 430 feet east of the Intersection with Avery- Mulrfield Drive. Applicant Developers Diversified Realty and Giant Eagle, Inc. Representatives Ben Hale and Jack Reynolds, Smith & Hale, LLC. Case Manager Claudia D. Husak, Planner II 1 (614) 4144675 1 chusak @dublln.oh.us Proposal A new Planned Unit Development District (Perimeter Center, Subarea Dh for 15.19 acres currently in Subarea F of the Perimeter Center Planned Commerce District. The rezoning would allow the expansion of the existing Giant Eagle grocery store, a pharmacy drive -thru for the grocery store and a future fuel station and Increase the amount of outdoor dining areas in the shopping center. At this time, the proposal is for the construction of the store expansion and pharmacy drivathru only. Planning Recommendation Approval of the retuning and preliminary development plan with 2 conditions; Approval of the FDP with 6 conditions; approval of the conditional use with I condition. PIN d Dubin iP anning rEdge Case OP 1 CIPDPI RDICU lP �iha Ml 0 F- 1 Carl 2d 23 FACCS City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center PC D, Subarea F- Giant Eagle Thursday, July 22, 20101 Page or 23 FACTS Update Overall Application June 10, 2010 PZC Meeting The Commission suggested that the fuel station be included as a conditional use in the development text but requested that the preliminary development plan not make any references to a fuel station, including preliminary layout, architecture and sign elevations. The preliminary development plan was revised to omit this information. The Commission further instructed the applicant to consider more dramatic changes to the building facade of the expanded grocery store to change the appearance of vacant store fronts. The revised plans include a tower - like element reminiscent of the main grocery store entrance at the southern end of the building. The applicant intends to provide a sample of the spandrel glass to be used along some of the grocery store's front facade at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The Commission commented on the notification process for condominiums because the pharmacy drive -thru is placed within 60 feet of a residential building and instructed the applicant to work with Planning to ensure that the owners and residents are both notified. The applicant has secured the names and addresses of the condominium owners for the building adjacent to the proposed pharmacy drive -thru. The applicant and Planning have notified these owners of this pending proposal and the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting date. The applicant has also prepared an AutoTURN demonstration showing the proposed navigation pattern of a vehicle using the pharmacy drive -thru to be presented at the meeting. At the request of the applicant, the Commission tabled all three � application components. April 8, 2010 PZC Meeting Commission concerns at its initial review included the proposed uses in the development text, vehicle stacking for the fuel station and pharmacy drive thru, signs, and cart corrals. Other comments included changes to the building facade of the expanded grocery store to address concerns regarding a vacant - looking store front, the proposed additional signs for the grocery store, the layout, size, stacking and circulation pattern; architecture, height and landscaping for the proposed fuel station, the proximity of the proposed pharmacy drive -thru to residential uses and the proposed shopping center parking requirements. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center PC D, Subarea F- Giant Eagle Thursday, July 22, 20101 Page of 23 FACTS Revisions Overall Application Rezoning /Preliminary Requires conditional use approval for drive -thrus and motor vehicle Development Plan rental Deleted stacking requirements for fuel station and fast food restaurant Development and definition of stacking space Text Revisions Prohibits the use of TV screens and outside sales of merchandise at the fuel station Permits administrative approval for outdoor dining area up to 3,000 square feet Eliminates provision for awnings signs for tenant store fronts and center identification sign language Requires "Chroma Gold" as the letter color on tenant wall signs Fuel Station Requires conditional use approval Eliminated from preliminary development plan; will require a separate final development plan approval prior to construction Final Development Eliminated secondary drive -thru canopy for pharmacy drive -thru at Plan southern building terminus General Includes tower -like architectural element as the southern terminus All cart corrals are an "H" shaped design with landscaping J drive Contacted condominium owners adjacent to proposed pharmacy -thr ns Centered pharmacy sign at south entrance Attempted to further delineate the bank tenant space from the g rocery store to be eligible for a sign Conditional Use Increased landscaping along pharmacy drive -thru Pharmacy Proposal for low decorative fence along drive -thru island and tall Drive -Thru screen wall along condominium property Remaining Issues to Changes to main access point from Perimeter Loop be Addressed Facts Site Area L Zoning Surrounding Zoning and Uses Site Features 15.196 acres Overall Application PCD, Planned Commerce District, Perimeter Center, Subarea F All surrounding uses are in the Perimeter Center PCD North: PCD, daycare and a multi- tenant commercial building (Subarea Fl); PCD, bank and pizza shop (Subarea E) South: PCD, two buildings with auto - oriented commercial businesses (Subarea F) East: PLR, Manor at Craughwell Village condominiums (Subarea G -1) Wes PCD, Shell and BP fuel stations (Subarea E) Irregularly shaped; no topographic features. Shopping center along the east boundary with the Giant Eagle grocery store as the main tenant, two multi- tenant retail buildings in the north portion of the site, stand -alone ATM in the southwest corner, a garage fo the Craughwell Village condominiums i the south City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center PC D, Subarea F- Giant Eagle Thursday, July 22, 2010 1 Page 5 of 23 FACTS Facts Overall A Site Features • 732 -space parking lot. Continued • Main access from Perimeter Loop Road with an entry feature with a fountain and landscaping, and a landscape median dividing the ingress /egress lanes. Additional access points on Perimeter Drive to the north with a landscaped median and a 220 -foot section of Mercedes Drive (private) to the south portion of the site. Service court and parking spaces behind the buildings. Includes landscape hedge with intermittent pillars along Perimeter Loop Road (as required in the development text) and several trees on either si de of the main entrance as part of the entry feature. Community Plan The Future Land Use classification is General Commercial. The density of the proposed expansion is approximately 11,187 square feet per acre; which is higher than the Community Plan recommended range of 6,500 - 8,700 square feet per acre. The development text permits uses consistent with the Future Land Use designation. It is Planning's opinion the proposed plan and uses fit within the Community Plan's description of General Commercial by providing an appropriate mix of development and services available to the residents of the city. The Plan describes this type of dev elopment as automobile dependen / auto- oriented. Neighborhood At the previous reviews, Commissioners were concerned of the potential Contact negative effects of the pharmacy drive -thru on adjacent residents. The applicant has contacted the homeowners' association, conducted door - to -door contacts, and recently mailed a letter to the owners of each condominium, all in an attempt to ensure the residents, owners and their representatives were aware of this proposal. In general, the applicant received little or no opposition to the proposal. Planning has sent meeting notices to the condominium owners within the building adjacent to the pharmacy drive -thru and each individual address for Manor at Craughwell Village. Meeting notices were also displayed at each mailbox kiosk. Previously, the applicant met with residents of the Manor at Craughwell Village condominiums and received input regarding the proposal. The residents' main concerns were current traffic circulation and employees using the condominium development's drive leading to the rear of the shopping center for egress. The applicant has agreed to provide a gate on their property. The residents also requested and the applicant has provided a sidewalk connecting the condos to the shopping center along the southern property line. According to the applicant, the residents generally supported the plan. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 116Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center PC D, Subarea F- Giant Eagle Thursday, July 22, 2010 1 Page 6 of 23 FACTS & PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENTP LAN DETAILS Facts 1988: Perimeter Center Planned Commerce District rezoning and preliminary development plan approved between Avery - Muirfield Drive and Emerald Parkway, divided into Subareas A through M. Permitted uses include commercial, industrial, residential, and office. Subarea F was originally zoned for an enclosed shopping mall in excess of 250,000 square feet. 1994: Rezoning approved that modified Subarea F for an unenclosed, 250,000- square -foot retail center with a grocery store and free - standing multi- tenant buildings. 1995: Rezoning approved allowing an increase of the grocery store's square footage from 76,000 to 85,000 square feet in accordance with the final development plan that was approved in December of 1994. Case Background City Council Case Background 1994: Final development plan approved. Planning & Zoning 1995: Revised final development plan for screening of rooftop mechanicals. Commission 1995: Several conditional uses approved. 2002: Revised final development plan for Perimeter Center Big Bear store (now Giant Eagle) and Avery Square Kroger for standardized cart corrals. 2010: Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan, Final Development Plan and Conditional Use tabled on April 8, and June 10, 2010. Details Process Plan Overview Overall Application Development Plan Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development requires approval of a development text to serve as the zoning regulation for the development requirements noted; the Zoning Code covers all other requirements. This development text establishes a new Planned Unit Development District (Perimeter Center, Subarea F4) with development regulations that are applicable only to these 15.196 acres. However, the site will remain within the Perimeter Center PUD. While the current Subarea F does not specifically address the Monro Muffler and Bob Sumerel Tire sites, the two parcels are governed by the Subarea F development text. The applicant was unable to secure the owners' permission to include both sites in the modification to the existing Subarea. Therefore, this rezoning would create a new Subarea F4. The existing Subarea F which remain at a lesser acreage to maintain development standards for the Monro Muffler and Bob Sumerel Tire sites. The rezoning with preliminary development plan includes: Rezoning the site from PCD to PUD to establish a new Subarea F4 of the Perimeter Center PUD. A new development text that regulates uses and all details of the development of this site. A preliminary development plan (site plan) that includes the grocery store building expansion, pharmacy drive -thru and revised cart corrals. As requested by the Commission, the fuel station preliminary layout, elevations and sign h ave been omitted. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center PC D, Subarea F- Giant Eagle Thursday, July 22, 2010 1 Page 7 ot23 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENTP LAN DETAILS Diatclils Preliminary Development Plan Development Text The proposed development text addresses the intended expansion of the grocery store, requires conditional use approval for a drive -thru lane for the grocery store pharmacy and a fuel station operated by the grocery store, and provides for administr ap proved outdoor seating areas. The proposed development text refers to the Zoning Code's Community Commercial and Suburban Office and Institutional District lists of permitted uses and specifically lists ten use categories that include commercial and office uses as the permitted uses. The text also permits outdoor dining areas up to 3,000 square feet, which is increased from when the Commission reviewed this application on April 8, 2010. The 3,000 square feet of outdoor dining areas can be allotted to tenants within the shopping center. Other permitted uses are outdoor display areas for live plant material as regulated by Code. This provision should be removed as the recently revised Zoning Code addresses outdoor plant display in greater detail. Conditional Uses Density /Lot Coverage r Architecture The proposed development text requires conditional use approval for drive - thrus and motor vehicle rentals. Other conditional uses are daycares, he services (tutoring animal care facilities and theaters. The proposed text specifies a maximum building square footage of 170,000 and limits any tenant to 99,850 square feet of retail on the ground floor, and up to 20,000 square feet of second floor mezzanine space not open to the public. The proposed maximum lot coverage is 90 percent;. 10 percent greater than the existing text. The proposed development text requires brick and stone facades with sloped roofs using cedar wood shake shingles. Historic style storefront windows and doors Parking Code requires 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or 928 parking spaces. The proposed text requires parking at four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the first floor, and exempts second floor mezzanine area and outdoor dining areas from the parking requirement. Using the text, the parking requirement is 595 spaces and the preliminary development plan, which includes the fuel station, indicates 630 spaces. Planning agrees that the Code required parking ratio is excessive, and a ratio of four spaces per 1,000 square feet is widely accepted as an adequate requirement for parking for shopping center developments. Second floor and outdoor seating areas are minimal and should not have a significant effect on av ailable parking. Stacking The stacking space definition and the required stacking space number for fuel stations and drive -thru restaurants has been deleted from the proposed development text as requested by the Commission. Code does not have a specific requirement for pharmacy drive -thru stacking; other requirements range from 12 spaces for a convenience store to five spaces per fuel pump. The proposed text requires three spaces per drive -thru lane, which is adequate, based on observations of similar uses. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center PC D, Subarea F- Giant Eagle Thursday, July 22, 2010 1 Page 8 of 23 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENTP LAN DETAILS De'1S711s Preliminary Development Plan Landscaping Signs Site landscaping is required to meet Code. The text further requires a continuous, three -foot every 50 feet. No chan The proposed text has different sign requirements for the shopping center, grocery store, fuel station, and pharmacy drive -thru. References to a shopping center identification sign have been eliminated and will be regulated by Code. Planning and Zoning Commission approval is required for any signs not proposed as part of this application. Appendices A and D of the approved development text include graphic and sign specifications, from the 1996 final development plan, none of which are chanaina. tall hedge along the road setbacks with stone: pillars ges are proposed to this requirement. Shopping Center Tenant Signs. The revised development text permits two signs per tenant; a wall sign and a projecting sign and eliminates the awning sign. Specific design requirements are provided for these signs, including a specific gold color for the lettering. The wall signs may be installed at a maximum height of 16 feet. Grocery Store Signs The text permits an internally illuminated 100 - square -foot wall sign at a maximum height of 26 feet above the finished walkway. The applicant has eliminated the secondary "identifier" sign originally located below the main wall sign, and the State Liquor Agency sign to the south of the main entrance. The proposed text requires the pharmacy drive -thru sign to adhere to the wall sign standards for the shopping center. The text continues to permit 28- square -foot wall signs to identify the cafe, a bank, and the pharmacy, all are located within the grocery store. Unlike the cafe and to some extent the pharmacy, the bank does not have a separate entrance or is able to operate independently from the store. Planning is concerned that the consequence of this text provision would permit signs for present or future activities and tenants located anywhere in the interior of the grocery store. Pharmacy Sign. The pharmacy is part of the Giant Eagle storefront and has an entry door that directly enters the space dedicated to this use. As such, it can meet the definition of a storefront and qualify for a wall sign. bank tenant space does not constitute a storefront for zoning and sign purposes. Although located in the front of the store, the layout of this separately owned and operated bank does not have a specific entrance to the space occupied by the bank. While the applicant has attempted to create a faux "storefront" appearance of an entrance for the bank, it is not truly an independent entrance. Bank Sign. Unlike the pharmacy, for the bank it is important to consider the use of "storefront" in conjunction with "tenant ". In Planning's opinion, the City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center PC D, Subarea F- Giant Eagle Thursday, July 22, 2010 1 Page 9 of 23 PR ELI MINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN DETAILS & ANALYSIS Details Preliminary Development Plan Signs Continued • Bank Sign. Instead, the bank is more appropriately classified as a "sub- tenant" of the anchor tenant. Planning considers tenant spaces to have the ability to operate independently, whereas sub - tenant spaces are dependent on the operation of the tenant space in which they are located. Because bank customers are required to pass through the interior of the grocery store to access the bank, the bank would have to close if Giant Eagle closed and therefore could not operate independently. Traffic Stud L_ Wall signs are intended to identify doorways and entries to specific uses with a storefront and /or separate access and uses that operate independently from the grocery store. The type of signs proposed in this text for the bank should not be permitted. The City has consistently interpreted wall sign provisions as applying only to separate tenants having independent spaces with dedicated entrances that are able to function separately for that use. A similar request was made by the Avery Square Kroger and is the subject of current litigation. Wall signs should only be permitted where storefronts provide separate entrances and businesses that have the abilit to operat independently. Based on the traffic study, the additional traffic generated by the proposed fuel center, grocery store expansion, and drive - through pharmacy can be accommodated on the existing roadway network. No right -of -way dedication is required for this proposal. Analysis Preliminary Development Plan Process Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a rezoning /preliminary development plan (full text of criteria attached). Following is an analysis by Planning based on those criteria. 1) Consistency I Criterion met with condition: This proposal is consistent with the requirements of with Dublin the Zoning Code, with the exception of the sign provisions. The proposed text Zoning Code. permits a sign for a bank to be wholly located within the grocery store, without a separate storefront and /or access, and not able to operate independently from the grocery store. Planning recommends that the sign related to this situation not be permitted and that the text be modified Condition 1 accordingly. r Conformance Criterion met: The 2007 Community Plan identifies the land use for this site as with adopted General Commercial. This proposal only expands upon uses already Plans. permitted for this site, which are consistent with the Future Land Use designation. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center PC D, Subarea F- Giant Eagle Thursday, July 22, 20101 Page 10 ot23 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Analysis 3) Advancement of general welfare and orderly development. 4) Effects on adjacent uses. 5) Adequacy of open space for residential. 6) Protection of natural features and resources. Adequate � 7) infrastructure. 8) Traffic and pedestrian safety. 9) Coordination & integration of building & site . Condition 2 10) Development layout and intensity. 11) Stormwater management 12) Community benefit. Preliminary Development Plan Criterion met: This proposal conforms to the Community Plan and will enhance the area by facilitating the expansion of a successful business within the city and by enhancing services to serve growing needs in the community. Criterion met: The proposed uses are appropriately located in the city and will safeg the value of this and nearby prope Criterion met: Not applicable. Criterion met: There are no natural features or resources on this site. f Criterion met: The site will be adequately served by utilities, and access is available from three points along public roads. Criterion met: The applicant has provided a traffic analysis, which accounts for the square footage of existing building and proposed additions. The plans also indicate adequate provisions for pedestrian access through sidewalk extensions. Criterion met with condition: The proposal maintains the existing development patterns of the original Perimeter Center text. The existing Perimeter Center development text and Subarea map should be updated to reflect the new Subarea F4. Criterion met: The proposed plans contribute to the orderly development of this site, including proposed uses, setbacks, and density. The proposed uses will have adequate parking and accessibility. There is some concern about the relative positions of uses within the center, with all of the non - grocery store uses located in one part of the shopping center. Of particular concern is the concentration of restaurants in the north part of the center. Planning will desire to revisit circulation and parking patterns should the applicant desire to place the fuel station on this site at some point in the future. At that time, an additional evaluation will be needed of the design of the entry points (especially the Perimeter Loop drive) and on -site circulation and parking pa tterns. Criterion met: Adequate provision is made for stormwater management. Criterion met: The development text outlines all applicable development standards for this projec City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center PC D, Subarea F- Giant Eagle Thursday, July 22, 20101 Page 11 ot23 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENTP LAN ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION Analysis Preliminary Development Plan 13) Design and appearance. 4) Development phasing. � 15) Adequacy of public services. Criterion met: The proposal complies with the text requirements for high- quality building materials incorporated into distinctive yet traditional arc hitectural ch aracter. Criterion met: No phasing is proposed with this development. Criterion met: There are adequate services in place for the proposed' development. 16) Public Criterion met: No public infrastructure contributions are required of this infrastructure applicant. contributions. Recommendation Approval with 2 Conditions Summary In Planning's opinion, this proposal complies with the rezoning /preliminary development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the ar ea. Approval with t wo conditions is re commended: Conditions 1) That the proposed text be modified to eliminate the provisions for a sign for a bank within the g rocery store 2) That the Subarea map be revised and updated to reflect the new Subarea F4. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center PC D, Subarea F- Giant Eagle Thursday, July 22, 2010 1 Page 12 ot23 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN DETAILS Details Final Development Plan The final development plan indicates a proposed expansion of the Process grocery store into existing tenant spaces in the southern portion of the building. The applicant has made arrangements to relocate existing tenants to allow the grocery store expansion. An approximately 6,800 - square -foot expansion to the store will occur along the south elevation. A small portion of the building will be removed to accommodate a drive -thru for a pharmacy. Outdoor dining areas of varying sizes are shown along the building facades to serve the shopping center and the grocery store. Plan Overview The final development plan includes: Proposed expansion of the grocery store into existing tenant spaces in the southern portion of the building. A drive -thru for a pharmacy at the south end of the grocery. Outdoor dining areas of varying sizes to serve the shopping center and the grocery store. H- shaped shopping cart corrals with landscaping, as requested by the Commission. Architectural modifications to the southern portion of the building to address concerns about vacant storefront appearance of the facade. A density of 11,800 square feet per acre with a total building area of Density /Lot Coverage 165,617 square feet is proposed, not including the outdoor dining areas (3,000 square feet). The site's 88.04 percent lot coverage is under the 90 percent pe rmitted b the development text. Access The site has three access points to public streets. The main access is from Perimeter Loop Road through a landscaped median dividing the ingress and egress lanes. The drive is designed with a landscaped, half - circle entry feature with a fountain. There is a secondary access point from Perimeter Drive to the north of the site, and the site has a 200 -foot long section of private Mercedes Drive, which provides another access to Perimeter Loop Road. The applicant proposes only minor modifications to the main entrance, including extending the median four feet to the east, providing traffic signs and striping and slightly increasing the radii of the entry drive curves. Stop bars and relocated stop signs are provided for vehicles driving along the west side of the entry feature or exiting the shopping center at the main entrance. Striping is added to attempt to define entry and exit lanes in the driveway throat. The increased curve radii slightly reduce the width of the intersection, with the hope that this will provide better guidance to drivers. Planning and Engineering have noted that the very minor changes proposed inadequately address the current confusing arrangement and fail to appropriately address the anticipated shift in traffic flow, particularly at peak periods, to the north side of the center. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center PC D, Subarea F- Giant Eagle Thursday, July 22, 2010 1 Page 13 ot23 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN DETAILS Details Final Development Plan Observations have consistently shown that the design of the entry drive creates, at best, awkward traffic movements. Simply moving stop bars, adding striping, and a minor median extension will not improve this condition. Fortunately the relative low speeds have not produced a significant accident history. Planning has repeatedly requested the applicant to recommend alternatives to the entry that would improve safety, access, and traffic flow for the center. The applicant has determined that their proposal is sufficient. At this point, Planning recommends as a stop -gap measure that truck traffic and deliveries for the tenants only be from Perimeter Drive or Mercedes Drive so that vehicle /truck conflicts can be avoided. Accommodating truck traffic at the main entrance was the reason stated by the applicant for not considering further improvements to the entry. Should the applicant decide to pursue an amended final development plan and conditional use application for a fuel station on this site, Planning will request that the Commission encourage the applicant to consider major improvements to create a new driveway design and significant entry feature (which is a design element that was highly desired by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council at the time of the Center's development). Code requires 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or 928 parking spaces. The proposed text requires parking at four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the ground level floor, exempting the second floor mezzanine area and the outdoor dining areas. Using the text, the parking requirement is 595 spaces and the preliminary development plan, including the fuel station, has 630 spaces. Planning agrees that the Code required parking ratio is excessive; a ratio of four spaces per 1,000 square feet is wide) acce ted for sho in center arkin . The development text permits up to 99,850 square feet for a single tenant and the plan shows a 98,725- square -foot grocery store. The applicant has stated that the proposed store expansion represents a major overhaul of the store's interior according to a new business model. The existing restaurant in the southernmost tenant space will be relocated within the shopping center. A portion of this tenant space will be removed to accommodate a pharmacy with a drive -thru facility. Several cart corrals will be relocated to better match the interior layout of the store and anticipated customer needs. Grocery Store Expansion City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center PC D, Subarea F- Giant Eagle Thursday, July 22, 2010 1 Page 14 ot23 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN DETAILS Details Architecture Cart Corrals Signs Final Development Plan The front (west) elevation has been modified to include a 38 -foot tall tower element to provide a terminus to the southernmost portion of the building. This architectural detail takes cues from the grocery store's main entry, but appears quite tall. Planning recommends that this portion be no higher than the height of the towers on the main entry. The secondary drive -thru canopy that was to serve the drive thru pharmacy has been eliminated and the remaining canopy at the pharmacy service window has a curved roof resting on a pillar design recessed approximately 80 feet from the building's front facade. In response to a request by Planning and the Commission to provide architectural relief for the bands that were previously used by individual tenants, the applicant has provided wood trim painted in the same creme color as the sign band in lieu of blank sign panels. The applicant will also provide a sample of spandrel glass to be used in the windows along the southern portion of the building. There was discussion at the June 10, 2010 meeting about limiting the height of shelving along the grocery store windows and the development text should include restrictions to that effect. the Commission requested at the April 8, 2010 meeting that the applicant revise the existing cart corrals to an H -shape design with landscaping along the borders, and provide more corrals. The applicant has added one cart corral in the western portion of the parking lot and is proposing the H -shape design for all five corrals. The proposed planting bed is either eight feet or five feet wide depending on whether interior landscape islands were used to create the corral. The text permits an internally illuminated 100 - square -foot wall sign at a maximum height of 26 feet above the finished walkway for the grocery store. The plans do not propose any modifications to the existing primary Giant Eagle sign. The text also permits 28- square -foot signs to identify the cafe, a bank and the pharmacy, which are all located within the grocery store. As stated in the rezoning /preliminary development plan review of this proposal, Planning is concerned that permitting this type of signs would, now or in the future, lead to other uses operating anywhere within the grocery store requesting separate signs. Therefore, Planning recommends that the bank sign be removed. The proposed text includes a provision to permit a sign for the pharmacy drive -thru along the canopy and this sign adheres to the wall sign requirements for the shopping center in terms of size and color. On- site traffic directional signs meeting Code are proposed for the pharmacy drive -thru. Planning is concerned that not enough information has been submitted to determine whether the pharmacy drive -thru sign and the Food & Drug maintain the required six -inch border on the top and the bottom of the letters and recommends that this details be provided at the building permit stage. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center PC D, Subarea F- Giant Eagle Thursday, July 22, 20101 Page 15 ot23 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN DETAILS Details Final Development Plan Code requires 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or 928 spaces. The site currently has 755 parking spaces, was approved as part of the original final development plan. The proposed development text requires that parking be provided at a ratio of four spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area (exempting the second story and the outdoor dining areas) which would require 595 spaces, and 718 parking spaces are provided. (This higher number from the preliminary development plan reflects the omission of the fuel station.) Outdoor Dining The text permits up to 3,000 square feet of outdoor dining areas and the Areas plans indicate approximately 1,500 square feet. There are two outdoor dining areas (160 square feet and 356 square feet) indicated to the north and south of the main entrance to the grocery store to serve Outdoor Dining customers of the cafe. Areas Continued Three additional outdoor dining areas are proposed for tenants of the shopping center. All of the proposed areas are on existing impervious areas. The applicant has provided cut sheets for the proposed tables, chairs and umbrellas t o be used consistently throughout the center. Stormwater The applicant's proposal reduces the total amount of impervious Management surface and therefore does not require any additional stormwater manag ement facilities. Utilities and Existing water and sanitary sewer services are used for the expansion. Right -of -Way The fuel center will be served by existing services on the site. No additional right -of -way is required. Additional sewers are proposed and tied in appropriately Sidewalks This plans show the Code required five -foot sidewalk along the site's public road frontage along Perimeter Loop Road. There is an existing sidewalk segment in the northwest corner of the site that connects the site to the public way and the proposed sidewalk will connect to this segment. As requested by residents of the Manor at Craughwell Village, the applicant is proposing to install sidewalk from the condominium parking area to the center. Site Amenities There are existing benches throughout the center. The proposal either retains or relocates existing bike racks and adds two racks, one adjacent to the grocery store's main entrance and one adjacent to the open space in the northeast portion of the site. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 116Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center PC D, Subarea F- Giant Eagle Thursday, July 22, 20101 Page 16 ot23 FINAL DEVELOP MENTP LAN ANALYSIS Analysis Process Criterion met with conditions: The plans only provide for minor modifications to the site's main access and Planning is concerned that changes proposed inadequately address the current confusing circulation, particularly once the applicant pursues a fuel station on this site and the anticipated shift in traffic flow becomes greater. Since Planning and Engineering are aware that changes would require a newly designed entry feature, at a minimum, but recommends that fuel deliveries and deliveries for the tenants be restricted to either the Perimeter Drive access point or the Mercedes Drive access point, so Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a final development plan (full text of criteria attached). Following is an analysis by Planning based on those criteria. Consistency with the Criterion met with conditions: This proposal is consistent with the approved preliminary requirements of the development text proposed as part of the development plan. preliminary development plan. The proposed building materials must be clearly indicated on the plans and must match the existing material on the building. There was discussion at the June 10, 2010 meeting about limiting the Conditions 1 & 2 height of shelving along the grocery store windows and the development text and final development plan should include r estrictions to that effect. 2) Traffic and pedestrian safety. Conditions 3 & 4 3) Adequate public services and open space. 4) Protection of natural features and resources. 5) Adequacy of lighting. 6) Proposed signs are consistent with approved final development plan. that vehicle /truck conflicts can be avoided. It is further recommended that the design of the entry be reconsidered if an amended final development plan and conditional use are sought station o other use Final Development Plan Criterion met: The site will have adequate public services and open space dedication is not required as part of this application. Criterion met: The proposed plans meet the preliminary plan with regard to landscaping and are sensitive to the natural characteristics of the site. While it is necessary to remove existing trees, the applicant has found replacement locations on or near the development site. Criterion met: Lighting proposed as part of this application is adequate and the proposed light levels meet Code. Criterion met with conditions: The plans include a sign for a bank operating from within the grocery but not independently from the store. This sign would not be allowed by Code and permitting these types of signs could lead to other independent uses operating within a grocery store requesting separate signs (and potentially setting a precedent for other similar situations in the city). Therefore, Planning recommends that the bank sign be removed from the elevations. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center PC D, Subarea F- Giant Eagle Thursday, July 22, 2010 1 Page 17 ot23 FINAL DEVELOP'MENTP LAN ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION Insufficient information has been submitted to determine whether the pharmacy drive -thru sign and the Food & Drug maintain the required Conditions & 6 six -inch border on the top and the bottom of the letters and Planning recommends a condition that this requirement be met. L ) Landscaping to Criterion met: The proposed plans meet the preliminary plan with enhance, buffer, regard to landscaping. soften building &site. 8) Stormwater management that is Criterion met: The site will comply with all applicable stormwater management regulations and final calculations will be reviewed at the compliant with the building permit stage. Zoning Cod C 9) All phases comply Criterion met. Not applicable. with the previous c riteria. 10) Compliance with all other local, state, Criterion met: The proposal complies with all and federal laws and local, state, and federal laws and regulations. regulations. H Recommendation Summary F Conditions Final Development Plan other known applicable Final Development P lan In Planning's opinion, this proposal complies with the development text, the final development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area. Approval is recommended with six conditions. That all building materials be clearly indicated on the plans and match the existing materials of the buildings_ 2) That the development text and final development plan be revised to address limiting the height of shelving along the grocery store windows; 1) 3) That fuel deliveries and deliveries for the tenants be restricted to the Perimeter Drive and Mercedes Drive access points. The design of the entry shall be reconsidered if an amended final development plan and conditional use are sought for the fuel station or other use in the center; 4) That the design of the entry be reconsidered if an amended final development plan and conditional use are sought for the fuel station or ot her use in the center; 5) That the bank sign be removed; and 6) That the required six -inch border on the top and the bottom of the letters be provided for all plaque walls signs. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center PC D, Subarea F- Giant Eagle Thursday, July 22, 2010 1 Page 18 ot23 CON DfTIONAL USE DETAILS & ANALYSIS Details C onditional Use Process i �harmacy Drive -Thru Based on discussion at the April 8, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant has revised the development text to require conditional use approval for drive- thrus. The plan shows the pharmacy drive -thru along the southern elevation of the building with a window lane closest to the building and an adjacent automated drop -off lane. The single lane initial approach to the drive -thru divides to two lanes nearing the window /drop off point. Each lane stacks three vehicles, which, while less than Code, meets the development text. The Commission was concerned about the proposed location of the pharmacy drive -thru and its proximity to a residential condominium building. The closest portion of the residential building is 60 feet from the pharmacy drive -thru exit lane. As requested the applicant has contacted the owners of the affected condominiums and Planning has included the addresses provided in the mailing of the meeting notices. The plans show a 12 -foot exit drive aisle with an evergreen hedge, white spruce trees and the incorporation of existing trees and shrubs. A six -foot tall screen of cementitious siding with stone columns every eight feet is proposed along the drive aisle to further screen the pharmacy drive -thru. The applicant is also proposing landscaping in the island dividing the pharmacy entrance and exit lanes with six -foot tall evergreens, hornbeams, London Plane trees and the evergreen hedgerow. A low three -foot tall metal fence with stone columns spaced every 11 feet is proposed in the western portion of the median dividing the pharmacy drive -thru entry and exit lanes. Planning recommends that this fence be revised to the evergreen hedge /stone column design that is used along roadwa fronta in the area. Analysis C onditional Use Process Section 153.236 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval of a conditional use (full text of criteria attached). Following is an analysis by Pl anning based on th ose criter 1) Will be harmonious with the Zoning Code and /or Community Pla 2) Complies with all development standards. 3) Will be harmonious with the existing or intended character in the general vicinity. Criterion met: This proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code and /or the Community Plan. Criterion met: This proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code. Criterion met: The proposed drive -thru will not alter the essential character of the area. 6) Will not harm the Criterion met: This use contributes positively to the economic climate economic welfare. of the city. 7) Will not create any Criterion met: The proposed drive -thru will not be detrimental to the use or characteristic existing or future surrounding uses. that is detrimental to the surrounding uses. 8) Vehicular circulation Criterion met: This proposal will not interfere with vehicular circulation. will not create interference with existing circulation. 9) Will not be Criterion met: This proposal will not be detrimental to property values. detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity. 10) Will not impede the Criterion met: This proposal will not interfere with surrounding development or improvements or developments. improvement of surrounding properties. Recommendation Conditional Use Summary This proposal complies with the conditional use review criteria and approval of this req uest is recommended with 1 condition. Conditionl 1) That the low metal fence is replaced with evergreen shrubs and stone columns spaced every 11 feet in the western portion of the median dividing the pharmacy drive thru entry and exit lanes. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center PC D, Subarea F- Giant Eagle Thursday, July 22, 20101 Page 19 ot23 CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION Analy Conditional Us 4) Will not have a Criterion met with condition: The proposed pharmacy drive -thru is hazardous or within 60 feet of a residential condominium building and the applicant negative impact on has proposed a low three -foot tall metal fence with stone columns surrounding uses. spaced every 11 feet in the western portion of the median dividing the pharmacy drive -thru entry and exit lanes. Planning recommends that Condition 1 this fence be revised to the evergreen hedge /stone column design that is sued along r frontages in the are r5) Will provide adequate Criterion met: This proposal will have sufficient services and facilities services and facilities. available for the intensity of the desired use. 6) Will not harm the Criterion met: This use contributes positively to the economic climate economic welfare. of the city. 7) Will not create any Criterion met: The proposed drive -thru will not be detrimental to the use or characteristic existing or future surrounding uses. that is detrimental to the surrounding uses. 8) Vehicular circulation Criterion met: This proposal will not interfere with vehicular circulation. will not create interference with existing circulation. 9) Will not be Criterion met: This proposal will not be detrimental to property values. detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity. 10) Will not impede the Criterion met: This proposal will not interfere with surrounding development or improvements or developments. improvement of surrounding properties. Recommendation Conditional Use Summary This proposal complies with the conditional use review criteria and approval of this req uest is recommended with 1 condition. Conditionl 1) That the low metal fence is replaced with evergreen shrubs and stone columns spaced every 11 feet in the western portion of the median dividing the pharmacy drive thru entry and exit lanes. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center, Subarea F Thursday, July 22, 2010 1 Page 20 ot23 REVIEW CRITERIA 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 forwarded to City Council for a first reading /introduction and a second reading /public hearing for a 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. In the case of a combined rezoning /preliminary development plan and final development plan, the final development plan is not valid unless the rezoning /preliminary development plan is approved by Council. Review Criteria Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan. In accordance with Section 153.055(A) Plan Approval Criteria, Code sets out the following criteria of approval for a preliminary development plan (rezoning): 1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Dublin Zoning Code; 2) The proposed development is in conformity with the Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing street network; 3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the City and immediate vicinity and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas; 4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the City so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded; 5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; 6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site; 7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and /or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; 8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non - conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center, Subarea F Thursday, July 22, 2010 I Page 21 of 23 REVIEW CRITERIA 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 acceptability of the development plan's contribution to the orderly development of land within the City; 11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas; 12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Dublin Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; 13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the City; 14) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; 15) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements and not impair the existing public service system for the area; and 16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center, Subarea F Thursday, July 22, 2010 1 Page 22 of 23 REVIEW CRITERIA 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 reviewand 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. Review Criteria In accordance with Section 153.055(6) Plan Approval Criteria, the Code sets out the following criteria of approval for a final development plan: 1) The plan conforms in all pertinent respects to the approved preliminary development plan provided, however, that the Planning and Zoning Commission may authorize plans as specified in § 153.053(E) (4); 2) Adequate provision is made for safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation within the site and to adjacent property; 3) The development has adequate public services and open spaces; 4) The development preserves and is sensitive to the natural characteristics of the site in a manner that complies with the applicable regulations set forth in this Code; 5) The development provides adequate lighting for safe and convenient use of the streets, walkways, driveways, and parking areas without unnecessarily spilling or emitting light onto adjacent properties or the general vicinity; 6) The proposed signs, as indicated on the submitted sign plan, will be coordinated within the Planned Unit Development and with adjacent development; are of an appropriate size, scale, and design in relationship with the principal building, site, and surroundings; and are located so as to maintain safe and orderly pedestrian and vehicular circulation; 7) The landscape plan will adequately enhance the principal building and site; maintain existing trees to the extent possible; buffer adjacent incompatible uses; break up large expanses of pavement with natural material; and provide appropriate plant materials for the buildings, site, and climate; 8) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site which complies with the applicable regulations in this Code and any other design criteria established by the City or any other governmental entity which may have jurisdiction over such matters; 9) If the project is to be carried out in progressive stages, each stage shall be so planned that the foregoing conditions are complied with at the completion of each stage; and 10) The Commission believes the project to be in compliance with all other local, state, and federal laws and regulations. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 09- 115Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Perimeter Center, Subarea F Thursday, July 22, 2010 1 Page 23 ot23 REVIEW CRITERIA CONDITIONAL USE Review Criteria Section 153.236(C) sets out criteria for the review and approval of a conditional use. (C) Action by the Planning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall hold a public hearing and shall not approve a conditional use unless it finds that such use at the proposed location meets all of the following requirements: 1) The proposed use will be harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives, or with any specific objective or purpose of the Zoning Code and /or Community Plan. 2) The proposed use will comply with all applicable development standards, except as specifically altered in the approved conditional use. 3) The proposed use will be harmonious with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area. 4) The use will not be hazardous to or have a negative impact on existing or future surrounding uses. 5) The area and proposed use(s) will be adequately served by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police, and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewers, and schools; or that the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use shall be able to provide adequately any such services. 6) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7) The proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operations, including, but not limited to, hours of operation, that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odor or other characteristic not comparable to the uses permitted in the base zoning district. 8) Vehicular approaches to the property shall be so designed as not to create interference with traffic on surrounding public and /or private streets or roads. 9) The proposed use will not be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity. 10) The proposed use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP N City of Dublin Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan J� Land Use and Final Development Plan A Long Range Planning Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle Feet 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road 0 250 500 ,- SH ' t 1 .. } 't ' • a' � � V - ite , . area �CUfg h ell Village, SUba or a Subarca G ( f anera a Suharea f f 4 ' `� 'ae 3 : !'��'111Eld�lll lJ#1�!l l •` r fm Mufflul �Su1) a ica f 1 !. • 1 .. 1 I # I ' , Final Development Plan/Conditional Use fff . -6804 Perimeter Loop Road PROPOSED SITE PLAN fit p� 6 Sit 0 1 r _ n f - prp Ja ` t r N f � ill � sz�O •:, • ��`l'�'. A u � �( " �' �• it sx `� , � •�� ` ' Y I A � � 'CJ 4 � ° ) ry o � ��' p 1 • fill '.,- fn PLR �` I a •� tY 1 1 I { r ZONED. � l �' � � �lff�fdfi [I.ra�• l•. II 0 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /Cti Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plus/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea r - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS ttt, trs� l r 1� . West Elevation South Elevation 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road t l .� iC�y � C � x• i� i9 10 1 . West Elevation South Elevation 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road PROPOSED BANK AND PHARMACY SIGNS West Elevation 09 - 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Re: aniup 1'rellmip1lr� Iktal„l,aient Plan/ ('innl 17 ur�lupn�cuf flan t~u Oiliunal Use Perhneter cualvr Pt I3 - Suluiren F . Giant Eagle (1015 -(,xIm Pcrimetrr Loop Road STACKING DETAIL & LANDSCAPING FOR PHARMACY DRIVE -THRU 1 his, ff " T ' '1 00 8D '1 0 , 1 K .� C a� f G i I 1 09- 1157JPDP /FDP /CU ROZ011ing/Proliminary Dovalopmcnt Plan/ Final Nvelupment Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F Giant Eagle 6015 -69011 Perimeter Iov Road FENCE DETAIL 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plun/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter hoop Road PROPOSED CART CORRAL DETAIL oc�o t 1\ � 1 1 reltsrtr�t H I VYllf l #Il:Iif �NU #p %1 IM; ti f f -v �: 1 811111111! 1 I !1 I olun 1i � r � s 5 � 1 5 k F I ' I IF 1�6� (y.:0nrllln IM6e 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /C.'U Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimetef Centel PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6801 Perimeter Loop Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT PERIMETER CENTeR DEVELOPMENT TEXT PERIMETER CENTER SUBAREA STANDARDS (Revised 1/3/94,1117/94, 01129102) The following Subarea Descriptions and Development Standards by subarea shall be made part of the Concept Plan and an further discussed and ilhlstrated in the Subarea Plan SUBAREA DESCRIMONS Subarea A. Interchange Related (25.4 acres) Because of its location adjacent to a major freeway interchange, Subarea A may contain freeway oriented uses similar to the other two quadrants on the east side of the Route 161 at 1 -270 interchange and include hotels /motels, general office uses, corporate headquarters office or major institutional uses. Subarea B Post Road Related (42.0 acres) This area is characterized by its relationship with residential uses on the north side of Post Road and the need for a reasonable landscaped setback buffer between the residential uses and the proposed development. Subarea B-1 Revised Post Road Related area (7.4 acres) This area is also characterized by its relationship with residential uses on the north side of Post Road. The permissible uses will include compact disc manufacture in addition to office-type uses. All development standards and buffers from Subarea B will continue to be applicable. Subareas B-2/B-3 HomgkAd The development being proposed for this area is a mixed use community. Homestead at Perimeter Center will be a condominium development with a small amount ofcommercial space integrated into a residential community. Within a condominium form of ownership all streets are private, and services such as trash pick -up, snow removal, exterior building maintenance, an lawn care are provided by the condominium association. This translates into less demand on public services. Within a condominium development the buyers will be purchasing individual dwelling and/or working units. Individual lots, as in a traditional single - family subdivision, do not exist. After a unit has been purchased, the condominir-n resident's association must approve any changes to the exterior of that unit, including additions or alterations to any buildings and any significant changes to the common areas. Subarea C Internal Orientation (91.6 acres) Uses within this subarea shall include a mix of commercial, office research and light industrial uses or uses that exhibit a degree of clean, quiet unobjectionable processing activities within an enclosed structure. These uses are more appropriate to Subarea C because of its internal 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminmy Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT PERIMETER CEMTER DEVELOPMENTTEXT relationship within the site. Subarea D State Route 161 Relat Because of extensive State Route 161 frontage, uses within Subarea D are primarily freeway oriented, general office, corporate headquarters office and institutional uses, hotels and motels. Subarea E Services Zone (14.2 acres) Typically found between a major interchange and the first arterial intersections, this subarea contains freestanding uses on individual lots that require a highly visible orientation and immediate access. Architecture, signage and site planing/traffic elements are coordinated through various controls to assure a unified development appearance. Subareas F, F -1, F-2, and F-3 Retail Center. (33.0 acres) This area contains a mix of retaillcommercial uses in an integrated shopping environment typical in size to a community center. This self- contained area also has access on all sides creating an even distribution of traffic. (Revised 2/6/95) Subarea G Multi - Family (16.2 acres) As a buffer or a transition zone to the single - family area to the north (Post Road frontage), the multi - family area will have a unified, residential scale appearance with a limited density. Subarea G-1 Multi - Family (13.1 acres) This area contains high density multi - family development which serves as a transition zone between a retail/commercial community center to the west and lower density multi - family development to the north and east. Architecture of the buildings is to be consistent with the Perimeter Shopping Center (Subarea F) in its design, materials, architecture, detailing and overall quality. Subarea H Condominium (8.0 acres) This subarea may be used for multifamily condominium housing at a density of less than 7 units per acre. (Revised 11/7/94) Subarea I Transitional Area This zone will function as a transition zone between the retail uses of Subarea E (the service zone along Avery Road), and F, F -1, F -2, and F -3 (the retail mall) and the freeway oriented office area - Subarea D to the east. Subarea J Midwestern Auto Group (14.787 acres) 2 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /Cli Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F- Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT PERIMETER CENTER DEYELOPMENT'1Vm This is a visible area that has been rezoned to allow Midwestern Auto Group to develop it as a high quality automobile retail and service operation. For uses other than automobile dealerships the development standards shall be those contained in Subarea D, Perimeter Center. Subarea K Gordon Flesch Cm., Inc. (4.37 acres) Due to Subarea 10s high visibility from state Route 1611US 33, it is essential to maintain a higb level of quality development. All the qualitative aspects of "Subarea D" as originally established shall be incorporated in this Subarea K, but the use definition shall be expanded so that Gordon Flesch h-may operate within the new subarea. Subarea L Services Zone: (1.959 acres) Typically found between a major interchange and the first arterial intersections, this subarea contains freestanding uses on individual lots that require a highly visible orientation and immediate access. Architecture, signage and site planninghraffic elements are coordinated through various controls to assure a unified development appearance. Subarea M - iildren's Hospital: ' Due to Subarea M's high visibility from State Route 1611US 33, it is essential to maintain a high level of quality development. All the qualitative aspects of "Subarea D" as originally established shall be incorporated in this Subarea M, except for the parking requirements which shall be modified due to the unique nature of Children's Close to Home Facility. 09- 1157JPDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center I'CD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road APPROVED* DEVELOPMENT TEXT PERIMETER CENTER DEVELOPMENT T Exr SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS General: If these standards conflict in any way with the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances, then the Planned Commerce District shall prevail. Standards in the Dublin Zoning Code applicable to matters not covered in this document shall apply to each of the subareas in the Planned Commerce, District. 2. The standards included herein shall not require modification of any structures, landscaping, or other improvements actually in place as a result of development occurring prior to this rezoning. Such structures, landscaping and improvements shall be considered permitted and legal and conforming uses at the location and to the size and degree they exist at the time of said rezoning. 3. Perimeter Drive will be constructed through to Wilcox Road as a part of the initial development phase of Subarea F, F -1, F -2, and F -3. The loop road through Area E, F, D shall also be constructed as part of the initial phase. At such time as the part of said Perimeter Drive is constructed through the Thomas property, the remainder of said Perimeter Drive from the east line of the McKitrick property to the west line of the Thomas property shall forthwith start and be completed within a reasonable time. The entire length of Perimeter Drive shall have a sidewalk along the southern right -o£ -way from Avery Road to Coffman Road. Nothing herein shall prohibit owner(s) from completing Perimeter Drive prior to the required completion period. If additional right -of -way is required for ramp widening, it shall be provided. The landscape buffer along the south side of Post Road shall be installed in its entirety from Avery Road to Wilcox Road with the beginning of construction on Subarea G, H, F or the construction of Perimeter Drive from Avery to Wilcox. With regard to the mound and landscaping required on the property along Post Road and owned by applicant Olde Poste Properties, the following schedule should apply: a. At such time as any parcel of said property along Post Road is developed, applicant shall complete the mounding and landscaping along the Post Road frontage of said parcel as a part of the initial phase of construction and maintain the same thereafter. b. In addition, if said applicant, prior to the completion of the mound and landscaping as required under a) hereof should develop lands lying north of Perimeter Drive (not at the date of this rezoning developed) with construction amounting to 100,000 square feet of building area or more, applicant will complete the entire mound and the landscaping between the mound and the Post Road right -of -way from Discovery Boulevard to the 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /C:U Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eaglo 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT P E1t ME M C EtV m D EVEWPMt°Nr TEXT east if the City of Dublin undertakes to water the landscaping elements until any or all parts of the Post Road frontage mound and landscaping are constructed in accordance with a) hereof. For these purposes, neither the planned day care center which is a permitted use at the northeast corner of Discovery Boulevard and the proposed loop street nor construction on the 15 -acre parcel owned by White Consolidated Industries shall be included within the said 100,0100 square fat. The applicant shall be obligated to pay one-third of the cost of the irnprovement of Avery Road from the south right -of -way line of Post Road to the north right -ot� -way line of S.R. 161 according to plans approved by the City of Dublin if, and only if the City of Dublin agrees to pay one - third of said cost, and one of said cost is assumed by those owning property on the west side of Avery Road, between Post Road and 5.8.161. Said improvement shall be undertaken and performed by applicant prior to the opening of any commercial use on applicant's property the subject of this rezoning if, and only if, the City of Dublin furnishes the applicant in money or required materials with its share of said assts at a time which reasonably meets applicant's construction and opening schedules. In addition, applicant agrees to include within the improvement project that part of Avery Road (Muirfield Boulevard) from the south right- of-way line of Post Road to the present southerly terminus of the four land section of Muirfield Drive north of Indian Run K and only if, the City of Dublin furnishes the applicant in money or required materials with the cost of said additional construction. Botts applicant and the City of Dublin understand that appropriate contracts will be executed covering the construction contemplated herein. 4. The street plan shown on the plan is the general plan which will be platted and constructed. It is not, however, intended to be precise, and while the functional system will be produced, its precise location may vary from that shown so long as the functional objectives continue to be attained. A safe bike connection from Post Rend to )Perimeter Mall through areas G & H will be provided if the bikeway connection over S.R. 161 is made, a bike tiellink will be completed to Post Road from the proposed bike path in Area G, H to State Route 161 connection. 5. Signage and Graphics: DESIGN CRITERIA a. These criteria are written in conjunction with the Dublin Sign Code Chapter 1189. In areas of conflict, these criteria shall supersede the Dublin Sign Code. 09 -11 S7/PDP /FDP /C:U 5 l[c/i'nmt; 1'rchJ61lur), Davelopmce1t Plan/ Filial D1 flchgm,crtl 1 Conch liunal Use N11111cicr [ `uiilcr I'i J) - %l1wireu I.' Giant F"agle r;l►I i•pK1�.l !'ernncler Loup ]toad APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT PERIMETER CENTER DEVELOPMEddP TEXT b. Materials and Landscaping: (1) All signs with a base shall have the base constructed of the predominant material of the user building. (2) All signs mounted on pylons shall have landscaping around the base of the sign and around the pylons such that the pylons are not visible. All plantings shall be of an evergreen material (see Example E attached). The length of the pylons shall be limited to two (2) feet between the grade elevation and the bottom of the sign face. C. Dimensions of Sign: (1) Maximum area of sign face: 50 square feet per face, with a limit of no more than two faces per sign. (2) Area of sign base (if any) shall not exceed area of sign face. The base shall not be included in the overall area pemritted for the sign face. (3) Maximum overall height: 8'-0" above top of adjacent street curb. Signs located on earthen mounds shall maintain conformance to • 8' -0" maximum height above top of adjacent curb. (4) It is intended that the signs shall be generally rectangular in design with an approximately 3' to 3' height to length ratio. Specific designs for each user may be considered on their own merit as long as they follow these general guidelines. (See Exhibit A through E attached). d. Sign Graphics: (1) Graphic identification shall be limited to the site users name, logo and street number. (2) The area of graphic images such as logos shall not exceed 20% of the sign face. (3). Street numbers shall be located in the lower corner of the sign face or base nearest the right -of -way. (4) The maximum height of any letter or number shall be 16 ". 6 09- 115ZIPDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eugle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT PERIMETER CENTER DEVELOPMENT TEXT e. Quantity: No more than one ground sign shall be permitted on any one lot or multiple lots if devoted to one specific use or user, except that for buildings or uses having frontage on each of two public rights -of -way, two ground signs are permitted. Neither ground sign shall, by itself, exceed the maximum allowable area of 50 square feet for each face. f. Signs may: (a) be non - illuminated, (b) feature internally illuminated graphics or incorporate back-lit graphics. Only the sign graphics shall be illuminated. g. Signage setbacks from the right -of -way are as follows: 0) 10'-0" along Avery Road (2) 12' -0" along the south side of Perimeter Drive (3) 8' -0" in all other areas. h. Traffic and directional signs. shall be in conformance with Dublin Sign Code 1189.03. i. Within Subarea B, all signage shall be limited to the south side of all structures along Post Road. j . No sign shall be painted or posted directly on the surface of any building, wall or fence. No wall murals shall be allowed. k. No signs shall be applied to windows for the purpose of outdoor or exterior advertising. 1. No roof signs shall be permitted, nor should a sign extend higher than the building. m. No flashing, traveling, animated or intermittently illuminated signs may be used. n. No billboards, or electrical or other advertising signs shall be allowed other than a sign carrying the name of the business occupying the site or "for sale" or "for lease" signs in accordance with Dublin Code 1189.03(g). Lighting: Except as otherwise herein stated: 7 09- 11571PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Pmumrm Coat Dttv>Et opmeNr TlExr a. External lighting within all subareas shall be cut off type fixtures. b. All types of parking, pedestrian and other exterior lighting shall be on poles or wall- mounted cutof fixture and shall be from the same type and style. C. All light poles and standards shall be dark in color and shall either be constructed of dark wood, dark brown, black or bronze metal. d. Parking lot lighting shall be no higher than 28'. e. cutoff type landscape and building uplighting shall be permitted. E All lights shall be arranged to .reflect light away from any street or adjacent property. g. Direct or indirect glare into the eyes of motorists or pedestrians shall be avoided. h. All building illuminations shall'be from concealed sources. I. No colored lights shall be used to light the exterior of buildings. Landscape lighting along Avery Road shall be ground mounted with a low level of illumination. 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT PERIMETER CENTER DEVELOPMENT TEXT Subarea F- Retail Ceaterr (February 27,1995) Subarea Development Standards: Subareas F, F -1, F -2, and F -3 shall comply with the gerwral subarea development standards contained in the original Perimeter Center zoning (general, signage and graphics, lighting and Perimeter Center primary identification signage design criteria) unless otherwise indicated in this text or in the submitted site plans. Percentage of lot coverage shall be no greater than 80% in Subarea F. When Subareas F-1, F 2 and F -3 are combined, their total percentage of lot coverage shall be no greater than 75 %. Subarea F: The retail center will have a maximum total gross square footage of 176,500 with a maximum 85,000 square foot grocery store. The grocery store square footage is contained within the total gross square footage of 176,500. This retail center may be developed in phases. Srrvicing for the proposed center, upon completion of all phases, will be totally screened from view by passer- by nffitc, and, until completion, temporary semning of the near areas will be accomplished by mounding and by placing pine trees staggered fifteen feet on center along those spaces. This total screening height shall be fourteen feet at the time iifplanting from the elevation of adjacent drives orparking. Special attention will be provided to design of all elevations of the center to maintain an established architectural theme with good aesthetic quality throughout the development of the retail and services zone. The same or compatible building materialrand a common lighting, signage and landscaping ethic will also be incorporated to blend with the surrounding proposed uses for total site compatibility. The first building to be, constructed will be the Big Bear store and related shell shops. Future phasing will be controlled by market demand. The following uses shall be permitted within Subarea F: Permitted uses include uses permitted in the CC, Community Commercial District, and the SO, Suburban Office Institutional District. Conditional uses to include car rental, outdoor seating associated with an eating and drinking place, theaters, outdoor garden sales including garden centers, drive -in facilities associated with a permitted use and open display associated with a permitted use. Yard and Setback Requirements: 1. Along the Perimeter Loop Road, pavement setbacks shall be 35', building setback 50'. 2. Along the Perimeter Drive, pavement setbacks shall be 35', building setbacks 75 3. All other local street pavement setbacks shall be 25, building setback 50'. - 4. Total building square feel for Subarea F shall not exceed 10,000 square feet ' per acre. 38 09- 1157/PDP/ MCLl Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Pedmeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Fugle 6015 -6804 Perimeter loop Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT PERIMETER CENTER DENE[APMENT nxT Height Requirements: 1. Maximum height for buildings in Subarea F shall be 45' as measured per Dublin Zoning Code. Parldug and Loading: I. All parking and loading shall be regulated by the Dublin Code Chapter 1193. 2. Drive -thru stacking areas for fast food restaurants shall accommodate a minimum of eight spaces per exchange window. 3. Bank drive -thru stacking requirements as per the Columbus Zoning Code. 4.. "Landbank" areas will be designated in areas as shown on the accompanying maps, where parking, required by Code, may not be necessary at this time. These areas will remain unpaved and in a grassy state until it is deemed necessary by the City of Dublin or owner. Screening, required by Code, will be provided in either case. Circulations: 1. Perimeter Drive shall have a 100' right -of -way, and a 56' pavement width 2. The Perimeter Loop Road shall have a 60' right -of -way, and a 36' pavement width. 3. All other local public access streets shall have a 60' right -of -way, and a 32' pavement width. 4. Opposing curb cuts on Perimeter Drive and the Perimeter Loop Road shall be offset no less than 100' (as measured from the driveway's centerline) or directly aligned wherever possible consistent with prudent traffic engineering principles and practices. Waste and Refuse: 1. All waste and refuse shall be containerized and fully screened from view by a solid wall or fence. Storage and Equipment: 1. No materials, supplies, equipment or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of a parcel outside a permitted structure unless approved in association with a conditional use application. Outside storage in the pedestrian spaces shall not be permitted, including grocery carts and retail goods, unless a conditional use permit is obtained from the Planning Commission. 39 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F- Giant Cagle 6015 -6801 Perimeter Loop Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT PMUMMUR CENTER DEVELOPMENT TEXT A. Main Identification Signs There shall be main identification signs for the shopping center on Perimeter Loop Road and on Perimeter Drive: A total of two main identification signs shall be permitted, not to exceed 15 feet in height and 19 feet in width, with a maximum each of two sign faces, with a maximum area of 66 square feet per sign face, externally illuminated, with sign base materials matching the retail center materials and sign face materials and colors matching the retail tenant signage materials and colors, and with one such sign located at the northeast comer of Avery Road and Perimeter Loop Road and one such sign located at the Perimeter Drive entrance to the retail center. 2. Area of sign base (if any) shall not exceed area of sign face. The base shall not be included in the overall area permitted for the sign face. 3. There will be no project identification sign located adjacent to SR 161/U.S. 33 as allowed by Item 5(b) of the original Perimeter Center Subarea Standards, dated February 9,1988. B. The Perimeter Retail Center sign package shall meet the following elements: 1. That. all wall and projecting signage meet the City sign code relative to permitted sign face area and that wall signs not exceed 16.feet in height; 2. That each tenant store front be limited to one wall sign, one projecting sign and one awning sign. Wall sign faces shall not exceed one square foot in area for each one lineal foot in store frontage not to exceed 80 square feet. Projecting sign faces shall not exceed three square feet in area. 3. That each tenant shall have one (1) projecting sign of uniform size and design as illustrated by the accompanying drawing. Background color of projecting sign shall match background color of that particular tenant's wall sign. 4. That awing signs be permitted per code for property addresses, names of occupant and year business established, should not state product names or lines, tag lines, pictures of products, hours of operation or telephone or fax numbers, and provided -such signs are limited to one square foot in area unless approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as a part of a development plan and the color is complementary to the awning and wall sign; 5. That goose neck fixtures all be comprised of the same exterior finish and color, subject to staff approval; and 6. That the background color of wall signs, projecting signs and awning signs be selected from the existing Perimeter Center palette of trim colors or a compatible 41 09- 1157/PDP/FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT PBWMMR CENTER DEVELOPMENT TEXT Landscaping: 1. All landscaping shall conform to the Dublin Landscaping Code Chapter 1187. 2. In addition, landscaping within the Perimeter Loop Road setback, Perimeter Drive and Mercedes Drive shall include a continuous three foot hedge with stone pilaster fifty (50) feet on center with street trees planted fifty (50) feet on center within the R.O.W. and planted +1 from R.O.W. 3. Street trees for the subarea will be selected from Appbndix F, Group A, of the Dublin Planning and Zoning Code. ' Architecture: The architectural design of the buildings shall be consistent with the architectural elevation plans submitted with this application. The development shall be constructed with the same architectural style and roof treatment with the exception of service corridors. The facade shall consist of brick and manufactured stone and the sloped -roof shall be constructed of cedar wood shake shingles. The brick shall be selected from the approved Perimeter Center palette. The manufactured stone shall be "Ohio limestone (buff" by manufacturer Carriage Hill Stone or approved equal and used throughout the project as a water table and -w a facade treatment in select areas. The store front system shall be designed in a historic style using windows with mullions and raised panel details. The roof slops shall be 8/12,10/12 or 12/12 pitch depending upon location of the roof element. The rear areas of the development shall be given special treatment so as to present an architecturally appropriate facade to the traveling public. The rear walls of the Big Bear Store and related shops and the flex -office structure shall be constructed Of stucco or synthetic stucco in order to complement the architectural style found on the front facade and scoring and/or lights or other reliefeletnents shall be used to break up the back of the center. The three (3) fine- standing buildings (being designated as 8.41C, 12.6K, and 25K respectively) shall maintain the same architectural style and roofing as the main center on all four (4) facades. Screening to a height of six (6) feet shall be placed along the west property line of Subarea F -i to provide additional screening for the north elevations ofthese buildings. Further, there shall also be a hedge of bushes along the front of the shopping center walkway similar to those along the rights -of -way within the subject area that shall provide continuity with the entire area and an architectural feature that enhances the appearance of the development Brick pavers, scored concrete, benches, bollards and street lamps shalt be incorporated into select areas of the walkway to provide variety and interest for pedestrian traffic. With the exception of service corridors that are screened, the buildings shall have the same degree of exterior finish on all sides. Graphics: All signs shall comply with the sign code unless varied by this text or accompanying drawings. 40 09- 1157JPDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preli nfimy Development Plan/ Final Development Plan/Conditional Use Perimeter Cenler PCD - Subarea f - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeler Loop Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT P ERIMETER CENTER DEVELOPMENT Tsar color approved by staff. 7. With the exception of "Big Bear" letters and "Bear" logo, all wall and hanging signage shall have "gold" letters on dark colored background. Color backgrounds shall be selected from the approved Perimeter Center palette or a compatible or equal color approved by staff. The "Big Bear" letters and 'Bear" logo shall be internally illuminated with "red" plastic faces. All awning signage shall be painted on the fabric. The signage colors shall be aesthetically compatible with the awning fabric. 8. With the exception of "Big Bear' signage, the maximum height of all signage shall be 16' -0" above finished walkway. Signage at "Big Bear" will be a maximum of 26-0" above finished walkway. The grocery store wall signage, relative to sign face area and location, shall comply with the elevation as shown on the attached building elevation. Su a eas F-2, and �'- 3 :fletail Center- einted estaLgranVFlex Office Permitted Uses: a) Subarea F -1: Eating and drinking establishment, bank, SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District, and single tenant retail uses. Conditional uses to include outdoor seating associated with an eating and drinking place, drive-in facility associated with a permitted use and open display associated with a permitted use. b) Subarea F -2: CC, Community Commercial; SO, Suburban OBice and institutional District. Conditional uses to include outdoor seating associated with an eating and drinking place, theater, and drive -in facilities associated with a permitted use and open display associated with a permitted use. c) , Subarea F -3: 1) Those uses listed in Section 1159.01 (SO) and 1175.01 (OLR) of the Zoning Code. 2) Those uses listed in Section 1163.01 (CC Permitted Uses Only). 3) Drive -in facilities developed in association with a permitted use. 42 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /('U Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Conter PCD - Subarea F - Giant Ragle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT PERIMETER CENTER DEVELOPMENT TEXT 4) Ancillary commercial uses within a structure primarily devoted to office uses. Yard and Setback Requirements: 1. Along Perimeter Drive pavement setbacks shall be 35' and building setback 75' within Subareas F -1, F -2, and F -3. 2. Along Perimeter Loop Drive pavement setback shall be 35' and building setback shall be 50' within Subareas F -1, F -2, and F:3. 3. All other local street pavement setbacks shall be 25' and building setback 50'. 4. Total building square feet for Subareas F-1, F-2, and F -3 shall not exceed 10,000 square feet per acre. Height Requirements: 1. Maximum height for buildings in Subareas F -1 and F -2 shall be 45' as measured per Dublin Zoning Code. Parking and Loading: All parking and loading shall be regulated by the Dublin Code Chapter 1193. 2. Drive -thm stacking area for fast food restaurants shall accommodate a minimum of eight spaces per exchange window. 3. Bank drive -thru stacking requirements as per the Columbus Zoning Code. 4. "Landbank" areas will be designated in areas as shown on the accompanying maps, where parking, required by Code, may not be necessary at this time. These area will remain unpaved and in a grassy state until it is deemed necessary by the City of Dublin or owner. Screening, required by Code, will be provided in either case. Circulation: 1. Perimeter Drive shall have a 100' right -of -way, and a 56' pavement width. 2. The Perimeter Loop Road shall have a 60' right -of -way, and a 36' pavement width. 3. All other local public access streets shall have a 60' right -of -way, and a 32' pavement width. 4. Opposing curbcuts on Perimeter Drive shall .be offset no less than 100' (as 43 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Engle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Luop Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT PERIMETER COMR DEVELAPMENT T1EXT measured from the driveway's centerline) or directly aligned wherever possible consistent with prudent traffic engineering principles and practices. Waste And Refuse: 1. All waste and refuse shall be containerized and fully screened from view by a solid wall or fence. Storage and Equipment: 1. No materials, supplies, equipment or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of a parcel outside a permitted structure. , Landscaping: All landscaping shall conform to the Dublin Landscaping Code Chapter 1187. 2. In addition, landscaping within the Perimeter Drive, perimeter Loop Road and Mercedes Drive setback shall include a continuous three foot hedge with stone pilaster fifty (50) feet on center with street trees planted fifty (50) feet on center within the R.O.W. and planted +1 from R.O.W. 3. Street trees for the subarea will be selected from Appendix E, Group A,W the Dublin Planning and Zoning Code. Graphics: 1. No more than one ground sign shall be permitted on any one lot or multiple lots if devoted to one specific use or user, except that, for buildings or uses having frontage on each of two public rights -of -way, two ground signs are permitted. Maximum height above grade shall be 9 feet. When two (2) ground signs are permitted for a corner lot the total maximum area of such sign faces shall not exceed 65.5 square feet. Neither ground sign shall, by itself, exceed the maximum allowable area of 50 square feet for each face. Architecture: Architectural standards as presented in Subarea F shall apply herein. 44 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F- Giant Engle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT PwfuJ cm=mv I *pm&ITT w APP JX A Subamm F Aiatcltmdolts 77 Q9 >II�IJI�AI' /f�UPIGFI Ro'rslmngVPiolfMhW; IADr610pm0dl NOW Final 1 Dulwlopinum 1 ComUtthinul Uso E 1 C111 ltur Collin l't'1) - sulxn a r - tlialH l:Dylla 601 SAW Podmotor IAvp Rad ow � Ew-= ffl , 6d e �. � � i_S� � �� , = :E% I B E i !E. m ,w ■� Imo:. APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT �r- 09 - 115WUNDP /CL1 Rctuuiug I'rclmull n� lkvclupnlcn1 l'1n1n 1-mal Do el"pinenl i'hnt'Cutxtillunul Usc l'cltmcicr cellIci PCD - sulwrcu 1'. (411111 1 {001c r hoop Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT 3 N V •� .a O A i' 1 u i 09- 1157JPDP /FDP /Ctl Rezoning /Preliminary DevelopmentPlun/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT 4� ✓f,r r r � I ran i NOW woo lull lliiillf iflfii i t t i: 09- 115LPDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminaty Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Ruad w i t t i: 09- 115LPDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminaty Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Ruad APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT ti R Y �o 40 O N Q a Q m m Z' 9 Z N D 44� C D m r1 Z 4 w C M • S k K C1 M r f% rr C d 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Prelitninmy Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 60t5 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT a ao r r +x � . O r " .y w t e x iP /CU nary Development Plan/ it Plan /Conditionul Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Fiagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT 71: ea a r r K i~ _ x M w C K 09- 1157JPDP /FDP /CU RawaningiPrclimimuy Development Plan/ Final tlevclopment Plan /Conditional Use 1 Cettier PCD - Subarea F • Giant Eagle 6015 -6801 Perimeter Loup Road APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT e fo C - m ULU C H ) ,. _ i M j E1 1 x l 09- I157JPUP /FDPICLI RMoning/Prelintinaty Developmeut Platt/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subateta F - (Haut Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road as t -C I. ls a p C A s� APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT �R b O .r dc s x ` �+ hr q . " M a ff st )evelopment Plan/ dConditional Uae Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Proposed Development Text As submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 Subarea F4 (15.196 acres) - Retail Center ( , 2010) Subarea Development Standards: Subareas F4 shall comply with the general subarea development standards contained in the original Perimeter Center zoning (general, signs and graphics, lighting and Perimeter Center primary identification sign design criteria) unless otherwise indicated in this text or in the submitted site plans. Percentage of lot coverage shall be no greater than 90% in Subarea F4. Subarea F4: The retail center will have a maximum total building gross square footage of 170,000 with a maximum 99,850 square feet permitted for a single tenant on the ground floor for retail purposes and 20,000 square feet on the mezzanine floor above. The mezzanine shall not be used for general retail purposes or other open to public use. Outdoor dining areas and the fuel station canopy shall not be considered part of the building square footage. This retail center may be developed in phases. Servicing for the proposed center will be totally screened from view by passer -by traffic. This total screening height shall be fourteen feet at the time of planting from the elevation of adjacent drives or parking. Special attention will be provided to design of all elevations of the center to maintain an established architectural theme with good aesthetic quality throughout the development of the retail and services zone. The same or compatible building materials and a common lighting, signage and landscaping aesthetic will also be incorporated to blend with the surrounding proposed uses for total site compatibility. Permitted Uses All those permitted uses for in the SO, Suburban Office & Institutional District and CC, Community Commercial District including but not limited to the following: 1. Retail stores, including General Merchandise, Food, Personal Services and Large Format 2. Eating and Drinking Establishments 3. Medical Services and Offices of Physicians, Dentists and Other Health Practitioners 4. Administrative, Technical, and Professional Offices Accessory Uses for Multi- Family Dwellings 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Page 1 of 6 Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Ceoler PCD - Subaiea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter hoop Road Proposed Development Text As submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 6. Outdoor Dining Areas up to 3,000 total sq, ft. of seating space within the Shopping Center area that can be allotted to the various tenants to be administratively approved by Planning. 7. Outdoor Display Area for Live Plant Material as regulated by the Dublin Zoning Code. 8. Parking and a garage that serves the condominiums to the south via an easement (shown on the development plan). Conditional Uses 1. Drive -thrus 2. Day Care 3. Training, Tutoring and Supplemental Skills 4. Animal Care Facilities 5. Theaters 6. Fuel Stations 7. Motor Vehicle Rental Yard and Setback Requirements 1. Along Perimeter Loop Road, pavement setbacks shall be 35', building setback 50'. 2. Along Perimeter Drive, pavement setbacks shall be 35'; building setbacks 75'. 3. All other public street pavement setbacks shall be 25', building setback 50'. 4. Total building square feet for Subarea F4 shall not exceed 12,000 square feet per acre. Height Requirements Maximum height for buildings in Subarea F4 shall be 45' as measured per Dublin Zoning Code, except for fuel station canopies which can be no higher than 25' as measured per Dublin Zoning Code. 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CLI Rozoning/Prelitninary Development Plan/ Page 2 of 6 Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Proposed Development Text As submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 Parking and Loading Parking spaces shall be provided at a minimum of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet for the first floor building areas located within the Shopping Center unless the parking ratio is reduced by the Planning Commission. Those areas above ground level will not be counted in the parking calculations as long as they are used for non - customer use activities. Outdoor dining areas and the fuel canopy shall be exempt from the parking requirement. Pharmacy drive up windows shall provide three (3) stacking spaces per lane. 3. Bank drive -thru stacking requirements shall be three stacking spaces per teller windows or transaction point, including automatic teller machines. Circulation Perimeter Drive shall have a 100' right -of -way, and a 56' pavement width. 2. Perimeter Loop Road shall have a 60' right -of -way, and a 36' pavement width. 3. All other local public access streets shall have a 60' right -of -way, and a 32' pavement width, which widens towards Avery - Muirfield Drive to a 80' right -of- way and a 55' pavement width at the west end of the site's frontage. 4. Opposing curb cuts on Perimeter Drive and the Perimeter Loop Road shall be offset no less than 100' (as measured from the driveway's centerline) or directly aligned wherever possible consistent with prudent traffic engineering principles and practices, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineers. Waste, Refuse Storage and Equipment 1. All waste and refuse shall be containerized and fully screened from view in accordance with the Dublin Zoning Code. 2. Except as otherwise permitted by this development text or the Dublin Zoning Code, no materials, supplies, equipment or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of a parcel outside a permitted structure. Permitted outside storage shall not be located in pedestrian spaces unless permitted under the Dublin Zoning Code. 3. All grocery carts shall be stored in cart corrals as approved by Planning Commission as part of the Final Development Plan or inside a principal building. 4. There shall be no outside sales of retail merchandise around the fuel station kiosk. 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Prelimitimy Development Plan/ Page 3 of 6 Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant bugle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Proposed Development Text As submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 Landscaping: 1. All landscaping shall conform to the Dublin Zoning Code. 2. In addition, landscaping within the Perimeter Loop Road setback, Perimeter Drive and Mercedes Drive shall include a continuous three foot hedge with stone pilaster fifty feet on center with street trees planted fifty feet on center within the R.O.W. and planted +1 from R.O.W. Street trees for the subarea will be selected from Appendix E, Group A, of the Dublin Planning and Zoning Code. Architecture: The architectural design of the buildings shall be consistent with the architectural elevation plans submitted with the preliminary development plan. The development shall be constructed with the same architectural style and roof treatment with the exception of service corridors. The facade shall consist of brick and manufactured stone and the sloped roof shall be constructed of cedar wood shake shingles. The brick shall be selected from the approved Perimeter Center palette. The manufactured stone shall be "Ohio limestone (buff)" by manufacturer Carriage Hill Stone or approved equal and used throughout the project as a water table and as a facade treatment in select areas. The store front system shall be designed in a historic style using windows with mullions and raised panel details. The roof slops shall be 8/12, 10/12 or 12/12 pitch depending upon location of the roof element. The rear areas of the building shall be given special treatment so as to present an architecturally appropriate facade to the traveling public. The rear walls of buildings shall be constructed of stucco or synthetic stucco in order to complement the architectural style found on the front facade and scoring and/or lights or other relief elements shall be used to break up the back of the center. Screening to a height of six (6) feet shall be placed along the west property line of Subarea F4 to provide additional screening for the north elevations of these buildings. Further, there shall also be a hedge of bushes along the front of the shopping center walkway similar to those along the rights -of -way within the subject area that shall provide continuity with the entire area and an architectural feature that enhances the appearance of the development. Brick pavers, scored concrete, benches, bollards and street lamps "shall be incorporated into select areas of the walkway to provide variety and interest for pedestrian traffic. With the exception of service corridors that are screened, the buildings shall have the same degree of exterior finish on all sides. 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Page 4 of 6 Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center KID - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Proposed Development Text As submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 Signs and Graphics All signs shall comply with the Dublin Zoning Code unless varied by this text or approved preliminary or final development plan. Perimeter Retail Center signage: Each tenant store front is limited to one externally illuminated wall sign and one projecting sign. The background color of wall signs and projecting signs shall be selected from the existing Perimeter Center palette of trim colors or a compatible color approved administratively. Sign panel colors shall match the background color of that particular tenant's wall sign. The sign color shall be aesthetically compatible with the awning fabric. All wall and projecting signs shall meet Code relative to permitted sign face area and wall signs may not exceed 16 feet in height. Wall sign faces shall not exceed one square foot in area for each one lineal foot in store frontage not to exceed 80 square feet. Sign color maximums shall meet the Dublin Zoning Code. 2. Projecting sign faces shall not exceed three square feet in area and shall be of uniform size and design. 3. Goose neck fixtures for sign lighting shall be comprised of the same exterior finish and color throughout the shopping center. 4. All wall and hanging signs shall have "gold" (Chroma — Gold) letters on a dark colored background. 5. The grocery store shall be permitted an internally illuminated wall sign at a maximum height of 26' above the finished walkway which shall consist of the name of the grocery store (100 sq. ft. in size). Additional permitted signage shall include a sign of 28 sq. ft. a cafe or restaurant within the grocery store, a sign of 28 sq. ft. for a bank and sign of 28 sq. R. for a pharmacy. Each of these signs are representative of separate operations within the grocery store with separate checkout facilities and maybe independent grocery store activities or completely independent businesses that have leased space from the larger operation. The location of the signage is shown on the submitted building elevations and each sign is coordinated with an entry into the building that leads to the individual facility. 6. Drive -thru signage shall be permitted on the front facade of the canopy and shall adhere to the wall signage criteria established by this text and the Dublin Zoning Code. Directional entry and exit signs shall be permitted as shown on the final development plan. 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /CL1 Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Page 5 of 6 Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Peri meter Loop Road Proposed Development Text As submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 2010 A single monument sign will be permitted along Perimeter Loop Road to identify a fuel station and provide gasoline pricing information to the public and will be installed only with the approval of a conditional use by the Planning Commission of the fuel station. The sign shall not exceed six feet in height and ten foot in width with the sign and pricing information permitted on both sides of the sign. The maximum area of sign per side shall be 20 square feet. The sign bas materials shall match the retail center materials and the sign colors shall match those employed by the grocery store. Sign color maximums shall meet the Dublin Zoning Code. Subarea F — Perimeter Center3.txt (nct) (3) 7/14/10 F:Docs /s &hworddocs /2009 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /Ctf Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional lj%e Page 6 of 6 Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F- Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter loop Road PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION CITY OF DUBLIN.. LOW we and JUNE 10, 2010 too mow• plomal w MW Sh*- flops Road Dublin. Ohio 43D16 -1436 Phone/ IDD: 614 - 410 -460D Fac: 614-410-4747 Web Slle: www.dub6n.oh.us Cnealiny a Legacy The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Perimeter Center PCD, Subarea F — Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road 09- 115Z/PDP/FDP /CU Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Proposal: A new Planned Unit Development District (Perimeter Center, Subarea F4) for 15.19 acres currently located within Subarea F of the Perimeter Center Planned Commerce District. The proposal is intended to facilitate the expansion of the existing Giant Eagle grocery store, the inclusion of a gas station and pharmacy drive - thru for the grocery store as conditional uses and increase the amount of outdoor dining areas in the shopping center. The site is located on the north side of Perimeter Loop Road, approximately 430 feet east of the intersection with Avery- Muirfield Drive. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a rezoning with preliminary development plan, review and approval of a final development plan under the Planned District provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050 and review and approval of a conditional use under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.236. Applicant: Developers Diversified Realty and Giant Eagle, Inc.; represented by Ben Hale and Jack Reynolds, Smith & Hale, LLC. Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4675, chusak @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To table this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/Final Development Plan/Conditional Use application at the request of the applicant. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/Final Development Plan/Conditional Use application was tabled. STAFF CERTIFICATION laudia D.1-iusak, AICP Planner II 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 —Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 39 1) That standard Emerald Park mound be installed pr 6r to planting any required ace trees; 2 fiat the wall sign along S er Drive be removed; That the wall sign incl a three layers of color fil to be consistent with Sub Z5A; 4) That the height of spray of the fountain no xceed eight feet; 5) That the Engli ivy around the transform replaced Burgundy GI Ajuga; and 6) That the a scant work with Engin g at the Building Pennlit e, to limit access to the ea right- in/right -out acc int by the the in Mr erman seconded th Z The vote was as follows: s. Amorose Groomes, X Mr. Walter, yes; Ms. b, no; Mr. Hardt, Zan, yes; and Mr. Taylor, s. (Approved 5 —1.) Motioonditional Use Mr. Tation to apps this Conditional Use a ieation because it cams with th view cri a. �' Zimmerman seconded Minotion. The vote was as Wows: Mr. Hardt, yes;Kramb, yes; Mr. Walte p6yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; W. Zimmerman, yes; and Mrr. aylor, yes. (Approved 6 0.) 2. Perimeter Center PCD, Subarea F — Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road 09- 115Z/PDP/FDP /CU Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this application regarding a rezoning for a new Planned Unit Development District (PUD) to establish Subarea F4, for 15.9 acres, currently in Subarea F of the Perimeter Center Planned Commerce District (PCD). She said the rezoning is intended to facilitate the expansion of the existing Giant Eagle grocery store, the addition of a gas station and pharmacy drive -thru for the grocery store and increase the amount of outdoor dining areas in the shopping center. She said this application consists of three components, a rezoning with a preliminary development plan, the final development plan (FDP), and the conditional use (CU). She explained that the Commission will need to make three motions and the rezoning will go to City Council for a final decision. She said the Commission is the final authority on the FDP and the conditional use. Ms. Amorose Groomes swore in those intending to address the Commission on this case, including Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith & Hale, LLC, representing the applicants, Developers Diversified Realty and Pat Avolio, Director of Development for Giant Eagle, and City representatives. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for clarification regarding the gas station portion of this application. Ms. Husak explained that the gas station was part of the preliminary development plan. She said this was a complicated application which she would guide the Commission through with a table in her presentation which would explain each of the components in detail. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that the Commissioners had received additional literature on this application received after packets were distributed. 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /CLJ Rezoniug/Preliminmy Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 —Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 39 Ms. Husak presented the proposed site plan and said it includes the Giant Eagle grocery store in the Perimeter Center shopping center. She said Subarea F was a portion of the Perimeter Center PCD, in which the shopping center is currently located. She said the applicant is proposing to rezone it into a new subarea, keeping it within Perimeter Center PCD, but create Subarea F-4. Ms. Husak said the first formal step in establishing a PUD is the rezoning /preliminary development plan. She said an optional concept plan stage is prior to the preliminary development plan, and it is not required in this instance. She said the rezoning/preliminary development plan is essentially the law that will guide this development, if approved from now on, and it requires approval by City Council to make it an actual ordinance. She explained that the Commission would be making its recommendation to City Council for either approval or disapproval. Ms. Husak. said the preliminary development plan consists of a development text which addresses, among other things, a square footage expansion of a single tenant within the center, which is the grocery store, and a fuel station and a pharmacy drive -thru as a conditional use. She said in April, they were proposed to be a permitted use, but it has been changed to a conditional use. She said the development text also addresses parking requirements, sign requirements, landscaping, and architecture which would typically be reviewed as part of the applications. She said the preliminary development plan also includes a site plan which includes the expanded grocery store, the preliminary location, architectural design, the sign for the fuel station, and the preliminary layout for the pharmacy drive -thru. Ms. Husak explained that the last step the applicant is requesting approval on is the final development plan. She said if the Commission were to approve the final development plan, the applicant can go forward with those plans to the Building Department and seek approval of Building Permits. She said the final development plan includes the store expansion, details for the pharmacy drive -thru, `H'- shaped cart corals with landscaping, landscaping in the pharmacy drive -thru area, sign details, patio locations and furniture details, and any other site improvements necessary to meet the preliminary development plan. She said one of the requirements of the final development plan is that it needs to meet the development text, unless the Commission chooses to alter it. She said it also needs to meet the preliminary development plan. Ms. Husak said because in April, the Commission requested that the applicant make drive -thrus and auto - oriented uses a conditional use, the applicant has amended the application and included a request for a conditional use for the pharmacy drive -thru. She said it is part of the final development plan, but it requires a separate motion for the use of the pharmacy drive-flu and it includes stacking and screening. Ms. Husak pointed out a typographical error in the Planning Report, and said the fuel station is not in front of the Commission for final approval. She said it was there as part of the preliminary development plan, for preliminary approval. Ms. Husak said that the applicant requested that all of these application components be reviewed at this time. She said there is nothing in the Zoning Code that requires splitting off any part of this application or separating any portion out. She explained that the applicant has chosen to wait on pursuing final approval for the fuel station to first see how parking and the moving of tenants influences their operations. 09- 115ZtPDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 —Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 39 Amy Kramb asked Ms. Husak to expand upon the legal implications of approving the preliminary development plan with the location of the gas station and the layout as it shows. She asked if that was binding the City to having a gas station in that location if the applicant chooses. She asked if they could go elsewhere on the site or expand the footprint. Ms. Husak said one of the approval criteria for the final development plan is to determine whether or not it meets the preliminary development plan. Ms. Kramb asked what would be the implication if the Commission was not comfortable with the exact footprint and location of the gas station as shown on the preliminary development plan. Ms. Husak said the exact footprint was not an issue because it was a preliminary development plan only, and things can and will likely change at the final development plan stage. Kevin Walter said that there is no reason the fuel station could not be removed from the preliminary development plan and become an amended final development plan or a conditional use later. Ms. Husak said if the Commission completely deleted it from the plans and text, the applicant would have to rezone again in order to get a fuel station approved. John Hardt said the applicant could not come back for the conditional use later if it does not appear in the preliminary development plan at all. Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith & Hale, LLC, representing the applicants, Developers D'versif ed Realty and Giant Eagle, Inc., said they had no objection. He said one of the reasons they were doing it this way was the Commission asks questions, and the only way they can answer them is speculative. He said the preference is to see how it works and be able to come to the Commission with real statistics about what the usage is. He said if the fuel station is a conditional use as part of the preliminary development plan, when the applicants come back to request the fuel station in three or four years, they will file an amended final development plan, and a conditional use. He said from the applicants' point of view as long as it is a conditionally permitted use, they will file it as an amended final development plan. Ms. Kramb said there was not enough presented with this application for her to approve it. Ms. Husak said she understood. She said Planning's concern is that they are in a situation similar to what happened with the Chase Bank site where there was no pattern for development laid out at all at the preliminary development plan. She explained that the preliminary development plan requires to determine the general layout and specific zoning standards. She said it does talk about layout to some extent,, and it leaves Planning uncomfortable taking forward a fuel station as a conditional use mentioned in the development text without having an idea of whether it fits on the site, how it would lay out on the site, and how it would possibly function. She said that was why a drawing was presented. Ms. Kramb said she did not want to be tied to 'that, if the applicant does not come back for ten years, the present Commissioners are not there any more, and a future Commission sees what it looked like when this Commission approved the plan, and they believe that must be exactly what was wanted, so they approve it. Ms. Husak said she understood Ms. Kramb's concern 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center I'CD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 39 Ms. Amorose Groomes said this was fundamentally different than the Commission just saw with Chase Bank, because it was on a completely undeveloped site. She said this site is already primarily developed and it would be more of a redevelopment issue to put a fuel station on it, ten years from now. She asked how that portion can be removed. She noted that it was not objectionable to the applicant in terms of any site plan issues. Ms. Amorose Groomes said even if the applicants got a conditional use and it does not fit in the future, then there can be a conditional use that does not work. She said she did not see the negative draw on that. Ms. Kramb said now, the proposed development text, under permitted use, says 3) Drive - thrus, if approved as part of the preliminary development plan... She said the Commission had already said to delete that language. Ms. Husak thanked her calling attention to it. She said in order to address the Commission's concerns there needed to be a condition as part of the rezoning/preliminary development plan that the preliminary development plan itself be revised to delete the fuel station footprint, architecture, and sign. Mr. Hale said that would be okay. He said they knew they could come back with a final, a conditional use, and traffic and parking. He said that Eagle is getting ready to spend $15M on this store. He said they wanted to make sure that they had plenty of parking and they are as interested as anybody in making sure what the parking counts are and that they have plenty for their customers because primarily, they are in the grocery business. He said although the fuel station is important to them, they are not going to underpark their grocery store. He said they are going to wait three or four years to see what is really going to happen. Mr. Hale said they had no problem coming back to the Commission with the FDP and the conditional use, showing exactly what it does to their parking and so forth. Ms. Amorose Groomes apologized that Ms. Husak's presentation had been interrupted, and asked that it continue. Ms. Husak confirmed that the preliminary development plan and final development plan was presented with the fuel station being the only difference. She said what essentially, the Commission could do was approve the FDP as a preliminary development plan, as well so it can serve two functions at once without the fuel station being on that plan. Ms. Husak said at the April 8 meeting, there was a lot of discussion about `veneer - shops' which are stores in front of the grocery store that would hide what is the big box -like nature of a store as big as Giant Eagle in this instance. She said the southern portion of the building is currently consisting of those types of smaller tenant spaces, two or three window panels at one time. She said it was the intention for Giant Eagle to move into those areas, expanding south and west to take over those tenant spaces. Ms. Husak said the Commission discussed concerns about what that would look like, particularly taking areas that are now more active and see more people walking in and out of to now having them all fronted by grocery store. She said the applicant was requested to address that architecturally. She said there have not been changes to the architecture, other than there being wood trim along the former sign band to provide architectural relief to that area. Ms. Husak said the'applicant proposes in the most - southern three window areas to have clear glass on the top and spandrel on the bottom portion of the windows. She said Planning has not seen a sample of that and therefore cannot comment on what that looks like. Ms. Husak explained that a condition in the final development plan recommendation requests that the applicant continue working with Planning in addressing the Commission's comments 09- 1157JPDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Pluu/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Canter PCD - Subarea F - Guilt Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 39 more, because they feel that they are falling short on addressing those Commission comments adequately. Ms. Husak said a Commission issue in April with this proposal is the signs. She said one issue was that the development text talks about center identification signs or main identification signs for the overall shopping center. Ms. Husak said those were approved in the 90s for the shopping center, but there are great concerns about those because they are at a height exceeding the Zoning Code, they are located off site, and would not be within the zoning district, if this was approved. She said that Planning has requested then and now, that the language about main identification signs be deleted from the development text. She said that Planning understands that the applicant has no intention of putting these signs up, but are not willing to delete the language from the development text. Ms. Husak said the other issue is with grocery store signs, and it is particularly of concern to Planning that a bank, who may operate within Giant Eagle is intended in the development text and the final development plan to have its own sign. She said this bank is not accessible from anywhere outside of the grocery store, it does not work independently from the grocery store, and is not open when the store is closed. Ms. Husak said that Planning believes that the bank is not eligible to have that sign, per the Zoning Code. Mr. Hardt asked about Planning's distinction between what Ms. Husak said about the bank and the viewpoint about the cafd. Ms. Husak said that the cafe had a separate entrance that went into the space to which the sign is attached. She said Giant Eagle currently also has threc signs permitted in this general vicinity. Ms. Husak said one sign is currently underneath the `Giant Eagle' sign and another sign would be permitted in this general area. She said the pharmacy and cafd essentially are using signs that are already permitted there, and they do have entrances that go into that space. Mr. Hale suggested that it would be more productive to give his applicants' view on the signs. He said for the entry into the bank, that there is a separate door that opens into the lobby of the bank. He said there was not a wall around the bank, so you can also walk over to the lobby out of the grocery store. He said it was a very technical thing and they thought it was an entry into the bank and they thought it good to have signs up there. Jennifer Readler reported that that the Legal shopping center across the street with another regarding this very same issue. Department was involved in a case, with the bank sign that is currently on a 2506 Appeal Ms. Husak said that the cafd and pharmacy were extensions of Giant Eagle, operated by them and are part of the store ' function, and the bank was not Giant Eagle's. She said it could be any bank. She said and one major concern was that all the uses within the grocery store would want to have signs within the exterior of the store. Mr. Walter asked that the presentation continue again. Ms. Husak said the last part of the presentation was the pharmacy drive -thru located on the southern elevation of the building where the Rusty Bucket is currently located and includes a teller lane, a prescription drop -off lane, and a turnaround exit lane. She said the applicant has 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminaq- Development Plan/ Final Development plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCl) - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 39 increased landscaping in the island and in the general area. However, she said Planning is suggesting as a condition that the proposed 15 -foot wide drive -thru exit lane be reduced to 12 feet, which is adequate for fire access and which would increase the area for landscaping by three feet. Ms. Husak said the Commission and Planning had concerns about the proximity of adjacent residents. She said the applicant's representatives have gone door -to -door to speak to the occupants of the residential building, and it seems overwhelmingly that the residents had no issues with the proximity of the drive -thru pharmacy and with the functionality of the grocery store, it seemed to be the logical place for it to be located. Ms. Husak said that there are many minor issues that the applicant has addressed and they are included in more detail in the Planning Report. Ms. Husak said that Planning recommends approval of this rezoning/ preliminary development plan, approval of the final development with the five conditions listed in the Planning Report, and approval of the conditional use with one condition listed in the Planning Report. Ms. Kramb asked to see an elevation of what the pharmacy drive -thru area would look like. Ms. Husak said the applicant has taken the design of what currently is the walk -thru next to Rusty Bucket, and is allowing cars to drive -thm what typically would be in the center, and entry door. Ms. Kramb asked if the Rusty Bucket roofline would be the same. Mr. Hardt explained that the existing roofline, one tenant space over was being copied. Mr. Walter asked about the depth. Matt Majeed, MCG Architects., Inc, explained that the intent was to tear down the space, and build the swooping entrance to keep the same architecture to hide the stacking and everything else. He said the depth was approximately 25 to 30 feet, with three swooping arches. He said they are keeping the monumental side arch and that is going to be the main entrance for vehicles. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that Ms. Husak's presentation was finished. She asked if there were any public comments with respect to this application. [There was none.] She mentioned that the Commission had received communications from residents which were provided by Giant Eagle. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Ms. Kramb said she wanted clarification in the proposed text on Page 2, Number 7 about the outdoor dining areas. She asked whether who gets how much space was administratively approved by Planning or exactly where the patios are and what they look like. Ms. Husak said that the applicant has included patio furniture in the final development plan and the idea behind that is that it is the patio furniture that would be approved for the entire center. She said there are a couple of options, but it still keeps it close to the design and type of patio furniture. She explained that in the final development plan, about 1,500 feet of patio area is included that the applicant is seeking approval for tonight, and those are areas already made up 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminaiy Development Plan/ Fina] Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 39 of paved areas (sidewalks) and anything else would then be administratively approved by Planning in the future. Ms. Kramb confirmed that Rusty Bucket did not have an approved patio, and that Planning can decide where and what the look was of all the patios. She noted that was very different than any other shopping center, and that did not make her comfortable. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that was a valid concern. She noted that Mr. Walter had mentioned a concern about motor vehicle rental included as a conditional use. Mr. Hardt said by making motor vehicle rental a conditional use, he understood that the applicant intends to move the existing Enterprise location to another location. He asked if by placing it in the text and with those plans forthcoming, Enterprise would then have to go through a conditional use process in order to move their store. Ms. Husak said she understood they would not because they are already there. Mr. Zimmerman asked if someone else came in besides Enterprise, they would need to go through the conditional use process. Ms. Husak said she understood that was the intention behind moving it to the conditional uses. Mr. Hardt said he agreed with Planning's recommendation that the main center identification signs should be deleted. He said the center has been there for over a decade, and no one has shown any interest in needing or wanting them. He said it was known locally as the Giant Eagle Center or the Perimeter Center, and no one has trouble finding it. Mr. Zimmerman agreed. Mr. Hale said that they understand that two signs are an issue, so as long as Giant Eagle was there, they did not need another sign, but Code would allow one sign. He said if Giant Eagle is not there, they would like to have that sign because it changes the nature of this center and they think it would terrifically limit the impact the viability of some of their tenants. Mr. Hale reiterated that if it was not the Giant Eagle Center, they needed a sign that said what the center is. Ms. Husak said it was Planning's opinion that if that language was deleted from the text as it is now, the applicant would be permitted to have a sign; the details of which need to be approved by the Commission. She said they are allowed to have a center identification sign, but they are not allowed to have a sign at either one of the two locations outlined in this development text. Mr. Hale said they would comply with the Zoning Code. Mr. Hardt said if the signs were compliant with the Zoning Code, he had no problem. Mr. Walter referred to the third page of the proposed development text 4) Fuel stations shall provide a minimum of three stacking spaces per pump; and 5) Spaces counted as stacking spaces shall include those located at the point of transaction, and said those were two areas he had concern with and he would be uncomfortable with pinning down what the size, look, and footprint of this fuel station would look like, and to be sensitive to the applicants' ability to put a fuel station there, but he did not want to begin to shape it in some way. He said they would have to eliminate that. Mr. Walter said he would then like conversation about all of the sudden, they were eliminating a stacking space in number 5, because it said ...stacking spaces shall include 09- 115VPDP /F DP /CU Rezoning /Prelitninmy Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6801 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 39 those located at the point of transaction. He said that stacking space is behind the transaction space. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that Mr. Walter was in favor of eliminating 4) and 5) from the proposed development text. Mr. Hardt said his only concern about that would be relative to 4) if they strike that from the text, it is going to default to Code, and as it stands now, Code requires five stacking spaces, which he thought was a lot. Mr. Walter said that he thought three stacking spaces was too few, but he did not know what it would look like. Ms. Kralnb said when the applicants come in with their traffic study, the Commission can always allow them to have less than Code. She said that the Commission could change their mind later by striking 4), but if they leave it in the text, they cannot change their mind later. Ms. Readler agreed that the stacking spaces could be set through the conditional use process later. Ms. Husak said she was more concerned about striking 5), which was the definition of the `stacking space' which there is none anywhere else in the Code that can legally be used. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that if it defaulted to Code, it would be five, one being at the point of transaction, which would still give a stack of four vehicles. Mr. Hardt suggested that if they were leaving it up to a future Commission to look at the specific layout of the fuel station and determine whether it is appropriate or not and whether there is adequate stacking space, then whether the space at the pump counts or not is irrelevant. Mr. Walter said to him, this was a fundamental definitional thing that should be handled up at the head of Code as they define what a `stacking space' is, and it should not be buried in the middle of this. He said he thought there were unintended consequences by all of the sudden randomly defining a stacking space. He suggested it betaken out and that it has worked fine without it. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that 4) and 5) should be removed from Parking and Loading portion of the proposed development text. Architecture Mr. Taylor said he had the same issues that Mr. Hardt ended the April meeting with which was the issue of taking the texture of the south end of the center from a number of small shops that basically created what he termed a `veneer' of shops there and eliminating a lot of the visual appeal of the center in that regard. He said that at that meeting he mentioned that the individual signs and sign panels for each one of those shops was a large part of the texture and appeal that broke up the building into smaller pieces visually. Mr. Taylor said he was not comfortable with eliminating the signs and anything they do to the sign panel to dress it up, add trim, and paint it out, it still looks like a blank sign panel. He said he understood the little faux building at the south end of the drive thru, but he had concerns about that. He said his first impression when he saw it was that he felt like the appearance would be tunnel -like when drivine beneath the canopy. 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F- Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 39 He noted that there was a chunk of that under roof that is not paved for driving and asked what would happen there. Mr. Majeed said the roofed area, with southern exposure, will have low shrubbery and landscaping built into it. Mr. Taylor expressed concern that that landscaping will not get any sun in the summer and it will never get rain. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that the irrigation cannot be operated in the winter months. Mr. Majeed said they could open the area up, if that is the intent, but they are trying to create more of an architectural appeal on the south elevation so when you are driving through that area, it is not just a two- dimensional plan where it just has one opening and an open canopy. Mr. Taylor said that made sense to him. He said there is also the situation of evening hours when the driving lane is open until 9 p.m., when in December it will be dark. He asked there would be light there. Mr. Majeed said there would be under canopy lighting underneath all these areas. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what the backside would look like. Mr. Majeed said it would be much the same as is seen on the front side. He said it would be stone on all three sides. Mr. Taylor said he appreciated the concept of it being more of a building - element and that it was an imitation of what was there before, but he was not sure it had to do that in order to terminate the end of the building properly. He said carrying it as far as it is and making it into a covered space will not support landscaping. Mr. Taylor said his concerns were that it was going to be dirty and dark. Mr. Taylor said he had visited the center many times to look things over, and he said shifting all of the restaurants to one side of the center concerned him. He said at 9 a.m. today, there were many vehicles at the north end when only one of the restaurants was open and a couple of shops were empty. He said he had concerns about shifting all of the parking to the north end. Mr. Taylor said it does make the north end of the center lively, interesting, pedestrian, and somewhat urban in the suburban strip center way of thinking, but it does just the opposite for the south end and takes all the life away from it. Mr. Majeed said he could not speak for the overall development. He said that was something the developers will have to explain. He said from the architectural standpoint, what Giant Eagle is proposing as part of the development is in this area that they are calling the pharmacy and health and beauty area, the intent is there will be a lot of activity and to create more activity on the south end of this development. He said it may not be the restaurants, but it will be active from morning to closing time. He said the entire layout of the store will be shifted so that there will not be one central main entrance to the store, so the parking field will be spread. Mr. Taylor asked if research indicated that given there is an entrance defined as Giant Eagle, and another entrance where the pharmacy is located, will there be a significant number of customers using that as an entrance to the entire interior. Pat Avolio, Director of Development for Giant Eagle, said in the community he lived in, a new Giant Eagle store had a separate pharmacy entrance where they had to add cart storage because of the customers using the rest of the store. He said they had in -store services such as an in -store 09.115ZZPDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Pieliminmy Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Ceti ter PCD - Subarea F - Giant Fagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 39 dietician, which is part of the concept of the Health Beauty Wellness concept which was almost like a store within a store idea. Mr. Majeed said although it is considered the `main entrance' on the plan, the main checkout area is located to the south. He said he could not predict that the entrances will be used equally, but there will be a significant amount of traffic there, just because of the interior layout of the store and the location of the cash registers. Mr. Zimmerman pointed out regarding the conditional use for the pharmacy drive -thm, if the Commission supports it, then discussing the architecture is great, however if the pharmacy drive - thru is not approved, then the architecture will totally change. He suggested discussing the pharmacy drive -thru first. He said he did not know of anywhere in Dublin where a drive -thru was located 60 -foot from the closest residential area. Ms. Kramb asked if the Commission would be approving the location of the drive -thru with the conditional use. Ms. Husak explained that the design details of the drive -thru would be approved as part of the final development plan, and the conditional use is for the actual use of the drive - thru. Ms. Kramb asked if with the conditional use decision, the Commission was deciding if the applicant can have a pharmacy drive -thru. Ms. Husak explained that the conditional use decision would be if they could use a drive -thru. Ms. Kramb asked if 'approving the conditional use did, not necessarily say where it went. Ms. Husak cautioned that without knowing where the drive -thru will be located and how it functions, the Commission will be unable to determine whether or not it meets the conditional use criteria. She said even though they were not approving the location, it cannot be said that it is meeting the ten criteria, without knowing where the location is going to be. She said it had to be approved with the final development plan. Mr. Zimmerman reiterated that if the Commission decides not to approve the conditional use, it may change the architecture and everything the applicants want to do or at least the southern aspect of the building. He asked how the other Commissioners stood on the pharmacy drive -thm next to a three -story condominium. Ms. Kramb confirmed that the exit lane would be south of the three existing arches. Mr. Hale pointed out that the condominium garage and parking spaces shown are located on the commercial property and are not part of the condominiums. He said the back of this building that faces it is basically an auto court. He said there are garages in the first floor of the condominium building, and there is a walkway on the third floor that is an entry into units and the view is down onto the applicants' roof and service area to the rear. Mr. Hale said with what they are doing to the building and finishing the side, it probably will improve the residents' view. Ms. Kramb said she thought the location of the drive -thru was okay, but she was not set on approving the final development plan today, because it seemed like a tight turn exiting. She said she thought drivers would want to go straight instead of the quick turn. She said she wondered if closing that off would work. Ms. Kramb said she had too many questions to approve this from a final standpoint, but she was okay with the location. 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /C IT Rezoning/Preliminary Devetopmenl Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 39 Mr. Walter confirmed that the addresses of the condominiums, not the owners were notified of this application. He said he agreed strongly with Mr. Zimmerman, and in that this is so close to a residential area, he did not think that adequate notice has been provided to the people that really are impacted. He said he did not know if the people that were talked to were owners or renters. Mr. Walter encouraged City Council to continue to review the notification methodology and whether they make a policy change around that, he would encourage them, for this very kind of case, to really look at who the City notifies, how it notifies, and the distance. He said he had concerns about the architecture and where the drive -thru is located. He said one of the development criteria is that they are sensitive to the surrounding development. Mr. Zimmerman said regarding the review criteria for the drive -thru, he did not think it met 3, 4, 7, or 9. He said sometimes, it was the Commission's job to go the extra mile to protect present and future residents and developments, and he thought this may be a case. He reiterated that 60 feet was too close to the condominiums. Mr. Walter said with respect to the drive -thru there are so many things from a maintenance perspective, speakers, landscaping, and the exit and turn, and it does not feel like what he wants to support it. Mr. Hardt said he agreed with the other Commissioners in that he could not imagine anywhere else in Dublin where they would allow a drive -thru this close to residences. He said he used the conditional use criteria and looked at this pragmatically. Mr. Hardt said he agreed with Mr. Zimmerman that Criteria 3, 4, 7, and 9 have not been met. Ms. Kramb added Criteria 8 with the turn and people exiting straight rather than trying to make that turn and being stuck behind the building. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was not as completely opposed to the use of the drive -thm as she was about the architecture of the building. She said she had real problems with the architecture. She said there are parking issues which will ultimately fall upon the property owner to resolve. She said'regarding the architecture, in April the Commission provided a lot of direction about what it should look like, and this time it is not significantly different. She said although she was not opposed to the drive -thru location, and although she would not mind it on the end of the building, she saw no definitive answers how it is going to operate and the number of vehicles coming through and things like that. Ms. Amorose Groomes said this came to a screeching halt with the architecture. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the square footage of this development qualified with Dublin's Big Box ordinance. Ms. Husak said that the ordinance does not have any architectural requirements that would make a difference to this proposal. She said anything over 20,000 square feet would have to be reviewed under that ordinance, but this does not because it is a permitted use up to that amount of square footage in the development text. Mr. Walter asked if the second floor had been eliminated as part of the square footage calculation. Ms. Husak said that was done for parking only. Mr. Hardt asked if the applicants had considered locating the drive -thru point of service in a kiosk or island in the parking lot and serving it with pneumatic tubes underground 09- 1157 /PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Developmenl Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6504 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 39 Mr. Avolio said they have spent the last six years removing existing remote kiosks because there are constant maintenance issues and customers want face -to -face interaction. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the Commission needed to make some decisions. She said the rezoning/preliminary development plan would have to go forward to City Council for their approval and the final development plan and the conditional use would be subsequent to that. She said that the Commission had been discussing outstanding issues that she thought were leading them to an unfavorable vote on this. She suggested it might be in everyone's best interest to look solely at the rezoning/preliminary development plan this evening that could possibly be sent onto City Council if it were to pass, for them to look at those issues and then with the final development plan and the conditional use giving the Commission more time to take another look at those and what might serve everyone. best. Mr. Taylor asked if the preliminary development plan could be separated from the architecture. Ms. Readler explained that architecture is usually reviewed in the final development plan, but to the extent that the text references architecture that the Commission wants to change, they could do that. She reiterated that the architectural review is in the final development plan. Mr. Taylor said he did not mean details. He pointed out that there was disagreement on the overall concept. Mr. Hardt said he was not comfortable enough to vote for this tonight. He said they had changed the interior layout of the store drastically. He said last month, he was concerned about the south end of the shopping center going dark and being loaded full of spandrel glass, blacked out windows, and no pedestrian activity. He said they had made strides in that department in the sense that most of those windows do not have things behind them any longer, so they will be illuminated at night and there will be people behind them and things going on, so he thought it was better than it was, but he was not convinced more that the entire south end of the shopping center needs to be blown up in order for Giant Eagle to be there. He said there is more work to do. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed, and said she was referring to things like the sign band. Mr. Hardt said the checkout area where the pharmacy, and health and beauty area are is a primary entry and exit point, which is great from an activity standpoint, and that, is a big help, but he did not see it in the elevation yet. He said there is no sign there and the doors are hidden. Mr. Hardt said he was a little more comfortable on the architecture, but he was not there yet. Mr. Walter suggested the Giant Eagle large entrance shown on the left of the drawing be mirrored on the right where there is the exit might make it look- as though more activity was happening. He said he was concerned because there were six vacant storefronts seen. Mr. Taylor said his concept of what may be a very active part of the center was changed when he learned where the checkouts were located. He said he had no problem with the pieces of storefronts for individual stores, but the sign band bothered him. He said he brought it up in April that the brick piece with arches on it was an entrance which clearly reads as a significant piece of the building, yet a sign is not allowed to go there: He said anytime a building has entrances, they need to be identified as many ways as possible and certainly signs are an 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /CIJ Rezoning/Preliminary Development Planl Final Development Plan /Cnnditiunal Uw Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015.6904 Perimeter Loup Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 —Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 39 appropriate way to do that. Mr. Taylor said one of the enhancements needed was to figure out how to make the parts of this building that are obviously architecturally separate pieces have signage that goes along with what is behind them. He said if that is the pharmacy, maybe it ought to have a nice big sign saying so there. Mr. Taylor said he knew there were other issues when that came up, but from a pure architectural standpoint, the small sign- off to the side is pointless because it is one sign on a sign band that is supposed to have six and five are missing. He said that becomes less of an issue if that sign is located on the part where the entrance truly is at the center. Ms. Husak reiterated that Planning's issue is not so much with the pharmacy sign, but with the bank which is a completely separate entity. Mr. Walter asked what `spandrel glass' is. Mr. Hardt said the spandrel glass at Walgreens is frosted, and that is being proposed on the last three storefronts and he was not comfortable with it. He said he would like those storefronts lighted. Mr. Zimmerman noted that on the transom above that, clear glass is proposed. Mr. Majeed said regarding the architecture, there were limitations that they had to work with. He said the function itself had to meet some of the form outside. He said they could not make a building this large disappear or shrink it in size, but they could try to break it down architecturally into small pieces. He said since the April meeting, they went through an extensive research and layout specific on this location on how to open up a whole supermarket and create more glazing up front which is a challenge to create on a store this size. He said they have opened it up as much as possible. He assured the Commission that it would not look like a vacant, dead center. Mr. Walter asked what `glazing' was specifically. Mr. Majeed said it was see - through glass. Mr. Hardt said it was not often that a large retailer came in and redesigned their interior store layout, so he appreciated it. He reiterated that the sign band was still a problem for him. He asked why the pharmacy sign could not be on the brick part. He said that was the main exit. Mr. Hardt asked if they would agree to a condition that the glazing is going to remain clear and not have merchandising in front of it. Steve Langworthy clarified that it was that they would not put up anything to block the interior view. Mr. Hardt said what was seen on the plan was okay, but was concerned that those kind of windows tend to have stacks of pop, folding chairs, or barbeque grills displayed which are not shown on the plan. He said he would be more comfortable with this plan if he knew it was going to stay that way. Mr. Avolio said the intent was to have the glass itself clear and they would put that restriction out there. He said one of the key things that happens with this plan, there are some areas with masonry, so they may have certain things there, but they do need to put the restrictions in and have that in place. 09- 11571PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 39 Mr. Walter said he was okay with some lower level displays Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that the condition be that the windows would not be obstructed by merchandise. Mr. Hardt noted that the window sill was approximately 30 inches high. Mr. Majeed said for clearance reasons when you come out of the cash registers, they need to allow for two carts to go through, so realistically, this area is not going to be an open display just because they will be getting a lot of traffic there from the customers. He said he would not speak for Giant Eagle and the final decision will have to come from them. However, he said realistically, if anything were to occur it would be low profile. He said he would like to go to their merchandising people to confirm and identify that there is a restriction there, or if they can get it up to sill heights or something they can agree to do and add it in there. He said they would come back to the Commission to verify what they would propose, if anything there with the intent of not having anything in that area, or with a sill height restriction to it. Mr. Avolio said overall the intent is to provide the visibility throughout that area that is as great as is there today. He said they would propose carts inside the vestibule and it would be clearly defined. Mr. Avolio said more detail would be provided and they would clarify that item so that it is clearly identified and they do not run into compliance problems later with Giant Eagle or the Commission. Mr. Hardt said that the intent was to keep the visibility in the clear glass and the light coming through those things. He said if they could work through that it would go a long way for him. 1 Mr. Langworthy said that was a detail that could be taken care of at the final development plan stage. Mr. Taylor said this was a substantial improvement of what was previously shown. He said he could not see the difference from a sign perspective between the cafe and bank entrances because both have doors to the outside and are open to the store on the inside. Mr. Hardt noted that based upon this plan, the bank has a wall around it on the interior of the store and the cafd does not. Ms. Kramb said that the sign did not have the bank name on it. Ms. Husak clarified that the name of the bank was on the sign. Mr. Walter said that the cafe should have its name on the sign as well. Mr. Taylor asked why Planning thought it was okay to have a cafe sign and not a bank sign. Mr. Langworthy explained that the Code talks about storefronts, and the storefronts, Planning has defined as having a separate entrance that enters directly into the facility, and that is how they have defined whether or not there can be a wall sign. Mr. Taylor said he saw a bank entrance that walked right into the bank and a caf6 entrance that walked right into the cafe. 09- 1157JPDP /FDP /CLI Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 —Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 39 Mr. Langworthy said it was an issue of semantics, but in Planning's view, when you walk in, you actually are walking into the Giant Eagle store at which off to one side, happens to be the bank. He said for example, they could theoretically put a Starbucks on the other side of the door and then ask for a Starbucks sign. Mr. Walter said that you could not transact bank business by being inside where the tellers are, you have to transact business outside, so consequently, that queuing area indicated on the plan is part of the activity of the bank. Mr. Langworthy agreed, but said there will also be people walking through that space to get into the store. Mr. Walter said that was similar to the cafe. Mr. Langworthy agreed, in theory, you could enter the cafe and just keep walking through the store. He said it was part of Giant Eagle and the bank was a separate, independent operator. Ms. Kramb asked if it would solve the problem if the sign just said `bank'. Ms. Husak said the content of the sign cannot be regulated. Mr. Walter said he did not think they wanted to regulate it if they were trying to get activity to the center. He said there was no precedent because you walk directly into the business. Mr. Taylor asked if the bank were owned by Giant Eagle, and it was the Giant Eagle Bank, with the floor plan the same way, could they put up a sign that said `Bank' and if it was the ownership /tenant/subtenant issue. Mr. Langworthy said that was half of it. He said the other half was having the door dedicated to it. He said in Planning's view, this door is not dedicated'to the bank. He said it allows access to the bank, but it also allows access to the store and people will use it primarily for the store. Mr. Taylor asked if both of those criteria have to be satisfied from the Code perspective in order for there to be a sign. Mr. Langworthy explained that was the issue they decided in the Board of Zoning Appeals interpretation for the Kroger across the street when they interpreted how that term was supposed to be applied. He said that was why the City was litigating it. Mr. Taylor asked if the floor plan was reconfigured so that Planning was more comfortable that it was an entrance to the bank, would it still not be possible because it was essentially a subtenant. Mr. Langworthy said no, because then it would meet both criteria. He said that was what Planning talked to them about. Mr. Taylor said he would like to see a sign that said `Pharmacy' over the brick part of the pharmacy, a sign that said `Bank' over the bank part of the building, and a sign that said `Cafd' where it was located. He said if that meant to achieve that with the bank that Plannina has to aet t#9- 1157JPI)P /FDP /C I Rezuning/Prelirnivaty Dvvulup1110nt P1utU Final Development Plaa /Conditional Ilse Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea I' - Giant Eagle 6015 -6904 Perimeter Loup Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 39 together and figure out what is considered an entrance strictly into the bank, or only into the bank, or whatever that definition is, he thought they should work that out. He said that he thought having a bank with an outside door without a sign would be strange. Mr. Taylor said the more small shops there and the more signs there are to identify them, the more this looks like a center with a lot of little shops which was what it was originally. He said he was fine with that if it meets the criteria. Mr. Walter asked what would happen to the windows south of the bank entrance door where the small cutout is shown. Mr. Majeed said it was a bay window. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the Commission had discussed the drive -thru at length and she did not think it had the Commissioners' support. She asked if the drive -thm section of the application could be pulled or was it a packaged deal. Ms. Readler said if the Commission took action on just the rezoning, all it said was that a drive - thru was a conditional use, so the Commission would not be addressing drive -thru if they just considered the rezoning tonight and tabled the rest. Mr. Hale explained that this drive -thru was critical to what they were doing. He said they are willing to talk about anything in terms of how to get it to work, how to make it work architecturally, how to landscape it, or whatever. 'He said if the Commission's choice was not to give them the drive -thru, they would rather they vote the zoning down and let them go to City Council to see if they agree with the Commission. He said from Developers Diversified Realty's point of view, without this grocery, the center will be dead. He said they are happy to talk with the Commission on how they can make it work. Mr. Avolio said the whole premise of this project is basically to rebuilt/reconstruct the store. He said it is going to be a new store and the critical element is the pharmacy, the health beauty wellness concept, and what is integral to that is the pharmacy drive -thru. He said the amount and level of investment in this store which is basically an old Big Bear that has been cleaned up and painted to dress it up, is really conditional on trying to get all the elements in that they currently do. He said they have deleted the fuel station because they realized there were traffic concerns and parking and it will be re- evaluated in the future. He reiterated that the pharmacy was a very critical component of the store and the investment they are , putting there. He said they have modified and refined the plan and gotten support from the condominium association, but without the drive -thru, they would have to re- evaluate their future investment into the store. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was any level of communication that the Commission could get from the neighbors that would lead them to acceptability of the drive -thru and the location proposed. Mr. Walter said they were talking about an impact to these condominium owners and he did not feel that they have been adequately notified. He said there are three options: 1) elimination of the drive -thru aisle; 2) leaving it as is; or 3) extending the drive -thru down and then a southern turn down to Mercedes Drive. He asked if the neighbors, not the owners, had been asked if they wanted the cut through or would they rather have a turn. 0 9- 115YJPDP /FDP /CU ReZui¢iIIEVI'rcliminary Duvoiopmmrt Plain Final I)evnlopni ttt PlaniCunditiunul Use Perimeter Cello PCl) - Snllrlrea F - Giant Eagle 601 5-6804 Pcrimetcr Loup Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 —Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 39 Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that Mr. Walter could possibly be comfortable with the drive - thru being on that end of the building if he were confident that the owners of that property were fully aware of what was happening. Ms. Amorose asked if there was any level of communication with the neighbors that would get Ms. Kramb comfortable. Ms. Kramb said her concern was not as much with the neighbors, but just with the configuration of the drive -thru. She said it was too sharp of a turn and there was not enough space there. She said if some modeling and/or dimensions were provided showing the navigation, it might help. Jason Hockstok, EMH &T, the consulting engineer for the site, referred to page 5 of the plans, which was an AutoTum exhibit providing the turning movements of vehicles through the pharmacy drive -thru. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she wanted to make sure that the Commissioners' communicated very clearly what it would take on a convincing level next time this application was seen. Ms. Kramb pointed out there was only one lane to turn the comer from two lanes. She asked what would prevent them from going straight continuing east without curving all the way around. Mr. Hockstok said `Do Not Enter' signs have been indicated on the plans. Ms. Kramb did not think the signs would prevent anyone from going that way because it was wide open and the quickest way to exit. Mr. Hockstok said EMH &T interviewed the neighbors, and some of the Commissions' concerns specifically to accessing Mercedes Drive through the south access point. He said the neighbor on the corner was very appreciative that the gate was there, noting the fact that it would allow some extra protection for her grandchildren. He said that in general those people are extremely happy with what they see and beyond that were very appreciative of the fact that Giant Eagle reached out. Mr. Walter said the Commission understood, but did not know if the people were residents or owners, and that was the concern. He said the Commission would like validation with proper notification. Mr. Hale agreed that they would go to the Courthouse County Recorder's Office to get not just addresses, but names of the owners, and send the notices. Mr. Hardt said he understood that the cut through was there today and it was the thing that the residents were complaining about. He said he was fine with the geometry of the drive -thru. He also wanted to know that the owners of the units were notified. Mr. Zimmerman said he also wanted to know how the owners of the units feel about the drive - thru pharmacy. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she had no particular issue with the pharmacy drive -thru. She said more of her concerns were the delineation of the architecture of the front. She said she understood that the inside has changed significantly. She said she would like to make it look 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant F.agle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 39 alive on that end from the outside, and clear glass doe not necessarily do that for her. She said she would like to see this center come alive on the south end, more than through the glass. She said perhaps if the doors could open to the front on the smaller section rather than the sides that might liven it up a little bit from the curb. She said the doors on the sides become invisible and she would not know that was where she was supposed to enter. Mr. Majeed said what the Commissioners felt was needed to make it look more lively was exactly what they needed. He said he understood and said they were willing to work with Planning to figure out what would be beneficial in terms of the design itself on how to break it down, whether it be moving some of the entrances to the front, or creating some elements on the sign bands instead of creating the blank fascia board. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was not suggesting any particular materials, but perhaps some material break could be done so it does not look like such a sign band. She said putting brick or stone on some of it to pickup from the elements might work. Mr. Majeed asked if the Commission was comfortable with the fact that they tried to break it down into smaller components. Mr. Taylor asked if the building would be re- roofed in this process. Mr. Majeed said most likely, they will try to patch and repair the roof. Mr. Taylor said perhaps if it were re- roofed it would be easier, but if the pitch of the roof was continued out a little further and let the roof come out with a smaller fascia with a frieze board below it it would eliminate the sign panel visually. Mr. Taylor said they were down to sign panel heights, sign locations, opaque or not opaque details, and that was fine. He said he thought they had made huge progress. Mr. Taylor said if he knew that the condominium owners are okay with the location of the drive -thru, that would help him feel better about it, but he would rather see the money being spent to screen or a wall to make it really separate it from the residents somehow, but he did not know what it was. He said the money would be better spent on something that makes a more opaque barrier between the drive -thru lanes and the condos. He said it was nice visually and architecturally to have the canopy as the entry and he was not sure it was necessary to think of other ways to do that. Mr. Hardt suggested the canopy could be longer so the transactions from vehicles at the drive - thru window were taking place completely enclosed underneath it. Mr. Langworthy said he pictured the arches up towards the front with a gap, and then you go underneath another canopy that covers the windows. He asked if Mr. Hardt was suggesting extending that all the way down. Mr. Hardt said maybe. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if ample direction had been provided by the Commission. Mr. Hale indicated they had received enough direction. Mr. Avolio said that the end cap was added to be consistent with the rest of the center. He asked if that element was important to the Commission. Mr. Taylor said it was important that the center have a nice terminus at the end. He said whether you drive through it or not was not important to him at that point. He said what was more important to him, if money is being spent on stone, roofing, and everything else, was that he 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /CLl Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plun! Final Development PlaniCoaditional Use Perimeter Center PC - Stibarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 10, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 39 would rather see it on the other side of the exit lane in some fashion so that the opaqueness is increased between both drive thru lanes and the buffer is closer towards the residences. Mr. Majeed confirmed that Mr. Taylor was comfortable with the end piece being eliminated, and some kind of architectural feature being created on the south elevation. Ms. Amorose Groomes added that maybe the arched wall could go farther down, with glass inside those arches, but maybe not necessarily a roof. Mr. Walter summarized that the Commission's suggestion was to take the roof off and make that a disconnected out - building that buffered it. He said it needed a terminus, and it does not have to look like this, and does not have to be attached to the building. He said he liked that what was on the plan provided symmetry to that side. Mr. Majeed said they were following the original direction that the Commission wanted to keep the overall design of the existing center. He said if they can depart from it so be it. Ms. Kramb said whatever was designed should not have things that drivers will run into and e yellow pylons as are showing up all over Dublin. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked how the applicants would like the Commission to handle the application. Mr. Hale said they would like to do more work in compliance with what they heard tonight and return with something the Commission will approve. Vote and Motion: Mr. Taylor made the motion to table this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/Final Development Plan/Conditional Use application at the request of the applicant. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Hardt, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Tabled 6 — 0.) Ms. Amorose Groomes called a recess at 9:30 p.m. 3. Acre p6ry Uses and Structures Code Amend ent 10 21ADM Chris vrose Groomes introd d this proposed Code endment regarding ac sory uses an structures. She explain t the Commission h reviewed this Code ndment at the ewious Planning and Zo g Commission meetin d that the draft langua had been revised to reflect their comme S. Rachel Ray p ted out that a evening. S summarized the r Huildin tandards had been in for s mming pools. She explaia morpd= had been distri o vlaining that Land U, Vrocess clarifying the ecurmn, that `pool barriers' ar to the CommisFeve!72 s s and Long Range PI d for reviewing build y rel 09- 11SMIDI,'ltrnPR It! Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plait Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION CITY OF I)t)tINN LmdWeand APRIL 8, 2010 Long Range Plonnkg SM Shler4fingt Road Dublin, Ohb 43016.1236 Phone / MD: 614- 4164600 Fox: 614-4164747 Web Sao: www.dublin Wis The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Perimeter Center PCD, Subarea F — Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Proposal: A new Planned Unit Development District (Perimeter Center, Subarea F4) for 15.19 acres currently located within Subarea F of the Perimeter Center Planned Commerce District. The rezoning is intended to facilitate the expansion of the existing Giant Eagle grocery store, the addition of a gas station and pharmacy drive -thru for the grocery store and increase the amount of outdoor dining areas in the shopping center. The site is located on the north side of Perimeter Loop Road, approximately 430 feet east of the intersection with Avery - Muirfield Drive. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a rezoning with preliminary development plan and review and approval of a final development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Developers Diversified Realty and Giant Eagle, Inc.; represented by Ben Hale and Jack Reynolds, Smith & Hale, LLC. Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410-4675, chusak @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To table these Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan and Final Development Plan applications at the request of the applicant. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan and Final Development Plan applications were tabled. STAFF CERTIFICATION AAMot •a J. h,1 &<, Claudia D. Husak, AICP Planner II 09- 115Z(PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Alan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015-6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 8, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 20 Ms. Amoros roornes said there wa a 12 condition adde Ms. Husak said she feted the condition out the removal of it second siZonS er Drive and wanee feedback on Con4 and Condition 11. •Taylor sad Conditio is not something th Planning t view, they will need nsents to 91 the c ala. e t nalizc Ms. A Dross Groomes said s is concerned with th and depth and stated ey have done a ,gre ,lob with creating wat views, but have not de functional water they dump copper fate so that you can t walk across them asked what they are ng to do to make this pond /stagnmt t oss covered leach bed Reeds said it doe ave deeper wate r in e westee pond. Ms. Amoral roomes asked if there as going to be anytlli that will m. Mr. Reeds said th could look into aerati and the health of the nd will be debeing a living anism as opposed to ass down to a water dge. Ms. Anior said she w d like something ae sing this pond to e e the pond mains Hale said they woulWike to bring the Motion and Vot Mr. Fishman de a motion to table the r=Iter e applicant. Mr. nded the moti %Hle vote was as foil Zimmerman, yes; Ms Ms. Amorose back and requeste�a tabling. nal Development Pi/Conditional Use Mr. Taylor, yes;Nardt, yes; Ms. .b, yes; Mr. Wait , yes; and Mr. Fishn s called for a break at 8:16 pm. Ms. Amsrfose Groomes resumed meeting at 8:23 pm. lion at Groomes, yes; Mr (Approved 7 — 0. 2. Perimeter Center PCD, Subarea F — Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road 09- 115Z/PDP/FDP Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Ms. Amorose Groomes introduced this rezoning with preliminary development plan application for a new Planned Unit Development District to establish Subarea F4 for 15.19 acres currently in Subarea F of the Perimeter Center Planned Commerce District. She said that the rezoning is intended to facilitate the expansion of the existing Giant Eagle grocery store and increase the amount of outdoor dining areas in the shopping center. She also said that the site 'is located on the north side of Perimeter Loop Road, approximately 430 feet east of the intersection of Avery- 09- 115Z/PDP /F DP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F- Giant Ugle 6015 -6804 Perimeter loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 8, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page I 1 of 20 Muirfield Drive. Ms. Amorose Groomes explained that the application consists of two components; the rezoning with a preliminary development plan and the final development plan and that there will need to be two motions and the rezoning/preliminary will go to Council for final decision. She said that the Commission is the final authority on the final development plan and swore in those intending to speak in regards to this case, including the applicant and City representatives. Claudia Husak presented this request for a preliminary development plan and a rezoning of this site for a new subarea within the Perimeter Center development to expand a grocery store, drive - thru pharmacy, fuel station and outdoor dining areas and a final development plan for all final site improvements. She said the site is developed with a grocery store in the southeastern portion, a shopping center with individual tenant spaces in the eastern portion and two multi - tenant free - standing buildings in the northern portion of the site. She said that there is parking in the center of the site and a free - standing ATM in the southwestern corner of the site. Ms. Husak said the applicant is proposing to create a new Subarea F4 for this site that permits similar uses as currently permitted within Subarea F and the development standards are being clarified. She said that the text permits a slightly larger grocery store, a pharmacy drive -thru and a fuel station. She said typically a conditional use would be required for both of these auto - oriented uses and text permits up to 2,000 square feet of outdoor dining areas with 1,500 square feet included in the final development plan and the remaining to be administratively approved when needed. She explained that the development text permits up to 90 percent lot coverage for the site and suggests a parking ratio of 4.4 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of building area. She said the text requires two stacking spaces for the fuel station and three for the pharmacy. She also said that there are a lot of sign regulations within the text and there are a lot of conditions that speak to the sign language. Ms. Husak said the final development plan involves the site improvements including the site design, architecture, engineering, landscaping, and lighting. She said that Planning discussed with the applicant that there is concern with the distribution of traffic considering tenants moving north and the grocery store expanding. She said that Planning asked the applicant to look at how this may impact the main access point as the traffic pattern is currently somewhat confusing with very wide lanes and random turning movements. She said the applicant has attempted to address these issues by expanding the landscaped island by four feet and moving the stop bars and the stop signs into the center of the entry. Ms. Husak said that Planning is still concerned that these efforts are short of making an impact and Planning recognizes that the entry feature was highly desired by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council at the time the site was approved. She said Planning is suggesting restricting deliveries to the Perimeter Drive access point with direct access to the back of the buildings or Mercedes Drive for the delivery of fuel. Ms. Husak said there is screening between the shopping center and the condos that was recently inspected and it was noted that there is dead plant material that will be taken care of through the compliance process. 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /C:U Rezoning/Prelimiaary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Vagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road rJUUitn rIUR=g ana c.ontng t;ommtssion April 8, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 20 Ms. Husak said that Rusty Bucket is the southenunost tenant space which is where the pharmacy is proposed to be and a portion of the building will be removed to accommodate the pharmacy drive -thru and the existing tenant spaces will be occupied by Giant Eagle along with a building addition for the grocery store. Ms. Husak said that the applicant has met with the residents of Craughwell Village regarding the concept of a fuel station and the drive- tltru. She said that the applicant has said that the conversations went well and the applicant is providing a sidewalk from the condominiums to the south side of the shopping center as requested by the residents. She said that residents were also concerned with shopping center employees cutting through a private drive to Craughwell Village and the applicant is proposing a gate that the Fire Department has reviewed and approved to deter the cut through traffic. Ms. Husak showed a detail for the pharmacy drive -thru and explained the proposed traffic - pattern. She said that a drive -thru canopy is proposed and at the urging of Planning the applicant has included an architectural feature at the front that looks very similar to the existing end piece shown in the elevation and all other areas of the fagade. Ms. Husak said that the grocery store expansion will eliminate some of the tenant signs currently identifying the southern tenant spaces will be eliminated. She said that Planning requested that the applicant propose some relief to what will essentially be a blank sign band. She said that the applicant is proposing blank panels painted to match the sign band with gooseneck lighting to give shadow and interest to the facade. She explained that Giant Eagle is proposing additional signs for the store, a sign for a caf6, a sign for the state liquor agency, a sign for a potential bank location within the store, a sign for the pharmacy within the store, and one for the drive -thru canopy. She said that the Code would allow a sign for a tenant with a store front which is just the case for the caf6 because there is a separate entrance for the cafd, but none of the other signs neither operate independent of the store nor have a separate entrance or a separate space or business outside of the store and this is a precedence that is not recommended for setting and Planning requests that the text and the final development plan be revised to eliminate the right to these signs. Ms. Husak said the fuel station is proposed in the southeast corner of the site with four fuel pumps that can accommodate a car at each pump and one car behind for stacking. She said that there is a 220 - square -foot kiosk that will be staffed by one employee, but is not for walk -in purchases. She said that the applicant is proposing external merchandise units and has attempted to screen them but Planning requests that none of them be permitted. She also said that the proposed canopy lighting is intense and while it meets Code, Planning requests that some of the lights be eliminated and the total number of lights be lowered. She said that the fuel canopy height is not provided and the elevations are not to scale and the entire canopy appears to be 33 feet tall which is 11 feet taller than any of the other canopies within the City and it should be lowered to 22 feet to the top of the roof matching the other fuel stations within the area. Ms. Husak said there is a ground sign for the fuel station proposed along Perimeter Loop Road and intended to be included in the hedge and pillar treatment. She said that the column feature exceeds the height of the development text and it is required to be lowered to 6 feet. 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /CU Idccurtingit'rClirrtinury rk'vc1oplimit Plan/ Final Devc1upnIL111 !'hart Ct +uditional Use Perimeter - cettter PC'D - Subarear F - Giant Bugle 6015-68(A Porirttctcr I.uc+p I+ivad Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 8, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 20 Ms. Husak said the outdoor dining areas are proposed, two for Giant Eagle and a couple others for the shopping center and are currently paved areas that will not add impervious surface and the site furnishings are included to coordinate through the center. Ms. Husak said the recommendation is approval of the rezoning and preliminary development plan with five conditions dealing with the traffic and storm water management criteria. She said the recommendation is approval for the final development plan where all of the criteria need some help with conditions and Planning is proposing nine conditions. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was anyone from the general public that would like to speak with regards to this case. [There were none.] She said there are some email communications that have been sent to the Commission. Ben Hale Jr., representing the applicant, said that there are two entities involved, Giant Eagle and DDR who owns the center. He said this was a lucky center that when Big Bear went out of business Giant Eagle chose to locate here and in these types of centers the grocery operation is very important to drive the other tenants' business. He said DDR is playing a big part of the partial re- development of the center and one thing is that Rusty Bucket moves to a new store front and they are getting new fixtures and kitchen and it is important to keep Giant Eagle here. Mr. Hale said they are making changes to the entry and DDR has not had an issue with traffic flow or operations. He said there are two other ways in and out and the condition to control as best they can with deliveries from the north and south can be met. He said they are in agreement with the condition on no outside storage and to lower the fuel canopy. He said 40 percent of people who would use this fuel station are already at the store and will not create more trips, 44 percent of people have fuel cards and the remaining 16 percent are people driving in off the street. He said, that this is a service for people that already shop at Giant Eagle and he knows that people that shop here redeem their perks at the Sawmill Road location. Mr. Hale said they met with the neighbors and the big issue was to get a gate and they have agreed to do that. He said that they were happy with the changes. Mr. Hale said the signs are there because these businesses operate independently and have a separate entrance. He cited as an example the pharmacy that has its own check -out and doors, the same as the Liquor Agency and the Bank and signs are doing what they are supposed to do and direct traffic to enter the buildings and they are not excessive and less than what is existing. Pat Avolio, Director of Development for Giant Eagle, said the key things they are doing is spending a multi- million dollar investment to rebuild the store within the existing footprint and expanding it to add new offerings. He said "The Pharmacy" is a new concept as, part of the Health, Beauty and Wellness store itself and it will have separate. registers and some features to be added will be an in -store dietitian, and an aesthetician to be conducive to the demographics and to serve the customers. He said the name is not the most original but is being branded as part of their health, beauty and wellness initiative. They have worked extensively with staff on 09- 115ZIPDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6801 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 8, 2010 —Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 20 signage and the two main entrances help with the distribution of traffic and customers entering and exiting the store and without identification there it is a concern for them. Mr. Avolio said the food and drug sign will be eliminated and the Cafd will have a separate entry and it will be a greater upgrade with the prepared foods offering with a seating area. He said the point of contention is the bank sign and it would be separate of Giant Eagle and the entry is through the pharmacy vestibule. Mr. Avolio said that the fueling element is critical and the height is much higher because of matching the architecture of the BP Station with a similar slope line and the depth of canopy of the configuration fuel pumps results in being higher and they will look at reducing the height. He said that 19 percent of people redeem their perks at the Bethel Road/Sawmill Road location, 22 percent go to Hayden Run Road, and 16 percent go to Powell and the next highest goes to Hilliard at 3 percent. He said about 91 percent of the fuel points earned are redeemed. Mr. Walter asked if they have counts for number of redemptions and trips. Mr. Avolio said it is in the traffic report and is for the gas station only. Jason Smallwood, EMH &T, said the gas station by itself has an expected trip generation of 73 trips at the highest hour of the day and a trip is defined at one car in and one car out which will generate 2 trips, so they are really 36 cars per hour. Mr. Walter asked for the peak period. Mr. Smallwood said it is 4:00 -6:00 pm Monday through Friday and the weekday trips were higher. Mr. Walter asked for the weekend trips for grocery and gas. Mr. Smallwood said with the standards for engineering they only study the highest hour, they do not break it down. Mr. Avolio said as part of the traffic study the Saturday around 1:00 pm is lower than the peak hour Friday for a gas station. Mr. Smallwood said the average for three different locations were 60, 60, and 59 trips. Mr. Hardt asked for anticipated traffic counts for the pharmacy drive -thru. Mr. Smallwood said the pharmacy is part of the shopping center trip generation and it is not separate for just the pharmacy, but the expansion for the total site is expected to generate 134 additional trips during the peak hour. Mr. Fishman said regarding the entrance from the minutes of December 8, 1994 it was noted that he was upset with the water feature that it was much smaller than proposed in the preliminary plan. He said he would be in favor of a redesign and there is not a parking problem as anticipated and a redesign with a beautiful pond water feature instead a fountain would be welcomed. He said he has concerns with the gas station and the center has done a good job of putting in a muffler shop and a tire center and still being an attractive center and the gas pumps need to be nestled into the site with landscaping. He would rather see the canopy be lowered and be of shake roof materials and the post be lowered. Mr. Hale said the gas is located in this corner because of the other uses on this side and does not have a separate curb cut, the only access is through the parking lot. Mr. Fishman said the signs have to change and asked if there are going to be text changes. Ms. Husak said the proposal on the table is to change the text to permit the additional signs. Mr. 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /C:U Rezoning/Preliminmy Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 8, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 20 Fishman said to be very careful with signs and to follow staff recommendation to not change the text. Mr. Hale said the pharmacy is acting as a separate business and they need to be able to tell customers that it is the pharmacy. Mr. Walter asked if there is a definition of what large format retail is. Ms. Husak said it is anything over 20,000 square feet. Mr. Walter is concerned with making fueling stations a permitted use, it should be a conditional use with the current applicant/use and if it should turn over it should come back and they should discuss restoration of the site and removal of tanks. Mr. Walter said motor vehicle rental should not be a permitted use and should be a conditional use, it does exist, but should not be a continued use on the site and if the existing rental business leaves he would hate to see a new rental car place show up and stores all the cars and service them on site. Mr. Walter said he thinks the 2,000 -square-foot dining area is small and it should be increased. Mr. Walter said the text states for parking and loading: "fast food restaurant shall provide a minimum of eight spaces per exchange window ". He said he does not believe there is an exchange window in the subarea. Ms. Husak said there is not currently, but in the northern portion there used to be one. Mr. Walter said it should be removed from the text. Mr. Walter said the parking and loading, Section 5, indicates a minim of two stacking spaces per pump. He thought that is a problem. The fuel station is a conditional use and should be moved to an element of the conditional use section and eliminated. Ms. Husak said the language of all of the areas are for anything and not specific to permitted uses. Mr. Walter asked who approves the cart corrals. Ms. Husak indicated that they were approved in 2002. Mr. Walter said it is too vague and should indicate who approves them either Code or staff or indicate as approved on a certain date. Mr. Walter said he has concerns with the sign section. Ms. Husak said they are asking that the sign section be deleted from the text. Mr. Walter said the wall and hanging signs should have gold letters and the color should reference a palette. Ms. Husak said it was approved at the original final development plan and said they can be more specific. Mr. Walter said when they get to the section about the signs it specifically indicates the language that would be on the sign and should be stricken from the text. Mr. Zimmerman said he agreed with Mr. Walter. Mr. Hardt asked about the gas pumps and'if there will be oval shaped red "GetGo" logos and TV monitors to loop video and if they were going to be here. Mr. Hale said they will not be there and there are some text amendments to be done. Mr. Fishman said they did not allow any graphics on the pumps at other gas stations in the area and would like to restrict these pumps. Ms. Husak said they are talking about graphics and the 09.y15zIPn>' /•nP /Cu ltvruning Prelhnjaim I)ovululauleaat Plnnl 1 . 111111 Ihavulnpnivnt I'Inn- L'nFxhtitanal use I'vihi turluntcr I'C'I) - 5141wren F - Giant Engle ( +gI3.68 .I l'urinleWr I.unit Riind Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 8, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 20 applicant has been informed that they will not be allowed on the pumps. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if televisions are considered a graphic. Ms. Husak said they will address them in the text Mr. Hardt said the cart corrals were approved in June of 2002 and at that time they were approved but the recommendation was the "H"- shaped landscaped islands that are more permanent and these were a compromise because the preferred ones were cost - prohibitive and now that they are doing a site re- design and that cost is no longer a factor, the corrals should be upgraded to the preferred cart corrals. Mr. Fishman agreed that the preferred corral should be installed. Ms. Kramb, Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Walter agreed. Ms. Kramb agreed with the other comments. She said the number of cart corrals should be increased. Ms. Husak said they proposing to add one additional with location changes to account for the pattern change. Mr. Taylor said the gas building looks like a roof on stilts and the other buildings look much nicer, especially the Monroe Muffler shop looks unlike any other muffler shop in the country and is a beautiful building. He said he would rather see this gas station unit look more like a building with openings carved in it than a roof on stilts or more like a canopy. Mr. Taylor said the signage issue is a mess and the center was designed to look like a group of individual buildings put together at a streetscape level and the sign panel was intended to have signs and lights and be part of the rhythm and character of the building. He said he would rather see a green sign with gold letters that say "your name here" than to say nothing and be painted white. He said he understands the issues, but in this case not identifying the architectural pieces of this building in the manner it was designed would be a mistake. He said he is in favor of having individual signs on individual parts of the building that designate what is going on inside and more than anything call out the individual pieces of the building as they are designed. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she does not have a problem with "The Pharmacy" or the "Cafe", but she does not want to see the "State Liquor Store ", everyone who needs to go to the state liquor store finds it. Mr. Taylor said he is not concerned with what the signs say, but what they designate, especially the lower part of the elevation where there are clearly three different buildings that are connected and to eliminate the signage will make it look empty, blank, vacant and dead and perhaps some awnings would relieve some of the spaces that would appear empty without the signs. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they need to be more creative and they would like to see something out of the box. Ms. Kramb agrees that anything with its own door should get a sign over the entrance. Ms. Husak showed where there are separate doors. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the development text issues have been outlined by Mr. Walter. She agreed with the expansion of Giant Eagle and felt that they are a great corporate citizen and the Commissioners are supportive of the expansion. She said they are not opposed to the concept of 09- 11571PDP /FDP /C U Rexoninglprelimivary Do- Velopmenl Plait' Final E CM(spilwiit Plant oudilioaal Use VC6111dOr Center PCD . Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -680 4 Perimater Lone Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 8, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 20 a pharmacy drive -thru as a conditional use. The outdoor dining areas are encouraged to expand where possible. She said that the lot coverage is what it is and there is nothing to discuss on that issue. She said they talked about the signs and there is not a clear solution for the signs and they are inviting a solution. Ms. Amorose Groomes said there are two more items to discuss: the pharmacy drive -thru and the fuel station. Mr. Zimmerman agreed the height should be dropped to 22 foot and the location is perfect and he would like to see more landscaping around the station with trees or something to give an extra punch and clean it up. Mr. Hardt agreed with the existence of a gas station. Mr. Fishman agreed that the landscaping needs to be increased and the canopy be lowered and no graphics on the pumps. Ms. Kramb said she is okay with the gas station but is against the layout because it is too small and condensed and there is always more than two cars waiting at the existing station in Powell, the Kroger station on Sawmill during the peak times have 5 cars waiting for pumps and it is twice this size, it needs more stacking. Mr. Walter said they are over- gas - stationed in the area and there is potentially more coming into the area and with a roundabout the overall traffic patterns need to be considered. He said he is not against Giant Eagle having a gas station and realizes it is warranted, but he said that this is not a big enough foot print for the station, the traffic flow is a problem, and they should request a curb cut because they are trying to do internal circulation that will not work and he does not want to make a McDonald's mistake again. Mr. Kramb and Mr. Taylor agreed. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she is not supportive of a curb cut and but is supportive of a bigger area without the skinny islands that cannot support a tree and hardly grow grass. She suggested the islands be more out - parcel like with lush and dense plantings in islands deep enough to support vegetation. Mr. Fishman agreed. Mr. Walter said if they remove the fountain and moved the entrance south and the fuel station to the north it would relieve the pressure at the roundabout and direct traffic better into the site. Mr. Hardt said he has heartburn over the pharmacy drive -thru lanes so close to residential condominiums. Mr. Zimmerman said the neighbors might not have a clue about how it will impact them. Mr. Walter agreed and said the only landscaping is in this location and will be removed with the drive -thru and he also was concerned who would be able to negotiate the turn. Ms. Husak said the applicant did provide an Autoturn graphic of the turn and operationally the applicant has additional information. Jason Hockstok, EMH &T, said they did provide a turning exhibit through the area and it reflects a maneuver from both lanes and the vehicle represented is a larger vehicle. 09- 115DPDP /FDl' /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subaroa F- Giont Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and 'Zoning Commission April 8, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 20 Mr. Fishman asked if all the residents were notified of this meeting. Ms. Husak said the residents within the 300 -foot buffer were notified and the homeowners association was notified and there was a lot of return mail listed by the Post Office as vacant. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that all site improvements have been talked about at length. She said the site design apart from re -doing the entry feature, it is what it is and it appears customers know how to negotiate it. She said the sign band on the building should not be blank cream colored boards up with gooseneck light fixtures shining on blank boards. She said that there is a lot of work to be done with landscaping at the fuel station and if the pharmacy stays where it is proposed there should be significant improvements made with landscaping to buffer it and to be sensitive to the neighbors at Craughwell and the lighting be decreased with the fuel station. Mr. Hardt said the building architecture at the south end of the building was a bunch of store fronts that are going dark and this shopping center was great because the large format store was hidden behind the smaller store fronts, they were essentially veneer shops. He was concerned that the best part of the center was the fact that small stores hid the large grocery store and with this proposal that was being destroyed. Mr. Walter said he did not like adjusting the text to meet the site conditions in terms of parking. He felt that the upper floors needed to be accounted for. Ms. Kramb said the staff report indicates the existing text includes the tine and muffler parcels and it is unclear if they are included in the text and she believes they should not be included because they are not part of the new Subarea. Ms. Husak clarified that they are not included, the existing Subarea F stays in place as is today and it does not specifically address the two parcels, but they have to stay in the text and the new Subarea F4 does not take these parcels into account. Mr. Walter said he believes they are under parking the center and used an example of the new Five Guys location where there is no convenient parking space and it seems jammed and he is concerned that this center will be at full capacity with the gas facility and the parking needs to be carefully considered. Ms. Amorose Groomes did not feel that it is in danger of being under parked, it maybe under conveniently parked and at the Kroger Center but there is parking available at the east end near Wendy's, the parking may not be in the right place, but there is parking. Mr. Walter said the parking study was not enough and this needs to be done as right as we can do it because it is going to change the demographics with the shifting of tenants and there is not enough access to this site and the access drives the tendency of the flow and it is the issue that needs to be dealt with. Ms. Husak said the study was done during the week with morning, lunch time, and early evening hours. At minimum there were 200 spaces available up to 450 and there were 700 plus total parking spaces. 09 -11 SZtPDP /FDP /C:U Rezoniog/Preliminarq Development Plan/ final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F- Chant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 8, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 20 Ms. Kramb said she disagrees with Planning that two stacking spaces was okay at the fuel station, she supports Code and if the applicant can provide information that traffic volumes will not go up that much she might decrease it but not down to two, but maybe four. Mr. Fishman said that Mr. Hardts' point is well taken and would not support a big box and the elevations needs designed to represent small shops and not a Giant Eagle. Mr. Hale said he would like to table this application. Motion and Vote Mr. Walter made a motion to table these Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan/Final Development Plan applications at the request of the applicant. Mr. Fishman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Taylor, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. Walter, yes. (Approved 7 — 0.) I Our 2CU M Amorose Groomes storic building, locate the intersection of regards to this cas clu igUU oduced this applicati a 21 16 North High Street Con tional Use foot patio for a ely 100 feet north of intending to speak ir, n the east side of No igh Street, apprc Street in the Histori !strict. She swore in ing the applicant lnda Kick and City reps Ms. Amor Groomes indicated a was no need for a sentation and asked if ere was anyone m the geZpublic t would like to speak th rega rds to this case here were none s. Amorose Groowere two co itions and amended c dition number two to include "at an off -si i Linda Kick axed to the conditions NMotio nd Vote Mr. alter made a motion review criteria with t 1) All patio Auren i replac 'th 2) All do furni tore Mr. Fishman seconded the this Condition se application conditions: ties be removed by tenant if the tenant another use that w d utilize the patio; ane be stored ing off - season at an off-el complies with !�ees this space and is no location. J 0 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezuning/Prelimiiiary 1hvcloplacnt Plan/ Viiial Develupmant Pled /Condilionul Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Gianl Eagle 6015.5904 Perimeter L.aor Road -CITY OF DUBLIN Divbbn of P101 ft 5600 Shier-Rntps Rood Dublin, Ohio 43016.1236 Pbm/IDD. 614.410.460D Fax: 614 - 161 -6566 Web Sde: wwwdublin oh.us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMSSION RECORD OF ACTION JUNE 20, 2002 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 5. Revised Development Plan 02 -053RDP— Riverside PCD, Subarea B - Avery Square Kroger - 7100 Perimeter Loop Road; and Perimeter Center, Subarea F - Perimeter Center Big Bear - 6700 Perimeter Loop Road Location: 10.21 acres located on the north side of Perimeter Loop'Road, approximately 500 feet west of Avery- Muirfield Road (Kroger); and 15.541 acres located on the north side of Perimeter Loop Road, approximately 520 east of Avery- Muirfield Road (Big Bear). EAsting Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Riverside Hospital and Perimeter Center plans). Request: Review and approval of revised development plans for both shopping center parking lots under the development plan provisions of Section 153.058. Proposed Use: • Installation of standardized, manufactured cart corrals within the existing parking lots of the Avery Square Kroger and the Perimeter Center Big Bear. Applicant: City of Dublin, c% Marsha Grigsby, Interim City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Property Owners: Developers Diversified Realty, 445 Hutchinson Avenue, Suite 800, Columbus Ohio, 43235; Big Bear Stores, 770 West Goodale Boulevard, Columbus Ohio 43212; Don M. Casto Organization, 209 East State Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215; and The Kroger Company, 4111 Executive Parkway, Wcstcrvillc Ohio, 43081. Staff Contact: Anne Wanner, Planner. MOTION: To approve these revised development plans because the cart corrals are a maintainable, cost - effective design, allow both grocery stores to comply with Code and alleviate on -going site problems, with three conditions: 1) That both Kroger and Big Bear stores place all carts inside the store at the close of business each day, unless the store is required to stay open 24 -hours a day, in which case the carts must be collected each evening; 2) That any additional signage be prohibited on the sides of the cart corrals or along the tops of the cart corrals unless approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and Page 1 of 2 09- 115ZtPDP /FDP /CU g Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan,Conditional Use Peiimetor Center PCD - Suburea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loup Road PLANNING AND ZONING CONMUSSION RECORD OF ACTION JUNE 20, 2002 S. Revised Development Plan 02- 053RDP— Riverside PCD, Subarea B - Avery Square Kroger - 7100 Perimeter Loop Road; and Perimeter Center, Subarea F - Perimeter Center Big Bear - 6700 Perimeter Loop Road (Continued) 3) That any additional cart corrals for other tenants utilize the same design and that revised site plans be submitted for review and approval. Tom Cowan, Assistant Real Estate Manger, Kroger Company; and Gary Hill, Big Bear Director of Construction and Maintenance, agreed to the above conditions. 1�ZeYM RESULT: These revised development plans were approved. STAFF CPRTIFICATION A6nmp . & Barbara M. Clarice Planning Director Page 2 of 2 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development MUD/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - SUbarea F - Gant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Minutes — June 20, 2002 Page 13 Mr rague called a short 71ds at 8:30 p.m. 5. Revised Development Plan 02 -053RDP— Riverside PCD, Subarea B - Avery Square Kroger - 7100 Perimeter Loop Road; and Perimeter Center, Subarea F - Perimeter Center Big Bear - 6700 Perimeter Loop Road Anne Wanner presented this application for two revised development plans under , the PCD provisions, one for the Avery Square Kroger and the other for the Perimeter Center Big Bear. She said this application is City - sponsored, and it has the owners' endorsements. This is a request for the installation of cart corrals within the existing parking lots of both grocery stores. She showed several slides. She said the selected cart corral design is manufactured by McCue Corporation and consists of pre - fabricated polyethylene cart enclosures. She said Big Bear is to install 12 units, and Kroger proposes to install 13 cart corral units. The cart corrals have a free- standing weighted bumper that screens the lower half of the carts. Each 8%s -foot by 15 -foot unit occupies a parking space, and two units are to be installed end-to-end. The color. Natural -621. is as neutral as possible. Ms. Wanner presented a color sample of the material to be used. The corrals will have small signs on top: "Pickup and Return Carts Here" with the generic cart symbol. Ms. Wanner said Kroger's existing metal cart corrals will be replaced with this new design, and the Big Bear site does not currently have cart corrals. She noted there is a very long history regarding cart corrals on these two sites. She said staff is very happy that there is now consensus on a design and placement of the cart corrals. She said the "landscaped H" design, are prohibitively expensive to install as a retrofit to a site. She said staff encourages the use of the landscaped H's for developed commercial sites. Ms. Wanner said staff recommends approval with three conditions: 1) That both Kroger and Big Bear stores place all carts inside the store at the close of business each day, unless the store is required to stay open 24 -hours a day, in which case the carts must be collected each evening; 2) That any additional signage be prohibited on the sides of the cart corrals or along the tops of the cart corrals unless approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and 3) That any additional cart corrals for other tenants utilize the same design and that revised site plans be submitted for review and approval. Tom Cowan, Assistant Real Estate Manger, Kroger Company, said he supported this proposal, and looked forward to approval. Gary Hill, Big Bear Director of Construction and Maintenance, also hoped this application would move forward. This will add to their customers' enjoyment. Mr. Messineo asked why cart corrals were not originally included on the plans for these two grocery stores. Ms. Clarke said this is unknown. Cart corrals were not on the plans, discussed, or suggested by staff. They were not requested by the applicants or mentioned in the texts. She said there was no parking problem. 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center I'CD - Subarea F- Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road LUUllll r1Alu11118 Lulu Z VIWlg I- UUUIMSSIUJI Minutes - June 20, 2002 Page 14 Mr. Messineo asked if the existing metal cart corrals at Kroger were legal. Ms. Wanner said no, because they were not shown on the approved development plan. Mr. Gerber asked how much would the landscaped H corrals cost. Ms. Clarke said over $10,000 per unit to refit the site after construction. She said they were not easily maintained. Ms. Boring congratulated everyone who bad worked on this and said the corrals are needed. This design is more obtrusive than the metal ones. Ms. Clarke responded that the metal ones suffer damage and look crooked after being bumped. She said there were complaints that the metal style was not the right approach. Ms. Clarke said these should resist minor vehicular bumps. Mr. Zimmerman made a motion to approve these revised development plans because the cart corrals are a maintainable, cost- effective design, allow both grocery stores to comply with Code and alleviate on -going site problems, with three conditions: 1) That both Kroger and Big Bear stores place all carts inside the store at the close of business each day, unless the store is required to stay open 24 -hours a day, in which case the carts must be collected each evening; 2) That any additional signage be prohibited on the sides of the cart corrals or along the tops of the cart corrals unless approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and 3) That any additional cart corrals for other tenants utilize the same design and that revised site plans be submitted for review and approval. Mr. Cowan and Mr. Hill agreed to the above conditions. Mr. Messineo seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Ms. Boring, yes. (Approved 5 -0.) Mr. Sprague said that they appreciated the cooperation of the applicants, and this was a testament to their cooperative spirit for civic benefit and a mutually satisfactory goal. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Libby l+au]ey U Administrative Secretary Planning Division 09- 115ZIPDPIFDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Ccnler PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION APRIL 6 1995 The Planning. and Zoning Commission took the following action at its regularly scheduled meeting: 6. Revised Development Plan - Perimeter Center - Big Bear Grocery Store Location: 18.470 acres located between Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road. Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter Center). Request: Review and approval of modified Development Plan as provided under the provisions of Section 1181.09. Proposed Use: Revised screening for rooftop mechanicals for a proposed grocery store. Applicant: Continental Real Estate, c/o Mark A. Pottschmidt, 150 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 -3610. MOTION: To approve this Revised Development Plan with the second option as outlined in the Staff Report (partial screening by parapet wall), because the proposal meets the intent of the Code's service structure screening requirements, and is sympathetic to the center's architectural character and provides a more appropriate solution to the screening of rooftop mechanicals, with the following three conditions: 1) That the rooftop mechanical units identified in this Staff report that are not fully screened by parapets, are painted to match the grocery store stucco and that only smooth surfaces are visible, to the satisfaction of Staff; 2) That any future mechanical units, either additions or modifications to existing units, be screened to their full height in accordance with the Planning and Zoning Code; and 3) That the applicant obtain Board of Zoning Appeals' approval of a Special Permit for all proposed satellite dishes, and that screening of those dishes meet the intent of the Zoning Code and the Planning Commission's approval and conditions of this application. VOTE: 6-0. 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU RESULT: This Revised Development Plan was approved. Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015-6804 Perimeter Loop Road STAFF CERTMCATION Vififx A Papsidcro Semor P f-anner Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 6, 1995 Page 13 Mr. Ferr would like to know av age service time at th rive -thru. He anticip s the Perime location will do very g d business, especially a e only fast food in the ' ediate are He agrees with Staff's sessment of the stackin roblem. Mr. Zawaly asked wh cDonald's was not to ng for a larger site tha ould accommodate a play area, as it s ed to be a major issu t the West Bridge Str cDonald's location. Ray Riska, cDonald's Corporation 'd larger sites cost mor oney and because the ake only on envy profit per hambu r, they cannot afford property. . Dargusch requested s application be tabled address the issues wh' had not been addressed due to late s mittals. Ms. Chinnici- rcher made a motion to le this Development P Mr. FishTawa seco the motion. a vote was as follows- r. Ferrara, yes; Mr. hen, yes; Mrl yes ; Mr. Ra , yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; s. Chinnici- Zuercher, es. (Tabled 6 -0.) 6. Revised Development Plan - Perimeter Center - Big Bear Grocery Store Vince Papsidero presented this case and slides. This is a request for review and approval of a modified Development Plan to revise the screening for rooftop mechanicals on the proposed Big Bear Grocery Store. The Development Plan for an 85,000 square-foot grocery store was approved by the Planning Commission in December, 1994, with a condition of approval that all mechanical units be screened to their full height. The applicant, at that time, discussed the desire for an alternative solution. Two options are proposed. One option fully meets Code, and the other is a compromise solution. The Code requirement is that service structures be completely screened by 100 percent opaque screening material, enclosing the structure on all four sides to its full height. The largest rooftop unit on Big Bear is nine feet high and 68 feet long. There are several other very large units, as well. One option is that a number of steel fence screens could be erected on the roof to enclose the mechanicals. The front of the structure screens some of the rooftop mechanicals. Mr. Papsidero said the second option involves a parapet wall to be raised higher than the roof on the north side and a parapet on the southeast side, and any unit above that parapet would be painted to match the stucco. In every case, the painted surface is smooth. The architect is concerned that the fences, although they meet Code, may attract more attention because of their size. Mr. Papsidero said Staff is in favor of the second option with the following three conditions: 1) That the rooftop mechanical units identified in this Staff report that are not fully screened by parapets, are painted to match the grocery store stucco and that only smooth surfaces are visible, to the satisfaction of Staff; 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 6, 1995 Page 14 2) That any future mechanical units, either additions or modifications to existing units, be screened to their full height in accordance with the Planning and Zoning Code; and 3) That the applicant obtain Board of Zoning Appeals' approval of a Special Permit for all proposed satellite dishes, and that screening of those dishes meet the intent of the Zoning Code and the Planning Commission's approval and conditions of this application. Mr. Ferrara said the Commission was already aware of the huge mechanicals, but they have not yet seen photographs of the actual structures. He sees this as a potential aesthetic problem from off -site views. Mr. Papsidero said the applicant has provided documentation from the manufacturer of the unit which shows one side of it. Mr. Fishman asked why the parapet cannot be built high enough to screen the mechanicals and about the size and screening of the satellite dishes. Rick Lindenmouth, Sullivan Gray Bruck Architects, said a block wall parapet high enough to screen the mechanicals would be extremely expensive. The most economical way to fully screen was to use fencing. Parapets, if affordable, would be the preferred treatment. The size of the satellite dishes is still pending. He believes two of the three will be small (three feet in diameter or smaller) and the other will be about eight feet in diameter. Most of the visible units are far back from the parapet. He said they agree with the conditions set forth in the Staff Report. Mr. Zawaly said this was also an issue with Dublin Village Center. Mr. Lindenmouth said he believes it was a structural wall with a slope on the other side. Mr. Zawaly asked if the parapet were more cost effective, whether it could be made higher, or would that cause an aesthetic problem. Mr. Lindenmouth said the aesthetics is part of it, but the other problem is screening on all four sides, which would make for very large enclosures. Mr. Rauh pointed out that improper screening could overpower the nice architecture. Mr. Sutphen made a motion to approve this Revised Development Plan with the second option as outlined in the Staff Report (partial screening by parapet wall), because the proposal meets the intent of the Code's service structure screening requirements, and is sympathetic to the center's architectural character and provides a more appropriate solution to the screening of rooftop mechanicals, with the following three conditions: 1) That the rooftop mechanical units identified in this Staff report that are not fully screened by parapets, are painted to match the grocery store stucco and that only smooth surfaces are visible, to the satisfaction of Staff, 2) That any future mechanical units, either additions or modifications to existing units, be screened to their full height in accordance with the Planning and Zoning Code; and 3) That the applicant obtain Board of Zoning Appeals' approval of a Special Permit for all proposed satellite dishes, and that screening of those dishes meet the intent of the Zoning Code and the Planning Commission's approval and conditions of this application. 09- 1157JPDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Peiimeter Center PCD - Subarea F- Giant Eagle e 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 6, 1995 Page 15 Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Ferrara, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Zawaly, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes. (Approved 6 -0.) 7. Repo - Wilcox Roadmmitments repking the mad time of To ubey presented this p4se and slides. He sa' the intersection of Wilcox and Old Wilcox ul -de -sac/hee and the Dl ads, the design of th ilcox Road recons coon were discussed the time of rewnung. hacres wa ezoned to R -12, Urb Restdenttal Dtstnct, ere was a diagram showersect' n of relocated Wiic Road and Old Wilc Road farthe r south where ie n constructed. The arming and Zoning ission asked Staff research thorating that intersect' , as well as alternati solutions to the cul-d sac bulb with a of Old Wilcox loo Old Wilcox Road d snot currently end ' cul-de -sac bulb, ariation of the 'T' or hammerhead. The are several wheel sto along a portion of , as well as ome bollards, m' mounding, and no Mr. Rubey brief described four alte ives researched by Engineering Divisio . They range in cost m about $8,000 to er $38,000. Alterna ' es 1 and 2 can be a mplished within the sting right -of -way. ternatives 3 and 4 in lve constructing a ro cul-de -sac bulb an will require additio right -of -way. Cost stimates do not izac a right- of:way aquis' n. Mr. Rubey said Staff as also asked to res rch the cost and p/Yn r relocating e intersection of Wilc and Old Wilcox, acc ding to the plans that d for the rter and Windmiller zonings. He said a cost would be $2 the in section approximately 5 feet farther south bring it into oomph cc wiin an. Randy wman said as part of a realignment of Wil x Road, the a turnaround on the st side of Old Wilco oad, some mound` , and bollards tors. When the w was completed, the rassy area beside the rnaro und was bed, and the City tailed bumper bloc ,f Alternative One ould mimic what w done on the west s' e, but n ot as deep. a west turnaround a nds beyond the exis ' g right -of -way. In a ition to providing a or image of the wes tde, curbing is propv d along Z i t side, damaged pav ent would be repaire the bumper blocks w ld be remot side of the road, ding and seeding wou be done, aZed, g would be ep drivers from ving off the end of O Wilcox Road. rnative One easiest, the 1 t disturbance, no righ of way would be no encroac xisting h e on the east side of ld Wilcox Road (cos 09.11 S/JPDP /FDP/C[ Rezoning/Prelirninaiy Development Plan/ Final Dc:veicsl»nem Platt /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6904 Perimeter 1.000 Road RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Mititstes M Dublin City Council Meeting Page 6 Meeting HeIA February 27, 1995 — 19 Mr. Foegler r nded that this issue and utilities issues are ined at the time of prelimin atting. Mr. ber moved to how 106-94 to reflect . acres of land. . Strip stucortdcd the the mat - Mrs Wall, yes; Mr. Strip, y , Mr. Zawaly, yes; Mrs. D ing, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; bd1, yes. Mr. Zawaly mov o approve the ordinance 'c-cl to the twelve Condit' s previously stated, including the ed number three conditi Mrs. Stillw seconded the motion. V r in n - Mr. Strip, y r. Zawaly, yes, Mayor mpbell. yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. answber, yes; Mrs. Stillw , yes. Ordinance No. 127-94 - An Ordinance Providing for a Change of Zoning of 18.470 Acres of Land Located Between Perimeter Drive and perimeter Loop Road from: PCD, Planned Commerce District to: Planned Commerce District. (Perimeter Center - Subarea F - Revised Composite Plan and Development Text) (Third Reading) (Applicant: Mark Pottschmidt, Continental Real Estate, 150 E. Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43215) Ms. Clarks stated that she has responded by memo to the issues raised at the public hearing regarding appropriate colors and the architectural palette for the retail center. She has also provided mimttes of the Planning Commission meetings relating to this issue. Mr. Strip asked if there has been any feedback from the developer regarding the traffic signalization issue he raised at the public hearing. Mr. Foegler responded that the condition Involving a 50 percent cost sharing is established by the Planning Commission at the final development plan stage. It is the discretion of Council to consider this funding as part of the capital improvements budget. Staff will be prepared to discuss this at the workshop session on Wednesday evening. Mr. Strip stated that be would like to go on the record, personally, and suggests that Council do so as well in some formal way, to Indicate that passage of this rezoning is without any representation of City participation in the funding of the traffic signal. This is an entirely separate issue which should be considered within the capital budget. He wants to avoid any later assumption on the developer's pan that approval of the rezoning endorsed Planning Commission's suggestion that the City fund 50 percent of the slgnslization. The other members of Council expressed concurrence with Mr. Strip's comments. Mrs. Boring asked why Condition #19 is then included in the documentation provided. Discussion followed. Mr. Zawaly moved to amend Condition #19 at the end to state, "subject to Council approval during its capital improvement review process.' Mr. Strip seconded the motion. Vote on he motion - Mr. Zawaly, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Campbell, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Strip, yes. Mayor Campbell asked the applicant if he agrees with the amended condition 419, and Mr. Pottschmidt stated that he does. Vote on the ordinance - Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mayor Campbell, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Zawaly, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. Ordinance NY. 05 -9S - An ardinanc to Accept an Annexa ' n of 2.685 + /• Acres WashinglopelTownship, Franklin Co iy to the City of Dub1I , Ohio. (Schneider Pro y). rMirri RAdinol 09 -11 SZIPDP /FDP /C U Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PC]) - Subaren F- Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter loop Rudd RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 4 February 6, 1995 8 Ms. Clarke that the Planning Commisslo? pressed Concerts about the ail ce of a dry basin Won blip Road, so they would like include a wet basin which the ail cant has agreed to do. Strip asked if there is a bike p there now along 745. Ms. Clarke responded that it ru north of this site and crosZ at Brandonway. This would be an appropriate way for Ike path to run down Dublin nd would be ad dressed at the time of preliminary plattl . She added that it would be goo he applicant on notice that e community plan does I for a bike path for that area. Mr. Strip add 4&t completion of the bike paths I igh priority of Council and it w d be a real benefit to eopie buying these homes. Mr. 5tr1 en moved that a bike path be a ed as a condition of the retonin a exact terms of whic ould be worked out by staff. Boring seconded the motion. Mr. Zawaly asked staff for a ter plan showing the desirable eway system for the City. Mrs. King responded that has one which she will share. Ms. Clarke clarifiel4at in the 1988 community plan, 3AIke path is indicated on Dublin ad, but it does not spec which side of the street. As ]an is updated, these impro is will be noted more s cifically. Mr. F gitr added that staff had commi during the goal setting proces is year to provide a do ent sometime this spring shawl a bike way system as it exists y and the gaps. Mayor Campbell requested that ote on the motion be delayed u after the staff and applicant's presentations were comple . Mrs. Boring asked s t the status of a water line bcln rought to the Berean Church. Mr. Foegler respo ed that issues of public improve nts such as this are typically add sed at the preliminary pl ng stage. ow of the property, stated that he present this evening but . Brundage will answer any qu ons. RQUE Y9911, 6668 Dayid Road, ted that he is Pastor of the Ber Church. The church has been at this location for 20 years no utilities which has caused a problems. Any assistance from Council in getting Z tended would be much apprecl I W ry Il 4 the developer of the prnpert ��od a t he agrees with the conditions, including the bi path discussed this evening. is willing to grant easem , ideally across the edge of the cation pond, to assist the church getting ntilhies. VotV6 the motion regarding the bike - Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr. Stri as; Mrs. Boring, yes; Zawaly. yes; Mayor CampbellXrAer Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. . g, yes. Mr. Zawoved to nd condition number throe, so t a park fee consisterst with the Dublin o paid the applicant at the time of fi string. Mrs. Bord motion. Mr. Zawthat the language included in ndition such as this should n specify a specific nrather make reference to the o nance. vote on t Mrs. Kin g, yes; Mrs. Still I, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. wily, yes; Mr. Kranstubyor Campbell, yes; Mr, ip, yes. May& Campbell summarized that the iird condition has been amend and a condition has been added regarding the bike path. The applicant has agreed to all of th conditions. Ordinance No. 127.94 - An Ordinance Providing for a Change of Zoning of 18.470 Acres of Iand Located Between Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road, from: PCD, Planned Commerce District to: Planned Commerce District. (Perimeter Center - Subarea F - Revised Composite Plan and Development Text) (Public Hearing) (Mark Pottschmidt, Continental Real Estate, 150 E. Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43215). Registered as a proponent was Mark Pottschmidt, 150 E. Broad Street. There were no registered RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 5 Meetin Hel F ebruary d, 1993 r 19 opponents. Ms. Clarke stated that the text has been revised to Increase the overall size of the center up to 176,540 square feet due to an Increase in the grocery store area to 95,Q44 square feet. The rest of the text is exactly the same. She showed slides of the proposed development. Planning Commission reviewed this in January and recommended approval with three conditions: 1. That the City's parking code be fully met In alt future phases of the retail center; 2. 'That the applicant submit a revised development text for staff review and approval before Council action; 3. That the detailed landscape plan for the mounded screening along the retail's center be submitted for staff review and approval before applying for a building permit for the retail center. She noted that the finalized development plan has already been reviewed by Planning Commission. She added that a previous approval had been given for a Center of 250,000 square feet and the final approval for the revised text would be 175,540 square feet. The property behind this center will remain zoned as flex office space. Mr. Strip expressed concern about the sign posted at this location denoting "Big Bear Center" instead of "Perimeter Center ". Mrs. King asked about the large variety of colors shown in the slide presented. Ms. Clarke responded that there is a variety of colors but they are all muted - forest green, a burnt red, navy blue and two additional colors, including purple. All the colors have a very low chrome. Mrs. King recalls approving a color palette including only red and green. She asked for clarification. Ms. Clarke responded that the application presented had at least four colors - purple, green, dark red and blue. Since that time, black has been added, stated that he represents Continental heal Estate. With him _ this evening are representatives from Big Bear and Smith & Hale. He noted that the expansion proposed Is to the rear of the Big Bear that was previously approved by Council. A market study performed indicated the desirability of a cappueclno bar and they have also added a mezzanine area. He noted that the traffic light cast sharing issue was also raised with the Planning Commission and should be considered by City Council. Mr. Foegler noted that the trafric signal is included as part of the capital improvements budget and will be considered by Council on February 13. Mr. Foegier then provided background to Council about this issue which was associated with the commitment for public improvements for the Perimeter Mall. One item not required and stipulated as part of that Initial rezoning was the traffic signal at Perimeter droop and Avery which is the southernmost entry into this development. The developer expressed a willingness to contribute 50 percent of the cost of the Improvement if the City would include this improvement in the 1995 capital budget. Staff has recommended such an action in the capital budget for 1995. Staff believes this is a cost effective way to provide a signal that will be needed in a case where the record dues not indicate any obligation for the developer to perform. Mr. Strip stated that a signal would not be needed In this area but for the Perimeter Center. The signal will ease traffic going into and out of the developer's center and the developer could amortize this cost in the rectal costs assessed. He asked for the developer's response. Mr. Pottschmidt responded that he would have to check with Mr. Kass. He added that Mr. McKitrlek, a partner in the investment, has paid a large sum of money "up front" and Dublin has „ W been enjoying the benefits of those improvements for some time while the developer has seen little i return. g ;, Mr. Strip emphasized that the Center is not the one which Council bargained for during the c w negotiations of the rezoning several years ago with a different developer. He believes that the City ? 2 a is giving up a tat more and getting a lot less than what was originally bargained for with this v 5 rezoning. OR .):% Mr. Kranstuber stated that he would l Ike additional clarification about the approved color palette for a the Center. He does not recall Council approving additional colors. Mrs. King stated that her review of previous discussions in the Council minutes shows that black, a_ JP. dark green and maroon were the approved colors for the Center. _ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes Of Dublin City Council Meting Page 6 Meetin H eld Febntmy t5, 1995 19 Ms. Clarke responded that in terms of the color palette, they started with Perimeter Center, Subarea E to be. constructed along Avery Road - that palette of trim colors included a navy blue, a dark green, and a burnt red. The boards presented at Council and Planning Commission included the three colors from the Perimeter Center plus purple. !]te Off ad Planning CommiWo recommended deletion of the additional colors of sapphire and pale yellow and reoded the addition of black. while there may have been dismion of green and maroon, the boards presented incheded all of time colors. W. Krrmstuber asked if Planning Commission did in fact eliminate those colors? Ms. Clarke responded that the Planning Commission voted not to include the additional colors that were inconsistent with the previously approved palette of colors. Discussion continued, and the conclusion was that between now and the next meeting, the applicant should meet with staff, determine what was previously approved, and If there is any request for a deviation, this should be communicated to Council prior to the third reading. Mr. Zawaly requested that minutes be provided from the December 8 Planning Commission meeting wherein there was a full d €scussion about the color palettes. Mrs. King asked whether any portion of the proposed storage area would be visible from the front of the building. Ms. Clarke responded that some goods will be visible from the front - goods that are not pre- packaged such as plants, tree plantings, etc. Mr. Pottschmidt then further described the garden center and storage areas. He added that there will be a 14 -foot screen at the entire back of the Center. There were no registered opponents. Mayor Campbell requested that the information requested be provided to Council prior to the third reading in February. Ordinance N 13{-94 (Amended) - An OFthgealty ee Implementing Sections 373 through 3735.70 of a Ohio Revised Code, Fstabll nd Descr €bing the Eoun lad of the Britton Par Community Reinvestment Area of Dublin, Dalgnatin Housing OMOW to mister the Program, and C g a Community Reinvestmen{ using Council and a Incentive Review Council, an laring an Emergency. (Prey ly Tabled) Mr. Foegler noted that inform on was provided to Council In a packet per their request highlightingkey information r ring to the statutory changes aft g community reinvestment area as well as tax increment ancing. Staff will request that related ordinances be tabled evening to allow for s e fine- tuning of the agreements. a community reinvestment area uld be in effect and ad ed and approved by the =state o legislative action regarding the eloper agreements pu ant to the CRA. special bond counsel, fee, Halter & Griswold, Cleves , Ohio offered to any questions from Council me rs. r. Kranstu6er moved to take rnance 130-94 from the table. Mr. Strip seconded the motto Vote on tho motion - Mrs 'ng, yes; Mrs. Stillwell. yes; M trip, yes; Mr. Zawaly, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. ber, yes; Mayor Campbell, yes. Mayor Campbe ked if the amended ordinance co €es In all respects with what is re red under State code ell as with previous ordinances sed by Council. Ms- Ben' in responded that the ordinance es comply with the requirements a Ohio Revised Code r establishing a community rein tment area under House Bill 19 eh was effective in I of 1994. She noted that e'h;mao an.. weal M. ^—Ai L...... a— a .. .... 09- 115ZtPDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6904 Perimeter loop Road DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COD/IlVHMON RECORD OF ACTION JANUARY 5 The planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at its regularly scheduled meeting: 7. Conditional Use Application CU94 -011 - Perimeter Center - Subarea -F Location: 18.470 acres located between Perimeter Drive'and Perimeter Loop Road. wing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter Center). Request: A conditional use permit under the provisions of Section 113.1.03 for several uses in the shopping center. Proposed Uses: A) Grocery store garden center - 4,000 square foot garden center, 3,200 square foot outdoor storage area, and 1,310 square foot outdoor display area (total area - 5,510 square feet); B) Grocery store outdoor cafe seating (460 square feet); and C) Cafe outdoor seating (1,310 square feet). Applicant: Continental Real Estate, c/o Mark A. Pottschmidt, 150 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43225 -3610. MOTION: To approve this Conditional Use application with the following five conditions: 1) That gates for the outdoor storage area remain closed except when in use by customers, the wmpany or for deliveries, and that the outdoor storage area be screened by a wood fence except for the two gates that may be of black vinyl- coated chainlink fence; 2) That signage within the outside display area be limited to normal price tags on individual goods, that actual purchases occur within the internal garden center and not in the outside display area, that any fabric used in the area (such as umbrellas) meet the approved' materials palette for the subarea, and that retail goods displayed be limited to raw, unbound products (bound products such as plastic wrapped firewood or bags of salt and mulch would be prohibited); 3) That any fabric used in outdoor seating areas (such as umbrellas) meet the approved materials palette for the subarea, that signage not be permitted within outdoor seating areas and that for CU94 -011 C, the height of the wrought iron fence proposed to delineate the outdoor seating area be subject to Staff review and approval at time of Building Permit submittal; 4) Tllat the outdoor display area be limited to the demarcated area and not encroach the sidewalk; and 5) That materials stored and stacked in the outdoor storage area not exceed the height of the storage area screening. * Mark Pottschmidt STAFF CERTIFICATION 09- 1157JPDP /FDP /CL1 Rezoning/Preliminury Development Plan/ VOTE: 6-0. Final Development Plan/Conditional Use ti Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road ai)S o I P �. P7U5 or i3+CF Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January S, 1995 Page 14 7. Conditional Use Application CU94- 011 - Perkneter Center - Subarea F Vince Papsidero presented this Conditional Use for a grocery /garden center consisting of A) 4,000 square foot indoor retail area, a 3,200 square foot outdoor storage area, and a 1,310 outdoor display area, totalling 5,500 square feet; B) a 460 square foot outdoor seating area for the grocery store; and C) a 1,310 seating area associated with a cafe in the rOR center. The PCD, Planned Cornmeme District (revised July 1994), permits garden OWM and OQWW seating as conditional uses. The Commission approved the Devdopment Plan for Phase 1 of the retail center last month without consideration of the conditional uses. Staff recommends approval of this application with the following four conditions: 1) That gates for the outdoor storage area remain closed except when in use by customers, the company or for deliveries, and that the outdoor storage area be 100% opaque; 2) That signage within the outside display area be limited to normal price tags on individual goods, that actual purchases occur within the internal garden center and not in the outside display area, that any fabric used in the area (such as umbrellas) and the approved materials palette for the subarea, and that retail goods displayed be limited to raw, unbound products (bound products such as plastic wrapped firewood would be prohibited); 3) That any fabric used in outdoor seating areas (such as umbrellas) meet the appmed . materials palette for the subarea, that signage not be permitted within outdoor seating areas; and that for CU94 -011C, the heigbt of the wrought iron fence proposed to delineate the outdoor seating area be subject to Staff review and approval at time of Building Permit submittal; and 4) That the outdoor display area be limited to the demarcated area and not encroach the sidewalk. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher asked why these conditional uses were not considered in the Development Plan. Mr. Papsidero said this issue was overlooked by both Staff and the applicant until well past the deadline for applications. Mr. Fishman asked if the opaque chain -link fence had metal strips inserted. Mr. Papsidero said that would be the applicant's decision. Mark Pottschmidt, Continental Real Estate, agreed to all except Condition #1. The opaque screening of the rear storage area creates a functional problem. They need to see the customers and would like to use vinyl chainlink. A 14 -foot buffer along the entire rear will be installed. Mr. Ferrara asked if a delivery bell could be used. Mr. Pottschmidt said yes, but the screeaing was met by the 14400 buffer. Mr. Pottschmidt pointed out the areas on the plan and said wrought iron gates would be opened only during business hours. 09- 1157JPDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Finul Development Plan/Conditional [Jae Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6904 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 5, 1995 Page 15 Ms. Chinnid- Zuercher asked if the fence would be opaque. Mr. Fishman said if the area is well landscaped, it did not have to be opaque. A clean, vinyl coated chain link fence would be better as far as maintenance is concerned. Bob Hughes, Ohio Central Credit Union, felt the fence should be opaque. Until the fleas space is built, it would be visible from the road. He did not feel a chain link fence matched the rest of the Perimeter Center in terms of quality. Mr. Hughes said he had to install a wood shadowbox fence to screen the air conditioners, even though he had eight foot bushes for screening. Mr. Pottschmidt said there is a seven -foot earth mound. All mechaniicals were screened with a wood -type fence, as was consistent with other properties in the center. Mr. Ferrara said that often the stored material was piled higher than the fence. It would be easier to maintain chain link fence than a wooden fence. Mr. Pottschmidt said they would agree to limit the height of the material stored to the fence height in connection with a chain link fence. Mr. Fishman suggested a screening fence of a wooden shadowbox type except for a 10 to 15 foot-wide gate for the merchandise pickup area Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher said that did not address the maintenance issue. Mr. Pottschmidt said the two gate entrances, at the extreme east and on the side, could be of black vinyl coated chain link fencing. I Ms. Clarke asked if the entire building shown would be built in' the very first section, specifically the stores north of the Big Bear space. Mr. Pottschmidt yes. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher made the motion to approve this application with five conditions: 1) That gates for the outdoor storage area remain closed except when in use by customers, the company or for deliveries, and that the outdoor storage area be screened by a wood fence except for the two gates that may be of black vinyl-coated chainlink fence; 2) That signage within the outside display area be limited to normal price tags on individual goods, that actual purchases occur within the internal garden center and not in the outside display area, that any fabric used in the area (such as umbrellas) meet the approved materials palette for the subarea, and that retail goods displayed be limited to raw, unbound products (bound products such as plastic wrapped firewood or bags of salt and mulch would be prohibited); 3) That any fabric used in outdoor seating areas (such as umbrellas) meet the approved materials palette for the subarea, that signage not be permitted within outdoor seating area and that for CU94 -011C, the height of the wrought iron fence proposed to delineate the outdoor seating area be subject to Staff review and approval at time of Building Permit submittal; 4) what the outdoor display area be limited to the demarcated area and not encroach the sidewalk; and 09 -11 SZ/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 5, 1995 Page 16 PPM. 5) That materials stored and stacked in the outdoor storage area not exceed the height of .*Aiw the storage area screening. Mr. Ferrara felt Condition #5 would be too labor intensive due to the prepackaging of material. OSHA requirements will also restrict the stacking height. Mr. Sutphen sanded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Ferrara, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; and Mr. Sutphen, yes. (Approved 6-0.) S. Rezoning WpHeation Z94-017 - Re,ybed Development Tert7PPerimeter Center Vinqp4apsidero presented this ring application to the recently adop elopment text for Pen Center Subarea F. I ould permit an e of the ovemll center from 16b 5 square feet to 176, square feet and e ' n of the grocery store from 72,000 we feet to 85,000 squap4eet. The Developme Ian was approved Vd d s was a condition of vat. IV1r. Papsidero ' because of the increase 'cant was reducing smaller retail outbuil ' s by X1,000 feet each or the grocery store ' not changing. The mi in area occurs in rear and a m el. The only im s related to the change uired er this Chang 71 parking spaces are uixerI for the e. The lan for P 1 has 771 spaces, pl an additional parking a sion area of y 142 spaces, totally► 3 parking spaces. Ad . onal space is available where on site, and Staff suppo a requirement that all re phases to meet the g code requirement, and support f variances is unlikely. The three conditions of ap val recommended by S are outstanding con ' ' ns from th 'tW rezoning in July. recommends appro with the following fo nditions: 1) That the City 's rring code be fully met all future phases of th tail renter. 2) That the ap t submit a revised D opment Text for Staff view and approval before C ncil action; 3) That etailed landscape plan the mound and scree ' along the retail center' rear el ation be submitted for review and approval ore Sling for a buildin rmit or the retail center; an That a traffic study table to the City En ' eer for signalization an rapmvements to the Perimeter p Road and Avery -M ' eld Drive intersection submitted, if so required by City Engineer. Mr. Fly asicead if the revised par ' 8 would affect the in r landscaping. W Papsid said yes, but the land pe code must be met in fin phases. W M yr.,. 09- 1157JPDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Prelintinary Development Plant Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road #� DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING CONIIVILSSION RECORD OF ACTION JANUARY 5, 1995 Zye planning and. Zoning Commission took the following action at its regularly scheduled meeting: 8. Rezoning Application 7.944117 - Revised Development Text - Perimeter Center - Subarea F Location: 18.470 acres located between Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road. Existing Zoning: PCD, Plan=ed Commerce District (Perimeter Center). Request: Review and approval of modified Development Teat as provided under the provisions of Section 1181.09. Proposed Use: Expansion of retail center (Building A) from 166,000 to 176,500 square feet and expansion of the grocery store from 72,000 to 85,000 square feet. Applicant: Continental Real Estate, c/o Mark A. Pottschmidt, 150 East Broad Street, Columbus, CH 43215 -3610. , - ell" To approve this revised Development Text because the modifications down zone the retail center from 250,0W square feet to 176,500 square feet, are not substantial in nature, enhance the center's viability in serving the community, and fulfill the condition of approval placed on the Development Plan with the understanding that future phases will fully meet off - street parking requirements within Subarea F with the following three conditions: 1) That the City's parking code be fully met in all future phases of the retail canter. 2) That the applicant submit a revised Development Text for Staff review and approval before Council action; and 3) That a detailed landscape plan for the mound and screening along the retail center's rear elevation be submitted for St review and approval before filing for a building permit for the retail center. * Mark Pottschmidt agreed to the above conditions. VOTE. 6-0. RESULT: This rezoning application was approved. STAFF CERTWICATION 09- 115DPDP 1FDP /CU L Refit +wing Plulm Ik vulopment Plan/ I P12 Fiaal l S�ruinhn�c�s� 1'1mveonditional Use Vince Papsid Ye :uti w t.'cute�pul) .SnbareuF -Giant Eagle igle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Rood Senior Planner Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting h inutes - January 5, 1995 Page 16 m the outdoors a area not exceed the eight of �.. 5) Tba s stored and s ,,_, storage area scr+eenin . Ferrara felt Condi ' n #5 would be too intensive due to the kaging of material. OSHA ments will also res ' t the stacking height. Mr. Sutphen nded the motion and a vote was as fallow • Mr. Ferrara, yes; Mr. Fishman, ; Mr. Peplow, yes; . Rauh, yes; Ms. ci- Zuercher, yes; and Mr. Sutph , yes. (Approved 6-0.) 8. Rezoning Application Z94-017 - Revised Development Text - Perimeter Center Subarea F Vince Papsidero presented this rezoning application to modify the recently adopted development text Perimeter Center Subarea F. It would permit an expansion of the overall center from 166,000 square feet to 176,500 square feet and expansion of the grocery store from 72,000 square feet to 85,00Q square feet. The Development Plan was approved last month, and this was a condition of approval, Mr. Papsidero said because of the increase in size, the applicant was reducing three smaller retail outbuildings by ±1,000 feet each. The footprint for the grocery stoic is not changing. The increase in area occurs in the rear of the structure and a mezzanine level. The only impact is related to the change required �.. parking. Under this change, 971 parking spaces are required for the square footage. The 1 development plan for Phase 1 has 771 spaces, plus an additional parking expansion area of � 142 spaces, totalling 913 parking spaces. Additional space is available elsewhere on site, and Staff supports a requirement that all future phases to meet the parking code requirement, and support for variances is Unlikely. The first three conditions of approval recommended by Staff are outstanding conditions from the initial rezoning in July. Staff recommends approval with the following four conditions: 1) That the City's parking code be fully met in all future phases of the retail center. 2) That the applicant submit a revised Development Text for Staff review and approval before Coumcil action; 3) That a detailed landscape plan for the mound and screening along the retail center's rear elevation be submitted for Staff review and approval before filing for a building permit for the retail center; and 4) That a traffic study acceptable to the City Engineer for signalization and imprrnremeats to the Perimeter Loop Road and Avery Muirfreld Drive intersection be submitted, if so required by the. City Engineer. Mr. Ferrara asked if the revised parking would affect the interior landscaping. Mr. Papsidero said yes, but the landscape code must be met in future phases. I 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /CU +w Rexoniug/Prelinsinury ilevelupment Plun Finul Developmcnt Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Csatcr PCI) - Subarea F - Giant F,agle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 5, 1995 Page 17 Mark Pouschmidt, Continental Real Estate Corporation, agreed to the above conditions. He ,._ said the revisions resulted from a recent Big Bear market survey. Mr. Ferrara said the gross square footage was below the mammum allowed by the plan. Mr. Fishman said the considerations must be worded carefully. He said a marketing study should have been done before the plan was presented. Mr. Ferrara said market data change rapidly. Mr. Fishman did not want to see continual changes. He said the Commission should uphold the original zoning. M. Clarke said that until mid 1994, this site was zoned for a 33 -acre retail center. Overall, Staff considers this to be a downzoning. Mr. Sutphen made the motion to approve this revised Development Teat because the modifications down-zone the retail center from 250,000 square feet to 176,500 square feet, are not substantial in nature, enhance the center's viability in serving the community, and fulfill the condition of approval placed on the Development Plan with the undo standing that future phases will fully meet off- street parking requirements within Subarea F with the following three conditions: 1) That the City's parking code be fully met in all future phases of the retail center. 2) That the applicant submit a revised Development Tent for Staff review and approval within 30 days approval of this rezoning request; and 3) That a detailed landscape plan for the mound and screening along the retail center's rear elevation be submitted for Staff review and approval before filing for a building permit for the retail center. Mr. Fishman seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: M. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; j&. Ferrara, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; and W. Sutphen, yes. (Approved 6-0.) 9. Final elopment Plan - Am leigh, Section 2 Tom obey presented this F Development Plan fo 0 sizAgle lots 5.47 acres of - kland. The site incl. es 22.9 acres in Am eigh, Section 2. The erall plan eludes 45 acres zon , Planned Unit opment District for single- family lots. It has a density of 1 du/ac. The frst p approved by the mmission in mid -1994. This Final Devel meet Plan has two 'ons, a 12 -acre parcel acent to Donegal Cli and 10 -acre , including the of the parkland. A am located on the site be razed. and is located along Scioto River. A five ation plan was s Wtted showin oc�ations of mature numrents and landsca ' g at the entrance were ' stalled. An eight -foo Empath nuns along Dublin Road in nt of the subdivision An existing dry laid ne wall was protected and preserved du construction of P 1. The lots are appradmtely one-third of an (19- 1IsM CT Ruzoiliug 1'i%!limiiwn I)evclopattent Plan; l i�l :�1 S)uvcl� +luucni I'iunlCondith U-w Nci+ntutur L'wtl�� PC[) . Subarea F • QUM Eagic 6015 - 6804 Perimeter' LOOP [loud RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page S December 1.9, 1994 19 Unloi to approve the char Union County has done so. Fr �n County Comialls acre meeft tomorrow morn' at 8:30 a.m., and this item is i ded on their agent .They are etapeoxed to pass Wit as emergency and the boundary adju ens will occur at J ary 1, 1993. . Stillwell moved to waive the ee -time reading rule and treat this omtergepcy legislation. Mr. Strip seconded the motlon. Vote on the motion - Mrs. g, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Stri es; Mayor Campbell, yes; Mr. Zawely, yea: Mr. er, Yea; Mrs. Stillwell, yes. Vote on the ordinanc Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mayor e11, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mrs.g, yes; Mr. Zawaly es; Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr. Strip, Ordlrra o. 125-94 - An Ordinance Prov1 Z' for a Change in Zoning for of Laud Locs South of Brand Road Appro tell 1,800 Feet West of A Road, at the rgFranklin County Line, from: -1, Restricted Suburban Resid 1 District to PLR, J9mnned Low Density Residential riot. (Starkey Property) (First ding) (Applicant: The Northwood band Corporation, avid E. Raid, 941 Chatham . Suite 100, Columbus, OR 43221) Mayor Campbell 'sntrodu the ordinance. Mr. Hanley rrro ed that this and the following rez ing ordinances be refwed to Planning Commission for review. Mr. Strip mov that it be referred to Planning an ning Commission. Mrs. King nded the motion. Vote c motion - Mr. Zawsly, yes; Mrs tillweil, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; anstuber, yea; M ing, yes; Mayor Campbell, Yes; r. Strip, yes. Ordinmee No. 126-94 - An O nunce Providing for a Change Zoning for 14.4 Acres of Land Located on the North t Corner of Past Read and Av Road, from: FILM, Planted Unit Development Dlstr' and R -1, ftirided Residend Wrlct to: PUD, /,myt Z nt Distrt (Mat Pfeperty) OW Readi (Applicant: Northwe ell M c/o Robert 1. Apel, 5640 Fran oral, Dublin, OH 43017) n cod the ordinance. oved that it be refecred to Plann' and Zoning Commission. econded the motion. motion - Mr. Strip, yes; M . ring, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes; icing, yes; Mayor es; Mr. Zawaly, yes. Ordinance No. 127-94 - An Ordinance Providing for a Change in Zoning for 18.470 Acres of Land Located Between Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road, from: PCD, Planned Commerce District to: Planned Commerce District. (Perimeter Center - Subarea F - Revised Composite Plan and Development Text) (ilMI Beading) (Applicant: Continental Real Estate, c/o Mark Pottschmidt, 150 E. Broad Street, Columlms, OR 43213) Mayor Campbell introduced the ordinance. Mrs. King moved that It be referred to Planning aid Zoning Commission. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Mrs. Stillwell noted that in the December 8 letter from Mr. Pottschmidt to Mr. Papsidero, there seems to be a loss of 4,000 square feet in Building A since the figures do not add up to 48,499 square feet as listed. Ms. Fierce responded that she will make note of this. Vote on the motion - Mr. Strip, Yes; Mr. Zawaly, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mayor Campbell, yes. Mrs. King asked for an update on the staff report previously requested regarding the Schottenstein rezoning on Sawmill Road. Ms. Fierce responded that she will provide the information to Council by fax. J OAd ' i mum No. 128-94 - An �f mince Providing for a Ange in Zoning for 5.30PAtrea of Land Located at the ern Termhaus of Narn 196wi. AnnrtMmne.av aye jrw w"t at 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road CITY OF DUBLIN J DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COADMION RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 9 1994 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at its regularly scheduled meeting: 9. Development Plan - Perimeter Center - Subarea F Location: -33.398 acres located between Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road. Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter Center Plan). Request: Review and approval of a development plan under the provisions of Section 1181.09(d). Proposed Use: A retail shopping center of 135,839 square feet comprised of two structures (124,439 square feet and 11,400 square feet). Applicant: Mark A. Pottschmidt, Continental Real Estate Companies, 150 Fast Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43215 -3610. MOTION: To approve this development plan, with the following 22 conditions, because it will comply with the Composite Plan and Development Teat, the Community Plan identifies the site as a major retail location, the architectural solution Proposed provides a great deal of interest within a village -like setting, establishing Perimeter Center as a unique entry to Dublin, and the pedestrian environment is unique for a contemporary suburban retail development: 1) That the square footage of the grocery store be reduced to 72,000 square feet to comply with the Development Text or that the Development Teat be amended per Code to permit a larger stare; 2) That no puff signage be posted along Mamedes Drive and that Perimeter Loop Road be striped and signed for a continuous bi- directional left turn lane; 3) That the applicant consolidate the architectural palette by deleting the "french vanilla" trim color, adding black as a trim color, and deleting "sapphire blue" awning color, that the "burgundy" color of awning match the "algerian" color of trim, that gray be added as an awning stripe, and that canvas awnings not be back-lit; 4) That storefronts, awnings and sign boards be a single color per individual storefronts, as approved by Staff, that grocery store signage be accurately shown relative to color, and that rear service doors and mechanical units, such as gas and electric meters, be painted to match the respective background wall; 5) That alighting plan for Subarea F complying with the Dublin Lighting Guidelines be submitted for Staff review and approval, including all proposed lighting fixtures (style, color height, etc.), an isofootcandle plot, and the dormer window indirect lighting treatment; 09- 115LTDP/FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Ilse Page 1 of 3 Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea P - Giant Eagle 6015 -6801 Perimeter Loop Road DUBLIN PLANNING AMID ZONING COMM MSION RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 8 1994 9. Development Plan - Perimeter Center - Subarea F (Cant.) 6) That a revised sign detail be submitted indicating materials, colors and finishes of each entry sign; 7) That the applicant clearly indicate compliance with the loading space requirements of the 8) Code; That a revised landscape plan be submitted meeting all Code requirements including perimeter screening, that landscape islands within the parking area be increased in width to a minimum of eight feet, that tree species within the parking area be changed to ash, that the street tree species be changed to red oak, that street trees be planted one foot inside the right -of -way, and that evergreen plantings proposed on top of the seven -foot mound to the rear of the retail center be installed in a scared pattern along the sides of the mound (unless irrigation is installed) and at a minimum height of eight feet, subject to Staff review and approval; 9) That appropriately sized skyline locusts be installed along retail center storefronts that will not conflict with awnings, that the proposed burning bushes be replaced with a salt- tolerant evergreen with a 36 -inch mature height, and that the applicant install sufficient water bibs for planting beds; 10) That the Development Plan be revised to indicate the off - season (fall and winter) treatment of the entry fountain, subject to Staff approval; 11) That an eight -foot -wide bikepath be constructed along the south side of Perimeter Dave from Avery- Muirfield Drive to Wilcox Road, prior to occupancy; 12) That all rooftop mecchanicals be fully sm=ed to their height; 13) That the applicant commit to constructing the evergreen hedge and stone pilaster border along Perimeter Drive, Perimeter Loop Road, and adjacent service drives adjacent to the retail center, that the applicant commit to constructing the hedge treatment as adjacent parcels (under the applicant's and/or property owner's control) are developed, and that within one year' of Development plan approval for the retail center, the applicant will construct the hedge ta: Rent on the property owned by Continental Real Estate, and landscape buffer along Avery- Muirfield Drive as required; 14) That a conditional use permit most be approved by the Planning Commission for all outdoor retail sales, including garden centers , and open display associated with a 15) permitted use; MW Avery Muirheld Drive outparcel (Subarea E) development continue to be controlled by the architectural palette on file with the City; 16) That the SR 161 landscape buffer required in the Perimeter Center Development Text be installed; L A 09- 1157/MP /MP / Rezoning/Preli Ili uary Development Plan/ Page 2 of 3 Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Suburea F - Giant Fagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road DUBUN PLAN MG AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION DECF.NIBER 8 L094 9. Development Plan - Perimeter Center - Subarea F (Cont.) 17) That the developer install riprap on the Driscoll property and an orifice plate on the pipe outlet for the dry detention basin at the southwest corner of Wilcox and Post Roads, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, V 18) That a Final Plat for the retail center be filed with the City before building permits are issued to vacate existing utility easements and to dedicate new utility easements; 19) That the developer provide the design and construction of a mast arm traffic signal designed and constructed by the developer, as approved by the City Engineer, at the intersection of Avery- Muirfield Drive and Perimeter Loop Road before occupancy, the funding of which is to be shared on a 50150 basis, subject to Council approval; 20) That the developer submit a traffic management plan for construction - related traffic, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer; 21) That gooseneck light fixtures be compatible with the trim color, and CD 22) That the pond have five jets instead of three. * Hex W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE:. 7 -0. RESULT: This development plan was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION P ero, AICP S or Planner C 09- 1157JPDP /FDP /CU Rezoiung /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F- (Aunt Nagle Page 3 of 3 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1994 Page 20 3) That 5Wrapplicant submit a rev,i a site plan that shows southern Z ' g wi a Perimeter Center sh ing center curb cut on erimeter Loo 4) at the gas pumps shall ve no signage or logos; 5) That the facia panels all structures be pain v match the approv the applicanks,nsubject it a revised signage p that conforms with the r signage 5the ir to Staff ap val; 7) That a landscape plan be su itted that includes the very Road landscape buffer, Perimeter Cen andscape treatment, s lest to Staff review a3tct 8) t the applicant submit a vised lighting plan that amplies with the Dublin lghting uidelines, subject to f review and approval - 9 That stormwater m Bement meet the appro of the City Engineer; 0) That the applic ubmit samples of the p posed glass and mullion aterial, subject to Staff review d approval; 11) That sign a for this site be strictl lmited to two ground s' s that together shall no exc total of 66.5 square t in area, one along A - Muirfield Drive and ne al Perimeter Loop Road d 12) at the outdoor displa dlor storage of any ducts is not permitted hout the review and approval the Planning and Zoni Commission. Mr. Ferrara second a motion and the vote s as follows: Mr. Peplo , yes; Mr. Zawaly, yes; Ms. Chinnic' uercher, yes; Mr. Sut en, yes; Mr. Ferrara, Mr. Rauh, yes; and Mr. Fishman, s. (Approved 7 -0.) 9. Development Plan - Perimeter Center - Subarea F Vince Papsidero presented this first phase development plan for Perimeter Center Subarea F. It includes 135,839 square feet of retail in two structures: the main retail center of 124,000 sq. ft. and a secondary structure of 11,400 sq. ft. It also includes 5600 square feet of outdoor retail area and parking for 771 automobiles on 18.47 acres. There will be a landscape fountain entry feature at Perimeter Loop Road, an 8 -foot bikepath on Perimeter Drive from Avery- Muirfield Drive to Wilcox Road on the south side of Perimeter Drive. A mounded landscape screen built along the center's east facade. A three -foot hedge will surround portions of the development. Mr. Papsidero said Council approved a PCD amendment in July to permit a 166,000 square foot retail center with a grocery store up to 72,000 sq. ft. The grocery is shown as 79,000 square feet, and the development text will require further amendment (rezoning). The other two retail structures, two restaurant outparcels and a flex office structures will be built later. Staff recommends widening the parking lot landscape islands from 5 feet to 8 feet to improve the tree survival rates. The landscape area in the south end is being graded, seeded, and planted with trees and may become an outside seating for a restaurant. The northern landscape area will be connected to the bikepath, then the sidewalk, and will be graded, seeded and planted with trees. He said the northern entrance is a divided boulevard with landscaping. The area to the north, behind the Blockbuster area, will be screened with landscaping. A fountain detail is provided. A 3 -foot hedge treatment is proposed as part of this phase with a buffer treatment along the east 09- 1157JPDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subutea F- Giant Luale 601 5 -6801 Perimeter Loop Ruud Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1994 Page 21 side of the Center. Staff has recommended, in addition to screening, that the mechanical units be painted to match the background colors so that they'll be less visible. The grocery store has a major entrance plaza over 50 feet in depth with brick treatment. The trees in this location conflict with building canopies. Staff has requested moving the trees away from the building. Islands with trees flame service drives. Bike racks will be provided at several locations. The slight rear expansion since the rezoning is for a drug store. The grocery store features cafe seating, a garden center, and outdoor display, and there is other cafe seating for a small restaurant. These roquire separate conditional use approval by the Commission. The Conditional Use applications were delayed and will be considered in January. He said the composite plan had a larger fountain with landscaping and annual plantings. There Pavers define the driving area and link it with entry landscaping areas. Three fountains are proposed. Alcohol will be added to the fountains so they can function year- round. Mr. Papsidero said the partially rendered .elevations do not. match the pallet.-but. do -represent their intent. The approved color for the Big Bear. sign is -a true red, not burgundy as shown. The trim, signboards and canopies are recommended by Staff to be of the same color to provide consistency throughout the development. The applicant will discuss that further. They would like the actual color configurations to be based upon tenants' selection and be approvable by Staff. Staff does not endorse the use of French Vanilla and Sapphire Blue, and the applicant wants to maintain the Sapphire Blue. Staff suggested adding black to the trim and awning colors as well as striping, per the initial zoning action. They have included in their architectural palette a grey trim and off -white stripe. Staff believes the mixing of several colors per storefront undercuts the intention of the Center. One of Staffs conditions for the Blockbuster structure was that the doors be painted to match their background. The gabled windows are to be internally illuminated, a candlelight effect. Staff recommends frosted glass and subdued lighting. The detailed lighting plan has not yet been submitted. Mr. Papsidero said the rear of the garden center has outdoor mulch, storage, and pick -up area with a black vinyl coated chain linked fence. The principle building material for the rear of the building is stucco. The front is principally all stone and brick veneer. The rooftop mechanical unit is 9 feet high by 62 -68 feet in length. It is the largest mechanical unit on the roof. The applicant proposes - to raise the parapet to screen the majority of the cluster units. Where the units extend above the parapet, the applicant would like to paint them to match the trim. The applicant has expressed concern that the roof was not engineered to support major walls. This needs to be further considered. Staff recommends approval with the following 20 conditions: 1) That the square footage of the grocery store be reduced to 72,000 square feet to comply with the Development Text or that the Development Text be amended (rezoning approval) to permit a larger store; 2) That no parking signage be posted along Mercedes Drive and that Perimeter Loop Road be striped and signed for a continuous bi- directional left turn lane; 3) That the applicant consolidate the architectural palette by deleting the "french vanilla" trim color and "sapphire blue" awning color, that the "burgundy" color of awning match the "algerian" color of trim, and that canvas awnings not be back -lit; 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - subarea F - Giant Lagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1994 Page 22 4) That storefronts, awnings and sign boards be a single color per individual storefronts, that the grocery store signage be accurately shown relative to color, that rear service doors and mechanical units, such as gas and electric meters, be painted to match the respective background wall; 5) That a lighting plan for Subarea F complying with the Dublin lighting guidelines and be submitted for Staff review and approval, including all proposed lighting fixtures (style, color height, etc.), an isofootcandle plot, and the dormer window indirect lighting treatment; 6) That a revised sign detail be submitted indicating materials, colors and finishes of each entry sign; 7) That the applicant clearly indicate compliance with the loading space requirements of the Code; 8) That a revised landscape plan be submitted meeting all Code requirements including perimeter screening, that landscape islands within the parking area be increased in width to a minimum of eight feet, that -the trees within the parking area be changed to ash, that the street tree be changed to red oak and that street trees be planted one foot inside the right -of -way, and that the evergreen plantings proposed on top of the seven -foot mound to the rear of the retail center be installed in a scattered pattern along the sides of the mound (unless irrigation is installed) and at a minimum height of eight feet; 9) That appropriately sized skyline locusts be installed along retail center storefronts that will not conflict with awnings, that the proposed burning bushes be replaced with a salt - tolerant evergreen with a 36 -inch mature height, and that the applicant install underground irrigation for planting beds within the pedestrian area of the retail center, subject to Staff review and approval; 10) That the Development Plan be revised to indicate the off - season (fall and winter) treatment of the fountain, subject to Staff approval; 11) That an eight- foot -wide bikepath be constructed along the south side of Perimeter Drive from Avery- Muirfield Drive to Wilcox Road, prior to occupancy; 12) That all rooftop mechanicals be fully screened to their height; 13) That the applicant commit to constructing the evergreen hedge and brick pilaster border along Perimeter Drive, Perimeter Loop Road, and adjacent service drives adjacent to the retail center; that the applicant commit to constructing the hedge treatment as adjacent parcels (under the applicant's and /or. property owner's control) are developed; and that within one year of Development Plan approval for the retail center, the applicant will construct the hedge treatment and landscape buffer along Avery- Muirfield Drive as required; 14) That a conditional use permit must be approved by the Planning Commission for all outdoor retail sales, including garden centers and open display associated with a permitted use; 15) That Avery- Muirfield Drive outparcels (Subarea E) development continue to be controlled by architectural palette on file with the City; 16) That the SR 161 landscape buffer required in the Perimeter Center Development Text be installed; 17) That the developer install riprap on the Driscoll property and an orifice plate on the pipe outlet for the dry detention basin at the southwest corner of Wilcox and Post Roads, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer; 09- 1152JPDP/FDP/CU Rezoning Prclintinary DON'0 ll Plan/ Final I)uvclopinent flan Conditional Use Perimeler Center PC D - tiubafeu I.'- Giant Eagle 601 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1994 Page 23 f 18) That a Final Plat for the retail center be filed with the City before building permits are issued to vacate existing utility easements and to dedicate new utility easements; 19) That the developer provide the design and consixuction of a mast arm traffic signal at the intersection of Avery- Muirfield Drive and Perimeter loop Road before occupancy, and 20) That the developer submit a traffic management plan for construction - related traffic, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Mr. Ferrara asked if approval was proper prior to City Council approval of the larger building. Mr. Papsidero said the Commission was reviewing. a development plan for the center. If the text is not changed by Council, the grocery store will be limited to 72,000 and not expand to the rear /mezzanine etc. The applicant understands the risk. Mr. Fishman noted the water feature was smaller in size. Mr. Papsidero said the approved composite plan showed a water feature without dimensions, but the entire half circle was blue. He said landscaping was always discussed, but this detail was not clearly defined until this step in the process. He said Staff was satisfied. Mr. Fishman said he felt betrayed; he understood a much larger fountain feature was approved. Mr. Papsidero said it was the Planning Commission's judgement whether the fountain meets the requirements. Ben Hale, 7r., Smith and Hale, attorney for the applicant, said Condition #1, regarding the enlargement of the'Big Bear Store, does not impact the design or the look of the center. Frank Kass said it was an important point. The Big Bear store had the same amount of frontage. The veneer shops begin in front of it. Big Bear was originally submitted as 72,000 square feet, plus the contiguous garden center. It is now 79,600 square feet, plus the garden center. Some of that space is mezzanine and cooler area, The parking code is met. The additional space is not visible from the front of the building, but it adds to the property value of the property and retail sales volumes. It fits within the square footage allowance on the whole 18.5 acres. Mr. Fishman asked about the fountain and how the unit atop the building would be hidden. Mr. Kass said his insurance company wrote a letter and had a problem with the entry location of the water. They moved it back and reduced its size in response. Accidents involving fountains have happened. He said moving the fountain back caused critical parking loss. He said it could enlarge it to the original size but would have to fence it. Mr. Fishman suggested using a wrought iron fence and said he was disappointed that this promised water feature was voted on, but now is smaller. Mr. Kass said it was not a financial issue. Mr. Kass said the planting was 400 square feet and the fountain area was 500 -600 square feet. Mr. Kass read from the letter from the insurance company regarding child safety around the fountain. 09- 115Y/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle ! le 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1994 Page 24 Mr. Fishman suggested putting additional water somewhere else as it is an attractive part of the ` design. Mr. Kass said if the Commission wanted water the size submitted on the Preliminary plan he would do that and fence it to Code. He said this was a gorgeous center with an appropriate entry way, and he would not put any more water on this site other than at this particular location. Mr. Rauh asked if two more jets could be added (five total), leaving it the same size. Joe Sullivan, Sullivan and Bruck, Architects, said it was difficult to design projects in a public meeting. He understood that the Commission wanted a water feature and felt it was a good design solution. Mr. Sullivan said regarding Conditions #3 and 4 a couple of colors were added. He agreed to delete the creme type color and the medium blue color after discussion. Mr. Papsidero said Staff preferred that for each storefront; the storefronts, the awnings, and the sign board should all be one color. Mr. Kass said he would be happy to submit those colors to Staff when they have a final color. Mr. Sullivan understood that Staff wanted the color of the storefront to match the awning and the signboard. Those have not been selected yet. Mr. Zawaly said there were too many colors. Mr. Sullivan said a range of colors was shown and that the final selection colors, as well as the tenants are not determined. When specific applications can be made they would like to review them with Staff and pick colors from the approved color pallet. Mr. Fishman suggested that if there were a variation, it would be subject to Staff approval. Mr. Kass agreed. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher asked if tenants could choose their colors. Mr. Kass said painting the storefronts before the tenants got there would not make sense. Mr. Kass said there will be some variation because they do not want too much of one color. Ben Hale agreed to Condition #9 except for the part that says they will install underground irrigation for planting beds within the pedestrian area of the retail center. Mark Pottschmidt, Continental Real Estate, said typically, their maintenance personnel water them. Mr. Pottschmidt said the developer maintained the landscaping along the walkway with a common area maintenance charge. He said they would install hose bibs so that water is available to them. 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan/Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1994 Page 25 Ms. Clarke said Staff wanted to insure the availability of water to those plantings because having the pedestrian way was one of the essential selling points of this design. If the developer has a way of providing those plants with sufficient water to thrive, Staff would be satisfied. Condition #12 Mr. Kass understood the only rooftop mechanical unit in question was the 9 -foot x 65 -foot unit to the back of the building. They felt that the best solution for the unit on this building was to place it the area directly behind the facility and paint it a color that will blend. As soon as office buildings are built around Perimeter, it will not be visible from the front. Ms. Clarke said she was concerned it would be seen from US 33. She said the Code specifically stated that rooftop mechanicals should be screened to the height of the unit. It will be a visible unit, and there is still a lot undeveloped land with potential high density, first class space. She said if this unit were a box which was smooth and clean on exposed sides, there was not a problem, but if it has vents, louvers, etc., then it needs to be screened. Mr. Kass said they were told there is only one side that has all the louvers and ventings, etc. He thought that side could be facing toward the front and the smooth sides on the side and back. Mr. Sullivan said they are screening all the other rooftop elements. This unit is so large, screening it does not accomplish anything other than creating a 10 -foot wall which is difficult to support structurally and may create problems with snow gathering behind it. They prefer to leave it unscreened. Mr. Ferrara asked if the unconstructed office building to the rear was going to be nine feet taller than Big Bear. Mr. Kass said it will be screened from cars driven on the road. Mr. Ferrara said the point was that Dublin is only 50 percent developed. Mr. Kass commented that, unless he can make the back of the unit smooth, they will find a screening solution for the unit. He said he will have this answer a month before they come in for a building permit. Mr. Ferrara asked if Mr. Kass would agree to an addition to Condition #12 that if it is smooth he would agree to have it painted a proper color. Mr. Kass agreed. Ms. Clarke said this was standard operating procedure. Mr. Papsidero said clarified, there were other units that will be appearing above the parapet that will be painted; several vents, and one box much smaller than this, that will need to be painted. Mr. Sullivan said on one side the unit was 48 inches and there is a 66 inch wall along the edge. Mr. Kass said there is a 5 foot, 6 inch wall blocking more than half of the 9 feet height. He said the problem is not an expense problem but roof integrity over the long -term. If the long- term maintenance for Big Bear turns out to be the problem, nothing is gained by it. Mr. Zawaly said it was the same issue faced with Soccer First. The screening should be less intrusive than the actual unit itself. 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Peiimeter Center PCD - Subarea F- Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Pei imeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1994 Page 26 Condition #13 Mr. Hale said there was a mistake. The condition refers to brick, and it should be stone pilasters. Mr. Papsidero agreed. Mr. Hale said the condition obligates the applicant to construct the hedge treatment and landscaping buffer along Avery Drive. Mr. Hale said this referred to sites not owned by the applicant. They are willing to talk about it. He said Bank One and State Savings had hoped to trade the hedge/pilaster treatment for some consideration on their signage. Mr. Kass said they had talked to every user but cannot spend other people's money or put something on their property that they are unwilling to install. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher asked if they were willing to install the buffer along the property they own on Avery- Muirfield Drive. Mr. Hale agreed. Mr. Papsidero said the rezoning plan shows a three -foot hedge all along Avery Road and the south side of Perimeter Drive. Staffs concern was specifically with . the outparcels. Without the applicant's strong support, the rezoning action will.not.be:implemented as approved by the Commission and Council. Mr. Kass said he was willing to add to Condition #13 that they will put the required landscaping on all their property and will strongly support and work with Staff to get it done for everyone to reduce the costs. He said he will do it, charge outparcels at cost, and work with them to get everything the Commission wants done. Bank One is specifically concerned that their sign will be blocked by the hedge. �rl Mr. Papsidero said the applicant proposed it to help create a unified development. Mr. Hale said it was not a property included within their zoning application. They were shown, but not included. Mr. Kass said they attended meetings where every tenant in Perimeter was present, including State Savings, BP, and Bank One, and explained to them what should be done. Everyone seemed to agree, but the banks indicated they would like to talk about signage. Mr. Hale said the water feature would have five jets, and alcohol would be added to it to keep it functioning in the winter. Mr. Sullivan asked about the color of the gooseneck features. Staff .recommended black, but it was their preference to go with a light color due to the light grey. background of the trim, They did not have a physical sample, but would submit it to Staff once available. Condition #19 Mr. Hale said they agreed to the fifty /fifty cost sharing on the traffic signal. Mr. Hale said when this development was originally done, all agreed that Avery Road was going to be a substantial upgrade. They built Muirfield Drive, built the new bridge and managed that project spending approximately $500,000. As part of that agreement, any additional traffic improvements would be the City's responsibility. Mr. Hale said they did not have any further obligation for traffic or road improvements. In order to have it moved it up on the Capital Improvement budget, they will pay for half of it. 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminaro Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle e 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loup Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1994 Page 27 Mr. Zawaly asked if partial funding is something that Dublin would not have been entitled to otherwise. Mr. Hale said yes. Ms. Clarke also agreed. EWbir Kindra clarified that the traffic signal will actually be constructed and designed by the developer and the City will reimburse its share. He also wanted the design to include interconnection of the various traffic signals for better coordination and to track movement. Mr. Zawaly said not to forget to gut into the record the change for the Big Bear sign from Algerian to red. Mr. Hale said it was red. Ms. Clarke asked that Condition #6 not be deleted. Even though the entry signs are not going to be erected now, the colored sign should be in the file if they decide later to use it. Mr. Sutphen made a motion to approve this development.plan with the following 22 conditions: 1) That the square footage of the grocery store be reduced to. 72,000 square feet to comply with the Development Text or that .the Development Text be amended (rezoning approval) to permit a larger store; 2) That no parking signage be posted along Mercedes Drive and that Perimeter Loop Road be striped and signed for a continuous bi- directional left turn lane; 3) That the applicant consolidate the architectural palette by deleting the "french vanilla" trim color, adding black as a trim color, and deleting "sapphire blue" ,awning color, that the "burgundy" color of awning match the "algerian" color of trim, that gray be added as an awning stripe, and that canvas awnings not be back -lit; 4) That storefronts, awnings and sign boards be a single color per individual storefronts, as approved by Staff; that the grocery store signage be accurately shown relative to color, that rear service doors and mechanical units, such as gas and electric meters, be painted to match the respective background wall; 5) That a lighting plan for Subarea F complying with the Dublin lighting guidelines be submitted for Staff review and approval, including all proposed lighting fixtures (style, color height, etc.), an isofootcandle plot, and the dormer window indirect lighting 6) treatment; That a revised sign detail be submitted indicating materials, colors and fi nishes of each 7) entry sign; That the applicant clearly indicate compliance with the loading space requirements of the Code; 8) That a revised landscape plan be submitted meeting all Code requirements including perimeter screening, that landscape islands within the parking area be increased in width to a minimum of eight feet, that the trees within the parking area be changed to ash, that the street tree be changed to read oak and that street trees be planted one foot inside the right -of -way, and that the evergreen plantings proposed on top of the seven -foot mound to the rear of the retail center be installed in a scattered pattern along the sides of the mound (unless irrigation is installed) and at a minimum height of eight feet; 9) That appropriately sized skyline locusts be installed along retail center storefronts that will not conflict with awnings, that the proposed burning bushes be replaced with a salt - tolerant evergreen with a 36 -inch mature height, and that the applicant install sufficient water bibs for planting beds, subject to Staff approval; 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Developmeul Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F- Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1994 Page 28 10) That the Development Plan be revised to indicate the off - season (fall and winter) treatment of the fountain, subject to Staff approval; 11) That an eight -foot wide bikepath be constructed along the south side of Perimeter Drive from Avery- Muirfield Drive to Wilcox Road, prior to occupancy; 12) That all rooftop mechanicals be fully screened to their height; 13) That the applicant commit to constructing the evergreen hedge and stone pilaster border along Perimeter Drive, Perimeter Loop Road, and adjacent service drives adjacent to the retail center; that the applicant commit to constructing the hedge treatment as adjacent parcels (under the applicant's and/or property owner's control) are developed; and that within one year of Development Plan approval for the retail center, the applicant will construct the hedge treatment on the property owned by Continental Real Estate, and landscape buffer along Avery- Muirfield Drive as required; 14) That a conditional use permit must be approved by the Planning Commission. for all outdoor retail sales, including garden centers and open display associated with a permitted use; 15) That Avery- Muirfield Drive outparcel (Subarea E) development continue to be controlled by the architectural palette on file with the City; 16) That the SR 161 landscape buffer required in the Perimeter Center Development Text be installed; 17) That the developer install ripmp on the Driscoll property and an orifice plate on the pipe outlet for the dry detention basin at the southwest corner of Wilcox and Post Roads, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer; 18) That a Final Plat for the retail center be filed with the City before building permits are issued to vacate existing utility easements and to dedicate new utility easements; 19) That the developer provide the design and construction of a mast arm traffic signal designed and constructed by the developer; as approved by the City Engineer, at the intersection of Avery- Muirfield Drive and Perimeter Loop Road before occupancy, the funding of which is to be shared on a 50150 basis, subject to Counpil approval; 20) That the developer submit a traffic management plan for construction - related traffic, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer; 21) That gooseneck light fixtures be compatible with the trim color, and 22) That the pond have five jets instead of three. Mr. Ferrara seconded the motion. The vote was -as follows: Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Zawaly, yes; Mrs. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Ferrara, yes; (Approved 7 -0) ;ere. Rexo g Application 294-0 - Development Pia - Bellepoint Plar_e/C anagh rty case was postponed as uested by the applican efore the meeting. Pos nement notices mailed to the pro owners. There was discussion or vote. 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary, Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeler Center PCD - Subarea F- Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loup Road RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 2 Held July 18, 1994 - - 19 j4011Ll1111 An Ordinance Providing for a Change of Zoning of 33,348 Acres, Located Between Peri,neta Drive and Perimeter Loup Road to be Raoned frost: PCD, Planned Commerce District to: PCD, Planner! Commerce District. (PerlmeW Mall) RWd Reading) Mr. Foegler noted that the Planning Commission approved the rezoning In May, approved the original signage proposal at a second meeting in June, and reviewed a revised signage Page submitted by the applicant at the Cammission's July mewing. The Commission recommended disapproval on the revised sigarage package. It is his understanding that the applicant will request that the signage package portion be withdraw. He asked the applicant to confirm this, Ben Hai g, representing the applicant, affirmed Mr. Poegier's statement. The developer feels there may be some larger tenants who may need slightly different signage than what is proposed in that package, and therefore this issue will be add=ed at a later date. 'live original sign package is what they are requesting that Council vote upon tonight. Mr. Zawaly asked if the Board of Zoning Appeals would review the signage variances. Mr. Hale responded that if there is any substantial change to the sign package, they would return to Planning Commission and to Council since it would 'constitute an amendment to the zoning. Mayor Campbell emphasized that there is no commitment from Council to approve those changes at this time. Mrs. King asked staff to respond. Mr. Papsidem stated that any deviation from the approved zoning text related to signage will have to be reviewed by both Planning Commission and Council as an amendment to the existing zoning. Mrs. Stillwell cbw fled that by approving this ordinance M presented this evening, Council is incorporating the revisions that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, the revisions of the Perimeter Center text amendment for subareas B & F, and accepting signage for the Big Bear store as proposed last month - specifically, the red plastic sign that slightly exceeds the City's sign code requirements. Mr. Hale said that they agree to all conditions of planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Strip moved to approve the rezoning subject to the conditions of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. Vote on the ordinance - Mayor Campbell, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mr. Zawaly, yes; Mn. Boring, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes. Ordinance o. ?5.94 - An Ordlnan to Actaept an Annexati of 119.6 +1 - Aerw in Wttshl a Township, Franklin C ty to the City of Dublin. lyd Reading) Mns ' g stated that this is ;,gze fi arnnexation ordinance to co before Council for a vote co uncil's recent adoption of interim annexation policy. believes it is important th out the policy in light of the number of projects an sues already underway Council's obligation to do a g and thorough job with th prevlously approved prof . She urges Council to defeat ordinance. Vote on the humce - Mrs. King, no; S. Stillwell, no; Mr. Strip, ; Mr. Zawaly, no; Mrs. Boring, ; Mr. Kranstuber, no; Ma Campbell, no. Inance No. 51.94 - An O nmee Amending the Co Ordinances of Dublin, o by Adding Chapter l6y !Fats hing a Fee and Service C ge Revenue/Cost Com (Second Reading) System. Rick Ktrmmcr. n stated that w the report was published ey identified for the Citv over 13 ee services and 11 tax scrvic The report was reviewed tenaively by Council 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /CU Rczoning/Prelinsinary Development Plant Final Development PlanlCondilionnl Use Perimeter Center PCD - Snbnrea F - Gant Eagle 6015.61104 Perimeter Luop Road RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting June 20, 19% The regularl edulod meeting of the Dublin Council was called to order by or Joel Campbell :30 p.m. on Monday, Juno 20, PA. Mr. Strip led the Pledge of Ali ance. Mcmb of Council present for roll call w Mrs. Stillwell, Mr. 2:swaly, Ma Campbell, Mr. S , Mrs. King, and Mrs. Boring, anstuber was abtent (excused). members present included lklr, ley, Mr. Foegler, Mr. Smkb, by, Mr. Harding, Ma. Clarke, Mr. Papsidero, Jordan, thief Ferrell, Mr. Mr. McDaniel, and Ms. Crandall. Mayor Campbell pr ed a proclamation to Jatret Jord eclaring the month of July, 149 "Recreation and Month" in the City of Dublin. Ms. lord ed Council and the public for eir support of the programs and r gnized staff memb present. She then presented Con members with Explorers Day C tee sbdrts. Mrs. Stillwell moved approval o e minutes of June 6. Mrs. King seconded the mo Vote on the motion Ma r Campbell, yes; Mm•8. yes; Strip, yes; Mr. Zawal9r Yes; Boring, yea; Mrs. St ell, yes. i © c lered that there was a n sal Saill, Jnc. at 6711 D nental Sill, Inoffeed to ere were no objections from Co tl members to issuance of the Comments trorn Visitors Catherin Headlee, 7340 d Road expressed cooc=am abou c dangerous conditions for bikers, joggers and walkers sag l3rand Road where there is no in .areas with steep dr:�ngg. he had been told fa ears ago that this would be repair W. Hanley led that staff will check on this r and advlse Council at the next 14W9141t Ordinance No. 46-93 - An Ordinance Providing For a Change of Zoning of 33,$9$ Acres, Located Between Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road to be Reamed h m: 1PCD, Planned Commerce District to: PCD,1Pitmed Commerce District, (Perimeter Merin (public Bearing) (Applicant: Muirfield Drive Partners, Continental Real Estate Interests/park Development Company, c/o Jeffrey L. Brown, Attorney, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, ON 43215) Registered as proponents were: Ben Hide, 37 W. Broad Street, Columbus; Joseph Sullivan, 22 N. Fourth Street, Columbus; Jack Chaisson, 5645 Wbitecraigs Court, Dublin; Stephen Breech, 779 W. Goodale, Columbus; Frank Kass, 267 N. Parkview, Bexley; and John McDonald, 6520 Perimeter Loop, Dublin. Ben Hale. representing the McKitrick family, the current owners of the property and Condnental Real Estate developers provided background on the rezoning. The original concept for rezoning of this site contemplated a mall with a Big Bear included. The wail was to be about 300,000 square feet. Tbi a mall had been approved, architectural designs were completed, and 54,000,000 of infrastructure had been installed when the EPA sewer ban was imposed in Dublin. The developer then lost his financing for the mall. Since that time, Continental Beal Estate developers have been brought into the project. Tba project has been redesigned three times in response to statrs requests. Area civic associations have been brought Into the process and support the proposal. The developers are very proud of the proposal bring brought before Council tonight. 1 i stated that their goal was to develop a center that did not have a typical strip center image. 'They wanted to have more of a pedestrian scale, public place with a residential character, without compromising the goals of a retail center. Mr. Sullivan is proposing an entry feature of a fountain. A hedgerow will surround the entire ccnlrx with stone piers with 50 foot spacing to shield the parking area. The style will be a village look with panelled doors, hays, 'bowed arras, adding a sense of texture and scale. Signage will be raised gold letters with dark background with external illumination to provide a Williamsburg texture. Materials of stone, brick, stucco, and wood detail will add character, Mr. Sullivan believes this high quality project will be a strong asset to Dublin. 0 `y ?mo a�C7 5 � W v U rig o a U C3 ca pp 0Uw Nr tn�Ad� o1 0 •— m O o 9 u. 0. Z RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 2 Meetm June 20, 1994 i9 stated that he represents the Board of Trustees of the Muirfield Village Civic Association. The Board supports the concept of an upscale center at this location. It will help to alleviate traffic problems on Bridge Street and on Sawmill Road. Mr. Chaisson also represents the Dublin Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee, and the Committee strongly endorses this project. Steven stated that Big Bear has been committed to the project since early 1987. Big Bear believes the Continental group and their arebitects will build a first class project, Big Bear is prepared to move ahead with this project now, and believes it will be a flagship store - a store that will be the premiere place to buy groceries in Contra] Ohio. Frank Kass Continental Real Estate described the site plan and the eballenges met in the development process. late] that the Perimeter Business Association has held many meetings with the developer. The Association now unanimously endorses this project. Mr. Papsidero gave the staff presentation. He noted that this site is currently zoned for a 250,000 square foot retail mall. The rezoning is for a 119,000 square foot unenclosed retail center, Staff and the planning Commission leave spent many months working with the developer in negotiations for the prajaet. StRIT and Planning Commission have now recommended approval with the conditions noted in the record of P&Z. Mr. papsideso proceeded to show slides of the area around the project. The Planning Commission has asked that separate consideration be given to the land uscParchitecptre for the project and the signage for the project. He briefly described the signage proposed. He noted that staff had provided two separate reports for the case. Staff & Planning Commission support the ebange in land use and the change In type of development. Staff supports the majority of the changes except for the size of the grocery store signage. planning Commission supports everything as proposed. Mrs. ling commented the signs were attractive, but questioned wbeiher the Big Bear sign is in accord with the earlier sip colors proposed in the text of black, dark green and maroon. Careful attention to these details is what has made Dublin a consistently beautiful Community. Mr. Papsidero stated the Big Bear signs are red plastic letters that are internally Mutninated and are separate from the sign package for the rest of the Center. Staff did not question the colors, They only questioned the overall size of the wall sign face and recOmmended that the signage be smaller from 360 square feet to 130 square feet. This is the only internally lit sign in the development, Mr. Zawaly stated that the more important concern about the sign is that it will clash with the burgundy palms approved for the rest of the project, Frank Kass explained that the colors used on the Big Bear sign are the standard colors for all Big Bear stores. Thcsc Colors were the ones approved for the original perimeter Mail. if Big Bear were not part of the Center, the Center would not be built. The aignage will provide better visibility from Avery Road which is 900 fee; from the front of the store. They are also using four foot high letters as opposed to the six to seven foot high letters used by Big Bear in other areas. He tben provided pictures of signage at Big Bear stores around the area. He noted that they will be returning to Planning Coauni for consideration of siguage for mini - anchor storefronts in the center and hope to get approval of backlit individual letters. Mr. Zawaly asked if Big Bear would consider dmn&g to the deep burgtmdy color chosen for the project. Mr. Breech responded that the Big Bear 5ignage and logo has always been red - for over 60 yam. He added that this is the smallest amount of signago used on any Big Bear store and that this will be the largest retail store in Dublin. Big Bear has also allowed other tenant stores to be built in front of their store at this Iocatian, Mr. Sullivan noted that he believes the colors will not clash. The colors will be compatible. Mayor Campbell noted that this area of Dublin has been very sensitive in terms of signage over the years. gc a�w E O r A E q � 1 0 L JE aA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 3 June 20, 1994 19 Mrs. Boring expressed concern about setting a precedent by allowing a variation for this store from. Mr. Bale stated that this is a Planned Commercial District described as encouraging creative, innovative design. They have worked long and hard to come up with a unique shopping center. Council will be voting on the whole package. The only precedent get is that if someone wants to do a high quality project in Dublin, the city will be willing to work with them. Mrs. Stillwell suggested that Council look at the whole picture - signage is just a piece of this project. Good signage is a key to the success of the project. She applauded the developer for his efforts to bring this high quality project to Dublin. Mayor Campbell noted that there will be a third reading of the ordinance at the July 18 Cmmcil meeting. Mayor Campbell asked about the status of the proposed name change of a portion of Avery Road to Muirfield Drive. Mn. King responded that the Service Committee reviewed this matter and is waiting for input from the residems who would be affected by this change. John McDonald stated that the Perimeter Business Association is in favor of the name change. He is not aware of anyone opposed to the change. Mayor Campbell asked staff to check with tht affected parties on Avery Road prior to the next meeting of the Service Committee when they can review this issue. Ordimmee N 01-94 (Amended) - M Or4kfmce Amen tag COWO SW of tla Coen errta o Plan (Ordinamz No. 73-93). d Beadlpp� The Cl e noted there is a correctlon on p 'Blannu ly" should read 'bi al", S. King repotted flat the P mmittee has reviewed the ordl at three meetlogs and as also had the ordhartoe rev' by the Fetsommel Board. lice flee roMm�a that this ordinance be adopted as pro ed wnight, with a blenniai pay a change. Zor ted a graphical error on page 2 when effected' should read "affected. - ce - Mr. Strip, yes; Mrs. Bor' , yes; Mr. Zawaly, yes; Mrs. St ell, Yes; ayor Campbell, yes. -94 - An Ordinance t dopt the Proposed Tax Budget Floral Year 1995, Finagency. Ml ending) Mr. Strip moved to treat this as genoy legislation. Mrs. Boring seconded the mo . Vote on the motion - Mayo pbel1. yes; Mrs. King, yes; trip, yes; Mr. Zawaly, Yes; Mrs Boring, yes; Mrs. Still 1, yes. Vote on the ord' - Mr. Zawaly, yes; Mayor ell, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Mrs. S ' well, yes; Mr. Strip, ; Mrs. Boring, yes. Ordinan o. 4544 - An Ordinance Au raring a New Position (Econo c Development Coott tor) and Amending tSecflon 2 (' ge & Saucy 5tructure/Admf nis tlon ") and Section 12 empt & Non- Exanpt Job Cl flewiom ") of Ordinance 23-93 mper►sation PlanO). lyd Reeding) Mr. Foegler commented that h working cooperatively with the amber and exploring Metal options for organizational cttsres to build additianal economi development capacity. Prior to filling the position, there ould be consensus on what form structures may take. Staff' doesxt plan to fill this post n until the issue is resolved, and a job description can be amendd9f and brou¢ht back to l tnell At A latps r1ato. 09- 1157JPDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Engle 6015 -6801 Perimeter Loop Road RECORD OF ACTION DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COM MSSION June 9, 1994 CITY OF DUBLIN The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action in the application below at its regularly scheduled meeting: CASE 2: Rezoning Application Z93 -005 - Perimeter Center Mall - Subarea F Location: 33.398 acres located between Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road. Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter Center Plan). Request: Review and approval of revisions to the development text regarding signage for Subareas E and F of Perimeter Center in the PCD, Planned Commerce District, under the provisions of Section 1IS1.09(d). Proposed Use: Retail shopping center of 150,000 square feet in an unenclosed, strip design, a 100,000 square -foot flex - office structure, and two commercial outparcels totalling �±4 acres. Applicant: Muirfield Drive Partners, Continental Real Estate Interests/Park Development Company, c/o Jeffrey L. Brown, Attorney, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, OH 43215. MOTION: To approve this rezoning application based upon the Planned Commerce District with extraordinary aesthetics and architecture with the following seven conditions: 1) That the development text be revised to incorporate the conditions presented herein, submitted for Staff review and approval prior to scheduling the rezoning before City Council for a second reading; 2) That a total of two main identification signs be permitted, not to exceed 15 feet in height and 19 feet in width, with a maximum each of two sign faces, with a maximum area of 66 square feet per sign face, externally illuminated, with sign base materials matching the retail center materials and sign face materials and colors matching the retail tenant materials and colors, ifid with one - such sign located at the northeast comer of Avery Road and Perimeter Loop Road and one such sign located at the Perimeter Drive entrance to the retail center; 3) That grocery store wall signage, relative to sign face area, location, text, colors, and materials shall comply with the elevation as approved by the Planning Commission. 4) That the Retail Center Sign Package be amended to state: A. That all wall and projecting signage meet the City sign code relative to permitted sign face area and that wall signs not exceed 16 feet in height; B. That each tenant store front be limited to one wall sign, one projecting sign and one awning sign. Wall sign faces shall not exceed one square foot in area for each one lineal foot in store frontage not to exceed 80 square feet. Projecting sign faces shall not exceed three square feet in area. C. That awning signs be permitted per code for property addresses, names of occupants and year business established, should not state product names or lines, tag lines, pictures of products, hours of operation or telephone or fay nurnherc anti nrrnr ;APP 09- 115LPDP /FDP /C.0 lterouinlyPrelimitimy DevelopmenlPlan/ Fioal Developmeltt Plum/Conditional Use Perita7eler Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015-6804 Perimeter Loop Road DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COWIISSION RECORD OF ACTION June 9, 1994 CASE 2: Rezoning Application Z93 -005 - Perimeter Center Mall - Subarea F (Cont.) such signs are limited to one square foot in area and the color is complementary to the awning and wall sign. Awning signs shall be limited to one square foot in area or as approved by the Planning Commission as part of a development plan; D. That gooseneck fixtures all be comprised of the same exterior finish and color, subject to Staff approval; and E. That the background color of wall signs, projecting signs and awning signs be selected from the approved existing Perimeter Center palette of trim colors or a compatible color approved by Staff; 5) That the text for outparcel signage revised to state permitted lettering style, size and colors, background color, and illumination; 6) That the following paragraph A(9) of the Graphics section on page 4 of the revised development text be deleted: For the purposes of this Planned Commerce District application within Subarea F, the following definition for wall signage shall apply for computing the allowable area of each wall sign, whether it be located directly affixed to a wall or a canopy/marquee: Tlie allowable area of wall signs permitted under this PGD shall be that of the advertising area of the individual letters and symbols as they are attached or i ffixed to the building or cwwpyhnarquee. The area of the sign shall be computed by enclosing such sign with the smallest rectangle around each individual word, series of words, numbers or symbols and thus determine the sign's area; and 7) That the Graphics section for Subareas Fl, F2, F3, and E be revised as follows: No more than one ground sign shall be permitted on any one lot or multiple lots if devoted to one specific use or user, except that, for buildings or uses having frontage on each of two public rights -of -way, two ground signs are permitted. Maximum height above grade shall be nine feet. When two ground signs are permitted for a corner lot the total maximum area of such sign faces shall not exceed 66.5 square feet. Neither ground sign shall, by itself, exceed the maximum allowable area of 50 square feet for each face * Attorney for the applicant, Ben Hale, Jr., agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 5 -0. RESULT: This rezoning application was approved and will be scheduled for public hearing at City Council on June 20, 1994. STAFF CERTIFICATION: L� 4 Vj4ce PapWero, AIiCP SAIior PI er o4- 1157JPDF1FDP /ClJ Iteroning/pnlitninary Development Plan/ Page 2 of 2 l:ittal Development PluniConditional Use PcLimater Cemnr PCD - Stibarea F- Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Ruad Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - June 9, 1994 Page 4 and the ek on Coffman Roa eecied to be increased, a said these were com n items for ew and the church sho meet that standard. t1e motion was amen by Mr. Peplow to to a this application for days to allow the applicant to provide cardboard model of th evatons, and the plan be redesigned. Jerry Ickenb er, Chairman, Church steel Board, asked th the application be tabl for 60 days, prepare the model and eet with the neighbors address their concerns. M anstuber seconded motion and the vote s as follows: Mr. F no; Mr. utphen, no; Mr. Peplow yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; r. Kranstuber, yes. abled 3 -2.) 2. Rezoning Application Z93 -005 - Perimeter Center Signage Vince Papsidero presented this case. On May 19th, the Planning Commission approved the rezoning of this site to PCD, Planned Commerce District, with the exception of signage. The site is approximately 34 acres located between Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road on the east side of Avery Road. Mr. Papsidero said signage for Perimeter Center at US 33 /SR161 in the southeastern quadrant of the development, including main identification for the retail center, grocery store (wall sign), retail tenant package for the center, and outparcel signage for Perimeter Center and uses along Avery Road (Subarea E) were to be reviewed. He presented slides of Big Bear signage in various central Ohio locations for comparison to the proposal. Mr. Papsidero said a 50 square foot sign on a'stone base was proposed for the outlot parcels. It would complement the pilasters located in the hedging throughout the project. The text permits wall, projecting, and awning signage, per store frontage. The wood signs will be externally illuminated with gooseneck fixtures. The background color is proposed to match the current Perimeter palette, dark green, navy, or dark red. Black may also be included. The lettering is to be gold - colored. Staff agrees to multiple signs but believes the awning signs need more control. Mr. Papsidero said the Big Bear signage was 364 square feet in area. Eighty square feet, 15 feet high is permitted by Code. The Big Bear lettering is four feet tall and will be visible from over 2,000 feet, or beyond Avery Road (per visibility chart from the California Institute of Technology). Revised written conditions were proposed and distributed by Mr. Papsidero pursuant to information received in the last week. They are as follows: 1) That the development text be revised to incorporate the conditions presented herein, submitted for Staff review and approval prior to scheduling the rezoning before City Council for a second reading; 09 - 115Z1PDP /FDP /CU Rai "Itig PtulimiMill JX-%v1t weat Plaiil Fitml D%uvelopownt 1 ; km (:1n1titiuual Use 1 nem Cuutur P("I} - 5ullawtu F - Giant Eagle 60J i -IlHoA Pcrirrrctur Lolill Raml Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - June 9, 1994 Page 5 2) That a total of two main identification signs be permitted, not to exceed 15 feet in height and 19 feet in width, with a maximum each of two sign faces, with a maximum area of 66 square feet per sign face, externally illuminated, with sign base materials matching the retail center materials and sign face materials and colors matching the retail tenant materials and colors, and with one such sign located at the northeast corner of Avery Road and Perimeter Loop Road and one such sign located at the Perimeter Drive entrance to the retail center; 3) That grocery store wall signage be limited to one wall sign of 60 square feet for "Big Bear" lettering, internally illuminated and in red letters, one wall sign 30 square feet for "Food & Pharmacy" as proposed and the retail center free- standing sign at Perimeter Loop and Avery Roads (maximum sign face of 37 square feet). The wall sign height should relate to the building's architecture and should not exceed the proposed height limit of 26 feet, and that the Big Bear signage be accepted as proposed per applicant's elevations presented; 4) That the Retail Center Sign Package be amended to state: A. That all wall and projecting signage meet the City sign code relative to permitted sign face area and that wall signs not exceed 16 feet in height; B. That each tenant store front be limited to one wall sign, one projecting sign and one awning sign. Wall sign faces shall not exceed one square foot in area for each one lineal foot in store frontage not to exceed 80 square feet. Projecting sign faces shall not exceed three square feet in area. C. That awning signs be permitted per code for property addresses, names of occupants and year business established, should not state product names or. lines, tag lines, pictures of products, hours of operation or telephone or fax numbers, and provided such signs are limited to one square foot in area and the color is complementary to the awning and wall sign; D. That gooseneck fixtures all be comprised of the same exterior finish and color, subject to Staff approval; and E. That the background color of wall signs, projecting signs and awning signs be selected from the existing Perimeter Center palette or a compatible color approved by Staff; 5) That the text for outparcel signage be revised to state permitted lettering style, size and colors, background color and illumination, and to prohibit logos. 6) That the following paragraph A(9) of the Graphics section on page 4 of the revised development text be deleted; For the purposes of this Planned Commerce District application within Subarea F, the following definition for wall signage shall apply for computing the allowable area of each wall sign, whether it be located directly a to a !wall or a canopy /marquee: The allowable area of wall signs permitted under this PCD shall be that of the advertising area of the individual letters and symbols as they are attached or af to the building or canopy /marquee. T fie area of the sign shall be computed by enclosing such sign with the smallest rectangle around each individual word, series of words, numbers or symbols and thus determine the sign's area, and 04 -I 15Y./PDP /i.' qP /Cll Reioii 110 ill) Mary )7cvclulwtcu� I'Ici�a/ """a' I7evnlopmenl IIIIII /Conditional Use Pmrinleler Center PCD - StIbarc�, P - Giant logic (1015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - June 9, 1994 Page 6 7) That the Graphics section on page 7 as follows be deleted: Neither ground sign shall, by itself, exceed the maximum allowable area of 50 square feet for each face. and be replaced by: When two ground signs are permitted for a corner lot, the total maximum area of such sign faces shall not exceed 66.5 square feet. (Condition #7 was amended later.) Mr. Papsidero said the bases were as follows: 1) The applicant has proposed a unique graphic package, with the noted modifications, that complements the architectural character and pedestrian nature of the development. 2) The signage provides a suitable and appropriate approach for graphics at this important entryway to the City. 3) The signage meets the aesthetic goals of the sign code and the Community Plan. Mitch Banchefsky noted that since less than six Commission members were present, the Charter required four votes for approval of a rezoning application. Mr. Kranstuber asked if any variances were required for the PCD District. He was told by Mr. Banchefsky that variances were not necessary in a PCD District. He asked if the signage allowed was more than was permitted in any other area. Staff responded affirmatively. Mr. Kranstuber asked if there were any danger of jeopardizing the sign code by allowing more signage at this location than anywhere else in Dublin. Bobbie Clarke said one of the purposes of a planned district was to provide flexibility for unique characteristics to the site or development. In this case, she said, there was very specialized architecture for a strip center and the signs proposed were not typical shopping center signs. All signs will have standardized gold lettering, illuminated by goosenecked fixtures, giving a historic look. Since the signs will be visible from a shorter distance, more signage and graphics that can be read from the parking lot as well as to the walking public are consistent with promoting a pedestrian scale and plaza. Staff feels this modification (permitting them several signs instead of the standard one per store) is appropriate. She said the Big Bear sign, in an alternative, is a standard, plastic faced, internally illuminated sign which Staff feels should be regulated the same as others in the community; Mr. Kranstuber asked if the Big Bear was the, sign which Staff felt the strongest about. Ms. Clarke said yes. Ms. Clarke suggested that the awning signage be limited to one square foot or as approved as part of the development plan by the Commission. The Commissioners agreed. Franklin Kass, of Continental Real Estate Interests /Park Development Company, agreed to delete the 25 -foot sign on the freeway. He questioned square footage calculation and did not agree with the visibility chart. He said the Westerville and Hilliard stores had higher letters. He 09- 115Z/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - June 9, 1994 Page 7 asked for credit for removing the freeway signage, reducing the monument signage by 25 percent, and for the quality of the wood signs and lighting. Joe Sullivan, of Sullivan, Gray and Bruck Architects, explained several aspects of the signage. Ms. Clarke said the mechanism for measuring signs was a key element of the Sign Code. It does count all of the area between sign components. However, if only the square footage of the components (and no space between them) of the Big Bear sign were measured, it would still exceed the Code. Staff feels, however, that they should be measured as is regulated everywhere else in Dublin. This sign is not different and should be judged by the same standards as others. Mr. Kranstuber asked if the sign could be approved as proposed. Mr. Rauh asked to see the elevation plan indicating the signage and how it was measured. Mr. Rauh asked if the "Bear" part of the logo could be eliminated. Mr. Kass said Big Bear had sent a letter to him indicating that they were ready to quit the project. Mr. Kranstuber said Mr. Kass had been through the signage issues previously in Dublin Village Center and there should be no surprises here. Every merchant should be treated equally. Ben Hale, attorney for the applicant, said this project was special and exceptions should be made. Mr. Rauh'said by Code, a logo was not to be more than twenty percent of the total signage area. Mr. Kass said it was actually 12.5 percent. Colleen Hippenthaw, 5888 Northcliff Boulevard, said the center looked good. The height of the Big Bear sign did not matter to her as far as appearance. Dan Pifenburger, - of Bank One, was concerned with the colors and lighting permitted by the text for their stone signage. A new sign program has been established for Bank One. They are proposing to use a fiberglass based sign decorated with 3M Scotch Cal decals, two layers, a white layer and then a blue layer that exposes the white letters and numerals behind it. It is internally illuminated. In the daytime, the sign appears to be a fabricated metal sign, and at night, the entire head portion lights up continually the entire perimeter of the sign. He said two financial institutions should not have to use the same blue. Mr. Kranstuber asked if the Bank One sign was bigger than the State Savings sign. Ms. Clarke said no. She said the Bank One signage just proposed was not endorsed by Staff. No where in Dublin is the background of a sign permitted to be translucent. The verbally proposed signage is also substantially different from the text proposal. Mr. Sutphen asked if the Staff recommendations were accepted by the Commission, would there be any concern with the Code. Ms. Clarke said a residential image was desired along Avery Road when Perimeter Center was zoned several years ago. The signs must have identical gray 09 -11 VAIDPIMP /0 I Ruzoning- Preliniinnn IN- velopment Plan/ l. Uavelnpijlunt 1'latl'Conditional Use Purimuter Center PCll - Subarea P - Giant Eagle 6015-6904 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - June 9,-1994 Page 8 slate with chrome letters according to the current text. The name of the business and address only are allowed on the sign. Mr. Sutphen said the Bank One sign should be identical to the other signs on the outparcels. Ms. Clarke said "Bank One" blue is not allowed by text. The proposed background colors in the text are navy blue, dark red, forest green, and black. Any color can be used for the lettering. Ms. Clarke asked if any of the recommendations of Staff were to be included. Mr. Kranstuber said yes. Ms. Clarke asked about the entry signage. The Commission liked the entry signage proposed. Ms. Clarke said the text needed to describe what the main identification signs were. She said Condition #7 limiting the combined graphics area to two ground signs needed to be incorporated. Condition #5(A -E) helps to establish what that program for the center is. Mr. Hale said there was no problem with those new conditions and accepted all the other conditions as listed below. Mr. Kranstuber made the motion to approve this rezoning application sign package with the following seven conditions: 1) That the development text be revised to incorporate the conditions presented herein, submitted for Staff review and approval prior to scheduling the rezoning before City Council for a second reading; 2) That a total of two main identification signs be permitted, not to exceed 15 feet in height and 19 feet in width, with a maximum each of two sign faces, with a maximum area of 66 square feet per sign face, externally' illuminated, with sign base materials matching the retail center materials and sign face materials and colors matching the retail tenant materials and colors, and with one such sign located at the northeast corner of Avery Road and Perimeter Loop Road and one such sign located at the Perimeter Drive entrance to the retail center; 3) That grocery store wall signage, relative to sign face area, location, text, colors, and materials shall comply with the elevation as approved by the Planning Commission. 4) That the Retail Center Sign Package be 'amended to state: A. That all wall and projecting signage meet the City sign code relative to permitted sign face area and that wall signs not exceed 16 feet in height; B. That each tenant store front be limited to one wall sign, one projecting sign and one awning sign, the faces of which together shall not exceed one square foot per one linear foot of store frontage. C. That awning signs be permitted per code for property addresses, names of occupants and year business established, should not state product names or lines, tag lines, pictures of products, hours of operation or telephone or fax numbers, and provided such signs are limited to one square foot in area and the color is complementary to the awning and wall sign. Awning signs shall be limited to one 09- 1157/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditionul Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Read Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - June 9, 1994 Page 9 square foot in area or as approved by the Planning Commission as part of a development plan; D. That gooseneck fixtures all be comprised of the same exterior finish and color, subject to Staff approval; and E. That the background color of wall signs, projecting signs and awning signs be selected from the approved existing Perimeter Center palette of trim colors or a compatible color approved by Staff, 5) That the text for outparcel signage be revised to'state permitted lettering style, size and colors, background color, and illumination; 6) That the following paragraph A(9) of the Graphics section on page 4 of the revised development text be deleted: For the purposes of this Planned Commerce District application within Subarea F, the following definition for wall signage shall apply for computing the allowable area of each wall sign, whether it be located directly affixed to a wall or a canopy /marquee: The allowable area of wall signs permitted under this P® shall be that of the advertising area of the individual letters and symbols as they are attached or a ff ixed to the building or canopyhnarquee. The area of the sign shall be computed by enclosing such sign with the smallest rectangle around each individual word, series of words, numbers or symbols and thus determine the sign's area, and 7) That the Graphics section for Subareas F1, F2, F3, and E be revised as follows: No more than one ground sign shall be permitted on any one lot or multiple lots if devoted to one specific use or user, except that, for buildings or uses having frontage on each of two public rights - of -way, two ground signs are permitted. Maximum height above grade shall be nine feet. When two ground signs are permitted for a corner lot the total maximum area of such sign faces shall not exceed 66.5 square feet. Neither ground sign shall, by itse', exceed the maximum allowable area of 50 square feet for each face. Mr. Kranstuber said this was based on a Planned Commerce District with extraordinary aesthetics and architecture. Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Ferrara, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; and Mr. Kranstuber, yes. (Approved 5 -0.) While waiting for a quorum, Mr. Rauh stated that the following rezoning application would require four positive votes of the Commission for approval. 09- 115ZtPDP /GDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F- Giant Eagle 6015-6804 Perimeter Lunp Road DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COM IISSION RECORD OF ACTION MAY 19 1994 CITY OF DUBLIN The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action in the application below at its regularly scheduled meeting: 2. Rezoning Application Z93 -005 - Perimeter Center Mall - Subarea F Location: 33.398 acres located between Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road. Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter Center Plan). Request: Review and approval of an amended Composite Plan and Development Text to permit an unenclosed strip shopping center, new architecture and materials, and related permitted use changes at Perimeter Center Subareas F, 1. and K, which are proposed to be reconfigured into Subareas F, Fl and F2, under PCD, Planned Commerce District, as provided under the provisions of Section 1181.09 (d) Proposed Use: Retail shopping center of 150,000 square feet in an unenclosed, strip design, a 100,000 square -foot flex -office structure, and two commercial outparcels totalling _4 acres. Applicant: Muirfield Drive Partners, Continental Real Estate Interests/Park Development Company, c/o Jeffrey L. Brown, Attorney, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, OH 43215. MOTION: To approve this rezoning application with the following condition: That text issues, except for signage, be successfully resolved between the developer and Staff. (Signage will be subject to separate review and approval by the Commission.) *The applicant, Franklin Kass, agreed to the above condition. VOTE: 6 -0. RESULT: This rezoning application will be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation for approval by the Commission. STAFF CERTIFICATION BY: 09- 115ZIM /FMCU RczoningfFreliminar). Dc'ValopmentPlan/ Q. Final Development PimilConditional Use 1''eririrvtcr Ccntcr PCD - Subarea F - Giant Lagle le Vince Papsidero, AICP 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Senior Planner NOTE. If the text issues are not successfully resolved by the Staff, they will be returned to the Commission at a later date for final disposition. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - May 19, 1994 Page 7 and Cvm sign with regard to an vrsemeni of the higher ensity. There are mo vptivns availa to modify a lower den product, bigger setba , greenspace, site p g, etc. A tide -off between a more pensive architecture, breaking up the buil ' 9s, changing oflines, etc, for some v e materials is being eweci. The applicant' reposed building is brick and wood Sidi . Will the Commission nsider partial vinyl sid' as one of the trade- offs for improved chitecture7 Mr. Fish willing to consider s p de-off of materials, b mounding, heavy landing, lots of or lots of dormers, as was the case with erton Apartments wv be good ex es of creative architect e, &. Rauh said that if developer wanted this qdsity, he needs to be mgWcreative and show the Commission ho o make this density at ve. A trZ als could be accepted. If that cannot be ne, the Commission w' "have to requiace. if the devel r desires this sty, he needs to show etter proposal. Mr. lien said the olltparc needed to he document a said th should be to y integrated. Mr. su en said the drive -throe issue must to be resole Mr. Sutphen did not ant to see any large m s of asphalt parking. should meet Dublin's Code. Mr. Rauh d that if the parking see s to be needed, there s ld be less units allowing the greenspace fequirement to be met. 2. Rezoning Application Z93 -005 - Amended Composite Plan and Development Text - Perimeter Center Mall - Subarea F Vince Pasidero presented this case. This rezoning application includes revisions to the site plan, architecture and development text for Subarea F in Perimeter Center under the Planned Commerce District. The site is 34 acres to include a 120,000 square foot unenclosed retail center, including a 72,000 square foot grocery store, 46,000 square feet of additional retail space in three detached structures, two commercial/restaurant outparcels totalling 3.5 acres and a 100,000 squart-foot flex -office structure. Mr. Papsidero said the applicant has spent a great deal of effort on the architectural approach to this center. Staff feels the applicant has responded to the Commission's concerns. However, there are still a number of issues regarding the development text. Under the PCD, the composite plan and the development text together serve as the actual zoning documents for the project. The development text must be clear and accurate in response to the Code requirements. Mr. Papsidero said Staff recommended an informal review at this stage, but the applicant is requesting formal action at this hearing. Given this, Staff recommends disapproval of this rezoning application as submitted. Mr. Papsidero said that the applicant had been notified in writing as to the revisions needed in the development text. The text remains incomplete. 09- 11571PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6904 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - May 19, 1994 Page 8 Mr. Papsidero said a pond /fountain feature was included on the new plan as well as a three -foot evergreen hedge around the project site with stone pilasters and street trees. Staff felt the architecture clearly responded to the goals of the Commission to create a unique pedestrian environment with much variety in architecture. The pedestrian surface is a mixture of paver and concrete. He said signage for the existing Avery Road . outparcels and other small users in the development was a concern. The existing sign package did not communicate well. The applicant is proposing a new, clearer design. Staff supports this revision to the text. Mr. Papsidero said the Staff letter to the applicant lists ten issues not yet addressed in the May 18 text. They deal with permitting conditional uses by subareas, addressing subarea F4 which is already developed. This is a rezoning all of Subarea F. Further details are needed on landscaping and architecture in the text to guarantee the quality level for the whole subarea, not just the retail center, and the level of landscaping for all pedestrian and other areas. Mr. Papsidero said project signage was unresolved. Tfie current text permits a 300 square foot sign for all of Perimeter Center along US 33/ R lbl at old Wilcox Road. In addition, the revised text proposes two 300 square foot pylon signs for the retail center. Staff supports signage which is designed for the site and which is more consistent with the Code. Staff is recommending disapproval, Mr. Papsidero said. Under the PCD, there are nine distinct area to be met, and currently this project does not meet five of those. Staff believes the issues could be resolved in the text, but revisions have not been submitted in a timely manner and could not be reviewed for this meeting. Respectfully, Staff recommends disapproval. Mr. Sutphen said he felt it is unfair to the Commission hear this application now as the information was just received at the meeting. The issue was too important. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher asked for Code citations for the bases of approval in a PCD. 1&. Papsidero cited them. Mr. Kranstuber did not understand the criteria; the Code is too general. Mr. Kranstuber said the big picture was that whether it is a project wanted for this community. If so, it should be approved at this meeting. Mr. Papsidero said Staff did want this as a project for the community. Mr. Kranstuber said procrastination caused the City to lose the mall proposal due to the sewer ban in 1990, that he expected Staff to work these issues out with the developer. If tabled and the project is lost, no service is done for the Community. Mr. Rauh said it seemed that Staff and the developer had been working the issues out but all of them were not complete. He said it did look attractive. Mr. Sutphen said he wanted to vote in favor of this rezoning, but since all issues had not been resolved, he could not. He was frustrated with both the Staff and the developer. He felt Staff did a good job, and he put the burden on the developer. 09- 11571PDP /FDP /C11 Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - May 19, 1994 Page 9 Frank Kass, of Continental Real Estate Interests /Park Development Company, said Staff and the developer had never worked better or longer on any of his other projects over the last ten years. He recognized the problems involved in the change in the project for the community. He thought the Commission wanted a "knock the lights out" center, and so they have spent six weeks on the aesthetics of the presentation, and they revised the text too late. Mr. Kass said the problem with the process was that no one trusted developers in this community. He requested approval of the rezoning with Staff to work out the details. Among the details was egress and ingress and alignment with the BP driveway one way or another. He thought this could be worked out with Staff and that all ten of the issues were similar in nature. Mr. Kass said they were willing to put in the deed restrictions that all the buildings will look like the center shown (outlots, etc.). He said he did not want to lose Big Bear because of delays. He asked for a chance to work it out with Staff. Mr. Sutphen said Council would like to see this project complete without numerous details to be resolved by them. Ben Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, said that there was a disagreement between them and Staff. He said 80 percent of what was included in Staffs letter had been addressed in the text delivered this afternoon. He gave a brief history of the Perimeter Mall dating back to 1988. He said $5M was spent to develop the plan, to install the roads and utilities. Along with the Riverside Hospital, the previous developer of this site Planned Communities vastly improved Avery Road to the bridge. Mr. Hale said the deal with the City was for certain developer installed improvements. If other things were needed such as other traffic signals, the City would take care of them. He said a traffic study was requested to see if another light at Perimeter Loop Road were necessary. The road improvement money has been spent already. Mr. Hale said when the sewer ban hit, the developer had already spent $53A on infrastructure. When they lost the loan to build the center, and the deal fell apart. The McKitrick's asked Frank Kass to develop this sensitive area for them. Mr. Kranstuber asked if the text of only subarea F were being amended. Mr. Hale said yes. Mr. Hale said Staff had not yet had sufficient time to review the latest amendments to the text. The issue of the seventy percent lot coverage still remained, but everything else was resolved. Mr, Papsidero said signage issues and text issues concerning conditional uses were unresolved. Mr. Fishman asked how this could be approved if these critical issues were unresolved. Mr. Hale said the center identification sign and the size of those signs were unresolved. Mr. Fishman asked if Staff agreed with the latest text received. Mr. Papsidero said no, not completely, and the same is true for the site plan. Mr. Fishman did not know how it could be approved without resolution of the issues. Mr. Kranstuber said they were technical issues except for the sign issue. 09.115Z/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - (runt Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - May 19, 1994 Page 10 Mr. Hale said on the architectural side, feedback was very important to them. They would try to resolve the thousand of minor issues in this complex project if the big picture was okay. Mr. Kass felt signage should not be an issue at this time. They would give up a major sign on Rt. 161, but they wanted to make sure that they know what they are getting. Joe Sullivan, of Sullivan, Gray, Bruck Architects, said Staff had given good input and worked well with them. He said it would be more than strip center. Mr. Sullivan said in the site plan the facade was broken down into varying depths of shops, the width of the walk was introduced without a canopy, in some places awnings were placed in lieu of the canopy, pitched roofs and more pedestrian scaled elements were included. Scored concrete and pavers were included in the revised plan and a hedgerow along the outside edge so that it tends to feel more like a street rather than a parking lot. They tried to capture the old "small town" feel in the design. Mr. Sullivan said buildings were separated rather than having everything continuous. He said the large entry feature included three fountains with a hedge and stone pilaster detail that unified the entire site and gave an architectural element to screen the parking. Mr. Sutphen asked if the flag poles shown on the rendering were planned. Mr. Sullivan said they would develop as part of the detail. He said benches would be along the pedestrian walk area and streetlamps. Signage will be of the old style with gold letters on a dark painted background. Gooseneck light fixtures will shine on them to lend a much richer image. Rather than a simple aluminum storefront, they have committed to detail with raised panels, a character found on a more historic style, Williamsburg kind of storefront.. Mr. Sullivan felt the Big Bear Store signage proposed was appropriate for the scale of the building. Mr. Sullivan said if approval were granted, more attention could be taken to develop this idea. He said the other issues could be addressed and worked out later. Ralph Halloran, a Post Road resident, congratulated them on the plan. He asked for details on the stormwater detention. He said the two lakes on the property were had overflowed even before the apartments were built. They were too small. Mr. Halloran said another detention pond was needed on this property. Staff promised several years ago to make the two existing ponds either bigger or construct another pond. He said pieces cannot continue to be approved without dealing with the stormwater as required in the Code. Mr. Halloran suggested that a 28 foot piece of property, north of Post Road at the end of Wilcox Road, owned by the City, would make a good bikepath in front of the development to join with the bikepath along Indian Run Park. Randy Bowman said Margarita's Restaurant and Crown Eurocars, in Perimeter Center, were required to provide onsite detention in their parking lots. Both sites are part of the overall master stormwater plan for Perimeter Center as previously approved by the City. The center will have onsite detention in the parking lot also. Mr. Bowman said he was comfortable with this stormwater management plan. 09- 1157/PDP /FDP 1CU Kuzuning Preliminary Development Plan; Final 1)c%- clnpnlunt Plan/Conditional Use Pcrimuler Ccnler PCD - Subarea F - Giant Engle 6015 -6804 Perimeter hoop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - May 19, 1994 Page 11 Bob Hughes, speaking for the Perimeter Business Association, said they were in support of the development and would like to see it approved. John McDonald of Crown Motor Company repeated Mr. Hughes comments and requested that an agreement be reached at this meeting. Jeff Dortman, Real Estate Specialist for Big Bear Stores Company, said they had been committed to the location since 1988. They will put in a state of the art supermarket. Since 1988 the plan for the store has changed. The interior of the store will have a "market square" where all the service departments are included in the first part of the shopping trip. Tim Kelton, of Ruscilli Real Estate Services, Inc., representing the 125 undeveloped acres to the east of Perimeter Center, said he wants the Commission to approve this rezoning. Randy Palmer, Trustee of the Muirfield Village Civic Association, said the association supported this development, for convenience shopping and enrichment of the tax base. Mr. Fishman asked if the Commission could approve this application pending Staff working out the text. Mr. Banchefsky said it had been done before on PUDs and other types of zonings. If Staff cannot resolve issues, they can be returned to the Commission for disposition. The Development Plans will have a much narrower scope of review similar to a final development plan in a PUD. But the Commission could by agreement with the developer have those unresolved issues brought back at that point. In other words, the Commission could expand the scope of the development plan review. Either option is workable. Mr. Sutphen asked for Staffs preference. Ms. Clarke responded that this developer and his design team had put forward a terrific effort. The power that comes to the Planning Commission in a PCD comes through the zoning phase of it. She has heard from many within the community that if not a mall, the replacement project needs to be just right. She expressed concern that all their effort was spent in the design of the building, but not enough time was spent on the text. The text will govern this plan for many years, and it is always possible that this project might not be built for whatever reason. Under the PCD regulations, she reminded the Commission, their authority and discretion is limited. The Staff has reviewed the site plan and pointed out several problems. They have not been addressed. If the Commission wishes, Staff to work on these issues and come back at the June Planning Commission meeting, or they will only return if they are unable to come to terms. Mr. Fishman was concerned that the proportion of the Big Bear Store sign was planned to match the size of the building. He said he would like to see the Bear deleted from the sign because it did not match the character of the shopping center. Mr. Hale said there were only three issues that they did not agree with Staff. The Big Bear Store sign on their building, the two pylon signs, and the seventy percent lot coverage issues remained unresolved at this time. Rc�Antitrg 1'rr;IiminEU7 Ik+ut�rpllt�eul 1']uur i�inu{ I)urglnlnncul F1nu Cin�liliiinul U� peritlle cr C Dolor NCII - titihairvu 1' - �liusn hnglc [io 15. 68111 1'or11110 I.u1+p ROW Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - May 19, 1994 Page 12 Mr. Kass said the biggest of the three issues was the seventy percent lot coverage. He said the seventy percent should be seventy percent of the original Perimeter parcel, not a portion of it. He said the Big Bear Store sign needed the Bear included on it. Mr. Fishman asked if Big Bear were flexible regarding the sign. Mr. Dortman was told in 1988 that 80 per square feet was the maximum allowed by Code. He wanted the signage to be visible from Avery Road. He said he would work with Staff on the signage issue, but they wanted to include the Bear. Mr. Sutphen said the signage issues were similar to those in Dublin Village Center. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher asked about the seventy percent lot coverage issue. Mr. Papsidero said currently the maximum lot coverage requirement for commercial development in Dublin was seventy percent and Staff recommended that figure be applied to this development. It would apply at a tax parcel basis based upon a building permit application. Mr. Kranstuber asked for a definition of a lot. Mr. Papsidero said it was any piece of ground on which a building permit is filed. Any of the outlots cannot seventy percent lot coverage which is structure, parking, or any impervious surface. For instance for the retail center, it will be on its own separate tax parcel and as it is developed, that piece of ground cannot have more than seventy percent coverage in concrete and structure. Thirty percent will need to be landscaped. Mr. Hale said the seventy percent regulation was not in existence when this development was first approved. Mr. Kranstuber said the site was exposed from all sides and that the office hid the back side of the mall. Ms. Clarke said a reasonable thing to do would be to review the approved mall plan and see what kind of lot coverage was enforced then. She did not know that it was at eighty percent now. It might be appropriate to accept something greater than seventy percent lot coverage if it was previously approved. Mitch Banchefsky said the text was an open item and suggested that a motion state that it is to be worked out between the applicant and Staff, and if it cannot, the Commission would have the final say when it was presented again. Mr. Fishman said even if it were worked out, he would like to see it come back to the Commission. Ms. Clarke asked for what purpose. Mr. Fishman said he was concerned about the signage and the entrances. Ms. Clarke asked if agreement were reached with the developer and the Commission did not like it, did they want the right to override it. Mr. Fishman said yes. Mr. Fishman understood there were three conditions to be resolved. Ms. Clarke said since the final text had not yet been reviewed, Staff did not know. 11 }- I15111 D I'AT }twurtittg I'rulinimuir I)cvelopnteatPlun/ fuuil 1 }4eca��1 }wcnl I'i [Jt�e I'eritnutc Cautu� I'[:I } - Sulwca F - Giant Eagle 6015 -690 t Pelinneter J.00p Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - May 19, 1994 Page 13 Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher made the motion to approve this rezoning application on the condition that the text can be resolved between the applicant and the Staff and the signage shall come back for approval by the Commission. Mr. Ferrara seconded the motion. Ms. Clarke asked if the Commission wanted Issues #1 -6 as follows to be resolved. 1) Subarea F3 should be created for existing uses at the eastern portion of the subarea (credit union, veterinarian and restaurant) and the text and Composite Plan should be revised to address this subarea and its related development standards. 2) The development text should be revised to address the following issues: a. Separate sections should be prepared for each subarea and a fourth subarea (0) should be included in the text. b. The gross square footage of the retail center must be clarified. C. Permitted uses and conditional uses should be modified based on the above considerations, for each subarea. d. The setback reduction proposed for Perimeter Drive should be justified. e. A maximum lot coverage of 70 percent (per code) should be incorporated into the text. f. Circulation standards regarding curbcuts should be revised to include City Engineer approval of any final configurations. g. outdoor storage of materials, supplies, etc. "except for a garden center which may be free-standing or part of a larger retail operation" should be deleted from Storage and Equipment subsections. These should be regulated as Conditional Uses. h. The location of the three -foot continuous hedge should be clarified to include all roadways (public and private) and the proposed planting plan (subject to Staff approval). Street trees should be large trees from Appendix E, Group A. L Signage should be revised based upon the above considerations, and a full signage package should be submitted. Detailed standards comparable to the approved text should be incorporated into the proposed amended text, such as illumination, design, materials, etc. Design illustrations are strongly encouraged. Any variations from the approved text or standard Code provisions should be justified by the applicant. j. The text should be revised to address all additional items discussed herein. 3) Landscape plans should be submitted for Staff review and approval of the temporary screening of the rear elevation of the retail center, pedestrian plaza at the grocery store entrance, secondary pedestrian space at the ends of the retail center, entrances at Perimeter Loop Road and Perimeter Drive, typical section of the three -foot hedge and stone pilaster treatment, screening of the rear elevations of the 8.4 K and 12.6 K structures and the rear of the flex /office and retail center structures, and typical sidewalk section at the retail center. 4) Architectural elevations should be submitted for the rear elevation of the retail center showing revisions that break -up the facade where it is most visible to the public, conceptual elevations for all sides of the three retail structures associated with the center (8.4 K, 12.6 K and 25 K) showing compatibility with the retail center, elevations for the 09- 1157JPDP /FDP /CU Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Poiimeter Center PCD - subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - May 19, 1994 Page 14 flex /office structure showing compatibility with the retail center, and conceptual elevations for the two restaurant outparcels. 5) Plans should be submitted to provide for the longstanding deficiencies in the overall development to be completed. These include the bikepath on Perimeter Drive and the Avery Road and SR 161 buffering. 6) Traffic issues, including submission of a traffic study acceptable to the City Engineer, need to be adequately addressed. The safety of the central entry on Perimeter Loop and successful resolution of traffic impact and circulation are needed. Mr. Ferrara said yes. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher amended the motion to include that the Staff recommendations of #1 -6 also be worked out and if they cannot be worked out between the applicant and Staff to their satisfaction, the application will be returned to the Commission. Mr. Ferrara said everything submitted was received at the beginning of the meeting was part of the official record. Mr. Banchefsky said that was correct. Ms. Clarke said the drawings had not been reviewed yet by Staff. She said the front elevations showed pennants around the buildings which the Sign Code did not permit. Mr. Ferrara said they would be addressed when the signage was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Kranstuber said if Staff worked out something not consistent with the drawings shown, it would be a problem. W. Fishman asked about the type of shake roof planned. Mr. Sullivan said the shakes would be of a heavy texture, not specified at this time. Samples of the material will be presented later. Mr. Ferrara seconded the above motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; Ms. Chinnici Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. Ferrara, yes. (Approved partially, 6-0, with signage reserved) 3. ezoning Application 9A -U(l3 - 2870 Martin Road Road - SpartMart Inc. n Hale, Jr., represen g the applicant, reque this application to �bled until June 9, 1994. Mr. Rauh ma the motion to tZi cation and Mr. Su en seconde d the mono vote was follows: Mr. SuMr. Fishman, y , Mr. Rauh, yes; Ms. - ci- Zuerc , yes; and Mr. Kranst Tabled 5-0) 09 -I ISZ/PDP /FDP /CU Rezoning/Pieliutinary Development Plan/ Final Development Plan /Conditional Use Perimeter Center PCD - Subarea F - Giant Eagle 6015 -6804 Perimeter Loop Road