49-08 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES
Ordina~ice No
49-08
Passed
Form No. 30043
20 ~~~.
AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.4 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MUIRFIELD DRIVE AND
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MEMORIAL DRIVE FROM: PUD,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (MUIRFIELD
VILLAGE) TO: PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT. (MUIRFIELD VILLAGE SQUARE LOT 1-
VETERINARY HOSPITAL -CASE N0.08-0332/FDP)
NOW, THERE ORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
State of Ohio, ~ of the elected members concurring:
Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked
Exhibit "A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD,
Planned Unit Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures
contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City
of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto.
Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B," including the list of contiguous and
affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, Exhibit "C," are all incorporated into and made an official part of this
Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith.
Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the
earliest period allowed by law.
Passed this day of , 2008.
I/~ /l ~ I ~ _ _ ' / /1
Mayor -Presiding Officer
Attest:
Clerk of Council
Sponsor: Land Use and Long Range Planning
CITY OF DUBLIN_
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490
TO: Members of City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager6.-~ ~
DATE: July 31, 2008
INITIATED BY: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning
RE: Ordinance 49-08, Veterinary Hospital -Rezoning (Case No. 08-0332/FDP)
~~
Request
This is a request for the approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan to rezone 1.39 acres
from PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Muirfield Village) to PUD, Planned Unit
Development District (Muirfield Village Square Lot 1) for an existing 3,850 square-foot office
building to be used as a veterinary hospital.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
The Planning and Zoning Commission informally reviewed this proposal at its May 15, 2008
Work Session. The Commission discussed the need for adequate noise control and recommended
the expansion of an existing lawn area for visitor use.
On July 10, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the changes to the proposal
since the Work Session, including the proposed noise control measures and the provision and use
of open space on the site. The Commissioners expressed concern with the use of the exiting
perimeter mounds along Muirfield and Memorial Drives for the walking of pets. The
rezoning/preliminary development plan was recommended to Council for approval with one
condition, as follows.
That the text be modified to prohibit the use of the perimeter mounds for pet relief by the
facility staff.
The applicant has made the required modification to the development text. The Commission also
approved the final development plan with five conditions that must be addressed prior to/during
the building permit process:
1) That landscaping comply with Code and is coordinated with the larger Muirfield Square
landscape plan, subject to Planning approval;
2) That inconsistencies between the site and landscape plans be corrected and submitted to
Planning prior to submitting for a building permit;
3) That the directional sign and Urgent Care pendant sign be modified to identify the nature
of the Urgent Care as described in the planning report, subject to Planning approval;
4) That the Urgent Care pendant sign be reduced in size and configured to minimize conflict
with vehicles beneath the Urgent Care entrance canopy, subject to Planning approval; and
Ordinance 49-08 Rezoning -Veterinary Hospital
July 31, 2008
Page 2 of 2
S) That the seven parking spaces to the northwest of the building be converted to open space,
subject to Planning approval.
Description
The proposed development text and the preliminary development plan provide an explanation of
uses and basic development standards for Lot 1 of Muirfield Square.
This change to the approved development text for Muirfield Square incorporates veterinary clinic
services as a permitted use to further clarify the permitted and conditional uses of the original fmal
development plan.
Use
The applicant is proposing to revise the list of uses permitted under the original Muirfield Square
final development plan to permit veterinary hospital and associated uses in this PUD. Proposed
services are intended for small animals (family house pets only) and include complete wellness
care, diagnostic and medical care, dentistry, radiology, ultrasound and emergency services, and
incidental sales of pet food and supplies. The proposed rezoning will prohibit kennels, boarding
and animal day-care services, but will permit overnight medical recovery for animals when
necessary.
Business and professional office uses as listed in the Neighborhood Commercial District will
remain permitted uses in this PUD; however, retail store and personal service uses as listed in the
Neighborhood Commercial District and in the original final development plan, with the addition
of pet grooming services, will be treated as conditional uses. Drive-through and outdoor service
facilities are also listed as conditional uses. All conditional uses will require a traffic impact study
for approval.
Noise and Odor Control
The development text requires the site to comply with Dublin Nuisance Regulations. Code
requirements for noise and odor control are general. Noise must not exceed a level normally
perceptible from other development in the area or from usual street traffic as observed from the
property line. The proposed text specifies that noise may not exceed 55 decibels (dBA) as
measured from the edge of the parking area and perimeter mounding on Lot 1 and from the
internal property lines within Muirfield Square. The text requires that the applicant conduct noise
testing to demonstrate zoning compliance prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
Odor must be controlled so as not to be offensive or to create a hazard. The text requires all bio-
hazardous medical waste to be contained within the building.
Recommendation
Planning recommends Council approval of Ordinance 49-08 at the August 18, 2008 City Council
meeting.
PUD
PUD
O
c
PUD
PUD
PUD
PUD
PUD
T
" `= U'
i '. J J
08-033Z/FDP 7-~~~~ ~.
City of Dublin Rezoning/Final Development Plane
Land Use and Muirfield Village -Noah's Ark Veterinary Hospital
Long Range Planning 6001 Memorial Drive
PUD
TTED id ~UNCIL
MEE"PING 1~~
0 200 400
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
~~` ~` ~`\
i ~ J ~ ~~` ~~~ ~~~ \
/
~ nsaaat ~ ~
/ ~ \ awai ~m ora rvr wrtmvpc Mwmwc mros \ 'C ~~
/ roao m Il7PNwr roortk u wnm 4r
/ / / i ZS . z~e~ ~, . \ `\`
/ / ~
~ ~
% ~ ~ \~
/ / ~ ~ `~~
i ~ sir P'o4q ~ ~~
/_
l: /~ ~
/ ~ ~ ~\
/ 4
i i ~j~ d7~ yr wrap w,~ ` \ ~ ~ \ \
/ r 3
r.,ws a:a, V Wn Yn /
rim rrrs ~ i ~~~ A ~
/ ~ a.+c. rmcv ~yF
Rwo.+•Nxr
/ / ~ froG V~1 I~ ~ Vu~Ot ~i ~~
C' Jar a ~ ~
\ ~ i~ I I ~ ~
/ ~ \ i I I 'I rearm orov
~i 1 I ~_.. warn ra
\ i~ I L~ -- ^.ts
~ \°'ucn~oM~ ~ --------.~` ~ jf ~arcrmic V oMwr
~ /
\ ,'a ~~MbItIL I ~
~~ f01 Y I ~~ rma® oA4
~\
~~~/
', s s u 13;~~1 I'i 1 F i)~ j c) ~~~I r~I c; I L
>.~3~`~gFOR MEETING O~J_~~=w
08-033Z/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
CI ('r OF DIJE3LIIV
January 2007
EXHIBIT "B"
REZONING APPLICATION
(Code Section 153.234)
TO EXPIRE
ORDINANCE NUMBER
tam u.e god
"
u°
°s
~
~
s
o
i~
eo
g
SR~a CITY COUNCIL (FIRST READING)
DubAn, Ohio 43016-1236
CITY COUNCIL (PUBLIC HEARING)
~~T
6
Oax 61y41pd7
47 CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Wab SAe- www_dubhn ah.us
NOTE: All applications are reviewed by Land Use and Long Range Planning for completeness priorto being processed.
Applications that are incomplete will not be accepted. Applicants are encouraged to contact Land Use and Long Range
Planning for assistance and to discuss the rezoning process, and if needed, to make an appointmentfor apre-submittal
review prior to submitting a formal application.
I. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION:
^ Preliminary Development Ptan (Section 163.Ob3)
m other (Please Describe) Rezoning to permit veterinary medical office use with limitations
II. PROPERTY INFORMATION: This section must be
Property Address: 6001 Memorial Drive, Dublin, OH 43017
Tax tD/Parcel Number(s): 273-OOg597-00 Parcel size (Acres): 1,398 Acres
Existing Land use/Developmenc: PUD Retail/Office with specific limited uses permitted
Proposed Land Use/Development: Office With Veterinary medical office and Clinic Wlth IlmltatlORS
Existing Zoning District: CORM PUD Requested Zoning District: COmI PUD Total Acres to be Rezoned: 1,398 ACfeS
III. REZONING STATEMENT: Please attach separate sheets (8.S X tt) to the back of this application with your responses to
the following sertionc-
A. Please briefly explain the proposed rezoning and development:
Rezone the property to permit limited veterinary medical office use that will exclude kennels, boarding or grooming services.
Services are for small animal (family house pets only) including: (1) complete wellness care, (2) diagnostic and medical pre,
(3) dentistry, (4) surgery, (5) radiology and ultrasound; and (6) emergency services.
B. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the existing and potential future land use character of the
vicinity:
The facility's outside appearance will be similar to any general or medics! office use building. The only identification of its use
will be the building's signage. The current use is office and its appearance will not change.
C. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan and, if applicable, how the proposed
rezoning meets the criteria for Planned Districts [Section 153.052(8)]:
This is a neighborhood office park providing medical, financial, design and other similar uses. The proposed use is compatible
with the other office business uses within the park and provides veterinary services to the local residents.
D. Briefly address how the proposed rezoning and development meet the review criteria for Preliminary Develop~~ _
the Planning anc! Zoning Commission as stated in [Section i53,055(A)J (SEE ATTACHMENT A):
The proposed veterinary medical office use is within an established h . r , o c : In ead meets the Cit 's
~gL9.1?Q;~Q~~ ~ ~ ~p~I~(.~~ Y Y
Comprehensive Plan. There are no changes to the existing building or side. _ , _, , ~ .~ ,, :,;,,,,,
Page
Has a previous application to rezone the property been denied by City Council within the last twelve months? ^ YAS ^ NO
If yes, list when and state the basis for reconsideration as noted by Section 153.234(A)(3):
1V. PLEASE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FOR INITIAL STAFF REVIEW: Please submit large (24X36} and small (11X17) sets of
plans- Please make sure all plans are stapled and collated. Large plans should also be folded. Staff may later request plans that incorporate review
comments. Fourteen (14) additional copies of revised submittals are required Tor the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing.
nj TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS,ANf~MIR-T€L~3~ COPIES Please notarize agent authorization, if
necessary.
1 COPY
® F~ (14) COPIES" OF A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
1 Copy
^ " OF A TAX PARCEL ID MAP indicating property owners and parcel numbers for all parcels within 500 FEET of
the site (Maximum Size 11X17). Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance.
R1ES OF A LIST OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET of the perimeter of the property
based on the County Auditor's current tax list, including parcel number, owner name (not Mortgage Company or Tax Service), and address
(Maximum Size 11X17). It is the policy of the City of Dublin to notify surrounding property owners of pending applications under public
review. Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance.
[~ FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF THE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
^ FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF SCALED SITE/STAKING PLANS SHOWING:
a. North arrow and bar scale.
b. Location, size and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping,
structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking).
c. Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, number of dweNings, building unit types, square footages, parking,
open space, etc.).
d. Size of the site in acres/square feet.
e. All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights-of-way, easements, and other information related to the site.
f. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries.
g. Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties.
^ IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING SCALED
PLANS:
a. Grading Plan.
b. Landscaping Plan. plus Fourteen (14) Small (8'/sX11) Copies of the Parking Plan
c. Lighting Plan.
d. Utility and/or Stormwater Plan.
e. Tree Survey, Tree Preservation and Tree Replacement
^ IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) SCALED, ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS
with proposed colors and materials noted.
[~ IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X38) COPIES OF SCALED DRAWINGS
SHOtMNG:
a. Location of signs and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window).
b. Sign dimensions, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grade.
c. Copy layout and lettering styles (fonts) of signage.
d. Materials and manufacturer to be used in fabrication.
e. Total area of sign face (including frame)
f. Type of illumination
^ MATERIAUCOLOR SAMPLES (swatches, photos, plans, or product specifications). Include manufacturer name and product number.
Page 2 of 5
V. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER(S): This section must be completed. Please attach additional sheets if needed.
Name (Individual or Organization): COnfettl ConC@ptS, LLC, Timothy Bachman, Managing Member
Mailing address: 6001 Memorical Drive, Dublin, OH 43017
(Street, City, State, Tip Code}
Daytime Telephone: 614-793-9984 Fax: 614-793-1607
Email or Alternate Contact Information: tbaChman@baChmanld.COm
VI. APPLICANT: Please complete if applicable. This is the person(s) who is requesting the zone change it different than the
owner(';).
Name: Muifield Memorial Enterprises, LLC, Joseph W. Starlta, Managing Member
organization (owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): Muirfield Meforial Enterprises, LLC
Mailing Address: 5831 Red Winesap Way, Dublin, OH 43016
(Street, City, State, Zip Code)
Daytime Telephone: g37-243-2979 Fax: 614-319-3038
Email or Alternate Contact Information: JmStaflta~aOl.COm
VII. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF OWN ER/APPLICANT: Please complete if applicable. This is the primary contact person who will
receive correspondence regarding this application. If needed, attach additional sheets for multiple representatives.
Name: John (Jade) H. Tumer
organization: Cotdwell Banker Commercial NRT
Mailing Address: 3455 Mill Run Road, Suite 105, Hilliard, OH 43026
(Street, City, State, Zip Code)
Daytime Telephone: 614-832-5790 Fax: 614-889-7859
Email or Alternate Contact Information: )tufneCRE~COIUfrIbuS.fr.COm
Page 3 of 5
Vill. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE(S): If the applicant is not the property owner, this
Confetti Concepts, LLC, Timothy Bachman, Managing Member the owner, hereby authorize
Muirfield Memorial Enterprises, LLC, Joseph W. Starita, Managing MerTtber to act as my applicantlrepresentative(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:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 20 Q
of -
State of ~ ~~~i,l,~',RW,~~''My
County of ~ / ,p.`, ,_ ~'~~ ` - - Notary Public ~~ i (G~ ~ ~ Q ~, ,-, ~ ~(JTM T~
~!L-_
~ Hory Pl,a~, sdra~o~
~ calill~oll 6piw a,~o~tz
IX. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City repres • vr~s are essential to prceess this
application. The Owner/Appi icant, as notarized below. hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the
property described in this application.
I John (Jack) Fi Turner acting as authorized representative for the Applicant ,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 trite and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature of applicant or authorized representative:/~/ " `"/ ~,/.c~t~^~-~ I Dats: L~
/~
Subscribed and sworn to before me tl-is ~.~ h1'C day of ~, ~ ~ ,20
State of L~f~~-(.G.
County of `~~iL fit Notary Public'~~L ~ ~`. ~ - - ~-~O~;i. ~(.c ~~ ._- -_--
I* ~Y~ed~Of~O
~ GOB Ei~ a-~Dt2
NOTE: THE OWNER, OR NOTED REPRESENTATIVE IF APPLICABLE, WILL RECENE A FACSIMILE ~=!??~r-1I~~R~iJC~ ttECEIPT OF THIS APPLICATION
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Amount ce~v :/n ; Application No: ~IQ' _O~~ & ate(s): P8Z Action:
Receipt No: i~4iS-Fee•Ale: L
~O~ .. Date Received: ~ ~LL_I ~ ~ Received By: TiQ ,
`J I'~-
Type of Request: ~ ~ I~ ' ~
T (l~ (~f ~/~~ J
L
N®E~Circle) ~e of: ~Ly ~ ~/ „ ,, / ~ _ ~~,_ ~
I~t/VC LYV [[[ ~`~/
Nearest Intersection:
Distance from Nearest Intersection:
Page 4 of 5
0
~' w C J ~ J 9 J ~~i. ~ J
~ -d n -i ~n J 41 .1 ~ ~ "~
G ^ ~ ~ ~ tv ~ .v --
~_ ~~a
~~~°_. ~~ d o '~~°o yam
3~ inio c c"p' rio ro~~
'~ Cf ~ lv S 7' f!1 ~ ~ ~ d
...
~ as ~ °_ °~ ~ n C _• a
u, .. 7 t
d `~ ~ r". e. tC
a .~ „~ y ~ ~ Q ~o
~ _. ~ ~ o a
y 7 9 G C~
n z' a ~ ? < a'
c''o c`o ~c o =~
m m° . ~ m
3 =. ~ ~ _ ~ ~
R .. ~~n ~-
~ 0 ~ ~ O
A 'O T y ~ m
O ~ 7 ~ H
Vl
y O n m <, ~
~ 3 N O~ ~
to Q ~ d ^-
°, e~i ~ to e?
~ 3 ? ~+ ~ m
tD 1 P7 d ,Z,~, d
o `° a ~ ~' ,
f°_ vi ~ ~ ~ m
A l0 fD w '•~
~ ~ Q ~ ~ V ~
`~ O1 ~ VI ?
d n
~a ~r1G < ~
m ~ a~'in ~p C.
o ";:. ;?
~ ~ .. fD cp ~ C
y~ ~.° ~~
aA ~~~ vd
~ ~ fp ~ d ~ ~
~a :35. '?A
.: ~ o ~ ~ 55 0
A .A. y R 7 T
W
d ~ dy. ~ d
3`~om ~~
c -. Q !" ~ ~
~ ~, ~ y
fD ~' G C1 t9 N
~ ~ ~ Q ~ n
O
_ ~ ~ iw 0 N
in ~ ~ a
W
ei < ~ d !w
~. ~ ~ m T
.. A .". K n
.°.' ~ . ~ a
y p y d
^. s d
T ~ T Q
~ ?;~ ro
m `a ~
~ -
a. ~
v,aa a -~ v
~ ~, C C ~ O
a~ ~ a
~ w d :i y
~ "dam m 'n N w
7 ~ ? Q O G
n' O t'9 ~
a ~? ~ a a
d ,~ ~ J y
c ~, ~
d
A -
.D '"
C
=°, '< ~
o rv
~
r
? ; m o :;
A ~ y y r .a
3 d C `~ io d
~P1 1
:i C y N ~
01 d N ~ w .r
~ ~' A ~ ~ O
V? ~. O > > n
d 7
~ ~
_ G
ID
. w, ~ Ca ~
n ~ 1 ~ ~ ~
n ~ ~ ~ ~
a °: ° .o ~ c
~
_ Ul 1
~e
y .~ ~ C "~
Q V1 ~ N
k ° °_
~ ~ ~ .o
O N
~ ~
ma p~' cop` b
~i ~'o a ~' o. n
G ~ n `t y .y.
°: ~~ an
~ = y A N
d y ~ p
~ f
~, ~ ~ <
1 G ^-
? a d ~ n r
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
d A C 7 ~
? -~ °.
? A 'S ~ d
to ~. ~ ? e~
d
~ d + v
~ c v
_.
< .~ VI ~w Q'
~ d a~+ 1f N
!'~'
'~ < 19 ~ Q
i'C d d _
? c ~ N
~. 1
d _. o. A
~
A ~ Iw
~v
_ d
a
r ~ ~
d ~ a
W -
d
... ~
y
'~ I
a'n~?:° of
?~~3 ;;I
~~c-y D nc
Ol p Q 1 I 7
. ~v ~
d ~ n n 'T]
r~a.x.3 D I m
-~ N ~* N
~i ~ ?~ T Z
n~o~ rtil L
~t»3 DI J
-„~ I v_
~ A ~ I T
~'~~o I ~
~o~~o I Z
~~~~ I a
is~'°a I D
M ~ n ~
3,~~o I U
'C 1/1 fD I ~
~ t ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ A I
-d I
o ,. ~ I
~~~ I
~:.N I
d~~ I
~ m n I
a~ 3 I
~_'
„ ~o d I
~~ i
~ca~ I
April 3, 1993
DESCRIPTION OF 1.396 ACRES
30L7Tfi ~F MUIRFZELD DRIVE
EAST OF MEMORIAL DRIVE
DUBLIN, OHIO
Situated in the State of Ohio, County o! Franklin, City•
of Dublin, in Virginia Military Survey No. ZS45 and being
1.398 acres o! that original 10.600 acre tract as described
in a deed to Marietta Hotel Corporation, of record in
Official Record volume 1904'6, Bage C05, RaCOrdes's Office,
Franklin County, Ohio, and being more particailaxly described.
FOR REFERENCE, at an iron pies found at flee
rner aS said 20.600 acre tract and in the
having a radius of lOB0.00 feet, a central angle of 16" 24`
41", thn chord of which bears Nvrth 31° 32' 39" East, a
chord distance of SOa.~O Pest to a point? then Noxh 210 20'
18" East, continuing along said right-of-way line, a
distance of 215.11 feat to the TRUE POINT OY BEGINNING:
Thence North 230 20' 18" East, continuing along said
right-of-way line, a distance 203.35 feet to a point of
Thence with the nrc.of.a curve to the right, having a
rndiua of 35.00 feet, a central angle of 920 42` ~2", the
chord o2 which bears North 69° 41' 44K East, a chord
clistanca of 50.56 feet to a paint of compoand curvature in
the right-of-way line o! Muirfield Drivel
Thence with the arc of a curve to the r~ght, having a
radius oS 14C7.39 feat, a een~zal angls.of 9 49' 40", the
chord or which bears South 59 01' S4" fast, a chord
distance of 241.18 feet to a point;
Thence through said.. 10.600 aere.tract with a nnw
division line the fol2oKing two courses:
1. South 440 00' 00" West, a distance of 290.30 feet
to a point;
2. North 460 00' ODh West, a distance at 185.18 feet
to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and containing
1.398 acres of Land.
Bearings herein canfoz~a to those of the referenced
deed.
This description was prepared by M-E Engineering, Inc.,
Civil Division, based actual-field information.
•~~F, M-E Engineering, Inc.
~~ ~_- •', ~~ Civil, Division
~:.
:~ ~: y t_
`~• • ~ ?' ~'~ •1~_ Registered Su ve or No. 6872
RS~i:tmp/9231532.398/71
RECE~~E~
~~=<<~?.zGOOa
~N~r~ur uuuu v' ~`~
LANQ l1SE &
.ONG RAiJGF ~'E.SiidfJfivv
~~~~
CITY Ur uuuLlA'
LP.tr'C USF &
_aNG RAIJGE °LAIJiJIIJG
Proximity Report 300 Ft. Aroound Perimeter of Parcel tVo. 273-006597
Map P
l P
l A Name
O Mail Address
uD arce arce
ddress wner Street City, State 8 Zip
1 273-006597 6001 Memorial Drive Confetti Concepts LLC 6D01 Memorial Drive Dublin, OH 43017
2 273-006598 6025-6035 Memorial Dr Vouli Partners LLC 211 Meadow Ln Springf~ekf, OH 45505
3 273-D06599 6045-6051 Memorial Ur Pediatric linvestrnents, LLC 6051 Memorial Dr Dublin, OH 43017
4 273-00660D 6065-6075 Memorral Dr 6065 Memorial Drive LLC 60656-075 Memorial Dr Dublin, OH 43017
5 273-006601 6085 Memorial Dr Vouli Partners LLC 211 Meadow Ln Springfield, OH 45505
6 273-006602 6105 Memorial Dr Fanning John F & Linda N Fanning 1100 Notchbrook Dr Delaware OH 43015 _
7 273-006603 6125 Memorial Dr Meeder Aset Management, Inc. 6125 Memorial Dr Dublin, OH 43D17
8 273-006605 6135 Memorial Dr Muirfield Partners Limited 6012 Glenfinnan Ct Dublin, OH 43017
8 273-006604 6189 Memorial Dr William E Davis III 9529 Washington Waterloo Washington CH,
OH 43160
10
11 273-003251
273-003252 5762-5074 Berkshire Ct
5786-5098 Berkshire Ci
Ann H Casto Pace Financial Group,
LLC,191 W Nationwide Blvd,
Ste 150 Columbus, OH 43215-
2528
12 273-003253 5812-5822 Berkshire Ct Zachary C Kirk Ackley Stanford, Wallace
Ackley, 695 Kernvick Rd Columbus, OH 43209
13 273.001531 6059 Cromdale Dr Cromdale Partners LLC 5973 Macewen Ct Dublin, OH 43017
14 273-000333 6000 Memorial Dr Robinson Building. LLC 5088 Washington St W Charleston, WV 25313
15 273-000639 5959 W St Pillars Ct Mikki & Lois J Reese 5959 W St Fillans Ct Dublin, OH 43017
16 273-QD0638 5947 W St Pillars Ct Wesley A & Patrica S Herc2eg 5947 W St Fillans Ct Dublin, OH 43017
17 273-OD0637 5935 W St Fillans Ct Tricia C & Gregory Shinnick 5935 W St Fitlans Ct Dublin, OH 43017
18 273-00063fi 5927 W St Pillars Ct Alain J & Catherine Leas 5927 W St Fii Ions Ct Dublin, ON 43017
19 273-001322 8551 Pitlochry Ct Gary W 8 Jacqueline K Huston 8551 Pitlochry Ct Dublin, OH 43017
20 273-001323 8547 Pitlochry Ct Louis V & Peggy L Pace 8547 Pitlochry Ct Dublin, OH 43017
21 273-001324 8543 Pitlochry Ct Richard P & Jennifer T Gaffey 8543 Pitlochry Ct Dublin, OH 43017
Page 1 of 2
Neighbor Proximity Report
300 feet Around Perimeter of Parcel No. 273-006597
Parcel Address: 6001 Memorial Drive, Dublin, OH 43017
Source: Franklin Count Auditor's Real Estate Web Site
Proximity Report 300 f`t. Arround Perimeter of Parce! No. 273-806597
~'p N
O Mail Address
~~ Parcei Parcel Address wner
ame Str+eet City, State 8 Zip
22 273-001325 8533 Pitlochry Ct John D JR 8 Etyse C Keith 8533 Pitlochry Ct Dublin, OH 43017
23 273-001326 8531 Pitlochry Ct _
Robert L Higgins 8531 Pitiochry Ct Dublin, OH 43017
24
273-001327
8527 Pittochry Gt
Sean R 8 Isabel C Rueter
_ ZC Starting Tax Solutions,
Suite 400, 2101nterstate
North Pkwy
Atlanta GA 30339-2111
25 273-001328 8525 Pdtochry Ct Stump Jon W iR 8525 Pitlochry Ct Dublin, OH 43017
26 273-001329 8524 Pitk~Chry Ct Brett Flunton 8524 Pitkx:hry Ct Dublin, OH 43017
27 273-000894 8520 Gullane Ct John D 8 Beverly J Peiton 8520 Gullane Ct Dublin, OH 43017
28 273-000893 8525 Gugane Ct Nancy S L~her 8525 Gullane Ct Dublin, OH 43017
29 273-000892 8515 Gullane Ct Edwin D & Ruth A Sweeny 8515 Gullane Ct DubGn, OH 43017
30 273-000909 _
8505 Gullane Ct Robert F 8 Dorothy W Krause TR 8505 Gugane Ct Dubfin, OH 43017
31 273-001341 Pitlochry Ct Com Area Muirfield Association, Inc.
32 273-000911 Gullane Ct Com area MuirField Association, tnc.
33 273-000913 Muirfield Dr Com Area Muirfield Association, Inc.
Attn: Sue Leonad
34
273-000910
Muirfield Dr Com Area
Muirfield Association, Inc. ,
8372 Muirfieid Dr Dublin, OH 43017
35 273-001339 Muirfield Dr Gom Area Muirfietd Association, Inc.
36 273-000778 Muirfield Dr Com Area Muirfield Association, Inc.
Page 2 of 2
REVISED SINCE JULY 10 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
PROPOSED TEXT
MUIRFIELD VILLAGE SQUARE LOT 1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUDI
Re: Case 08-033ZJFDP - Mui~eki Village Square Veterinary Hospital
Introduction
August 4, 2008
The subject property is Muirfietd Square Lot 1 bcated at 6001 Memorial Drive within
Muirfield Square at the intersection of MuirfiekJ and Memorial Drives. The property
consists of 1.398 acres containing an existing freestanding commercial office-retail
building with approximately 3,850 square feet and 41-parking spaces. The topography
is flat with a landscaped mound abng both Memorial and Muirfield Drives. This plan will
serve to rezone the property to permit a veterinary use and minor exterior modifications
to the building and site including landscaping and signs.
11. Permitted and Conditional Uses
The site was zoned for commercial use as part of the Muirfietd Village Planned Unit
Devebpment District in 1973 (ORD 26-73). Specific uses were designated for the site
through a Final Devebpment Plan for Muirfield Square in 1986 (OT-282). Muirfield
Square was originally devebped as a neighborhood shopping center with a mix of retail
and non-retail uses and now consists primarily of office uses. The subject property was
originaAy used as a financial institution with adrive-thru facility and is currently used as
an office for professional architectural services.
A. Permitted Uses:
1. Business and Professional Office Uses permitted in Chapter 153.027,
Neighborhood Commercial District.
2. Offices of veterinarians and animal hospitals consisting of primary health
care services for smaN animal (famiy house pets only), including:
a. Complete wellness care
b. Diagnostic and medical care
c. Radiobgy and ultrasound
d. Surgery
e. Urgent Care
f. Recovery and Isolations (permitted ony fior patients requiring
treatment or recovering overnight, or until stabilized enough to be
taken home)
g. Pet supplies and food sales in association with a permitted
veterinary use
Page 1 of 7
RECEIVED
X15 SUE3MITTED TO COUNCIL JUL 2 4 2008
~~ ~(~~ Og - 033 Z/rr~t~
7"3~"~~F~^,R MEETING ON Cllr ur u~o~.;,V
I.[~NG RANGE PANNING
PROPOSED TEXT
Muirfield Village Square Lot 1 Veterinary Hospital
Rezoning and Amended Planned Development District (PUD)
August 4, 2008
B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be allowed in this PUD subject to
approval in accordance with Code Section 153.236. All conditional uses will
require a traffic impact study, as determined by the City Engineer.
1. Retail Stores and Personal Service Uses permitted in Chapter 153.027,
Neighborhood Commercial District.
2. Additional retail and personal service uses permitted by the original
Muirfield Square Final Development Plan (OT 282):
a. Clothing and furnishing stores
b. Accessory and specialty stores
c. Shoe stores
d. Custom tailor
e. Furrier and fur shops
f. Book and stationary stores
g. Sporting goods stores
h. Jewelry Stores
i. Camera and photographic supply stores
j. Optical goods stores
k. Savings and loan associations
I. Accounting services
k. Art studio or gallery
3. Pet-grooming services
4. A drive-thru facility in association with a permitted use other than the
delivery of patients for permitted veterinary urgent care services.
5. Outdoor service facilities in association with a permitted use
C. Prohibited Uses and Limitations: Pet day care, kenneling or boarding services
for purposes, other than recovery and isolation as described above, shall not
be permitted in this PUD. Enclosures shall not be permitted to contain
animals external to the building.
Ili. Density
A. Building Size: The maximum aggregate facility density exclusive of porch and
terrace areas, unless used as outdoor service facilities for permitted and
conditional uses, shall not exceed 5,000 square feet per acre. The maximum
facility size for Lot 1 is 6,990 square feet.
Page 2 of 7
PROPOSED TEXT
Muirfield Village Square Lot 1 Veterinary Hospital
Rezoning and Amended Planned Development District (PUD)
August 4, 2008
B. Any Increase in Facility Size: Any increase in facility size, excluding the
enclosure of the front entrance canopy, shall require a traffic impact studyas
determined by the City Engineer.
C. Lot Coverage: The maximum pem~itted lot coverage of impervious surfaces is
70%.
N. Setback and Height Requirements
A. Unless otherwise set forth in this text or approved as a part of the final
development plan, all setback, encroachment and height requirements shall
be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the City of Dublin Zoning
Code.
B. Required minimum setbacks from the property boundaries for Muirfield
Square Lot 1, 6001 Memorial Drive, shall be:
1. Pavement setback along Mui~eld Drive shall be 50 feet as established
by the Muirfield Square Plat.
2. Building setback along Muirfield Drive shalt be 140 feet as established
by the Muirfield Square Plat.
3. Building and pavement setback along Memorial Drive shall be 40 feet as
established by the Muirfield Square Plat.
4. Building side yard setback from Muirfield Square Lot 2, 6035 Memorial
Drive, shall be 5 feet.
5. Building rear yard setback from Muirfield Square Lot 6, 6105 Memorial
Drive, shall be 40 feet.
6. There shall be no required pavement setbacks along property lines
internal to the Muirfield Square development (adjacent to Lots 2 and 6).
C. Encroachments into the 140-foot building setback may be permitted up to
three feet within the area covered by the existing front entrance canopy. The
front entrance canopy may be enclosed within this area. All other
encroachments must conform to City of Dublin Code requirements.
D. The maximum building height within the property shah be thirty-five (35) feet,
as measured per the City of Dublin Zoning Code.
Page 3 of 7
PROPOSED TEXT
Muirfield Village Square Lot 1 Veterinary Hospital
Rezoning and Amended Planned Development District (PUD}
August 4, 2008
V. Parking and Loading
A. All parking and loading shall be regulated by City of Dublin Zoning Code
Section 153.200 et seq.
VI. Access and Circulation
Unless otherwise stated herein or approved as a part of the final development plan, all
circulation shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the City of Dublin
Zoning Code.
A. The existing right-of-way along Muirfield Drive is one hundred (100) feet. No
additional right-of-way is currently required.
B. The existing right-of--way along Memorial Drive is sixty (60) feet. No
additional right-of-way is currently required.
C, No curb cuts shall be permitted on Muirfield Drive or Memorial Drive for this
site. Full access to and from this site steal! continue to be provided through
existing cross easements for Muirfield Village Square and through shared
drives as shown on the final development plan.
D. All internal circulation shall occur via private drives and shall be maintained
according to existing easements and restrictions. Modifications to existing
private drives shall be subject to final deveopment plan approval.
E. The existing drive-thru lanes on the property may be used for delivery of
injured or ill pets to an urgent care entrance located under the drive-thru
canopy, subject to final development plan approval. The delivery vehicle,
after delivery of the urgent care patient(s), shall park in existing parking
spaces and not in the drive-thru lanes.
V11. Screening
A. The existing perimeter mounding along Muirfield and Memorial Drives
provides screening to residential uses and shall be maintained as such.
B. All non-biohazardous waste shall be placed in containers and shall be fully
screened from view by the fenced service area located to the rear of and
attached to the facility in accordance with Dublin City Code and subject to
final development plan approval.
Page 4 of 7
PROPOSED TEXT
Muirfield Village Square Lot 1 Veterinary Hospital
Rezoning and Amended Planned Development District (PUD)
August 4, 2008
C. No materials, supplies, equipment or products other than waste materials
shall be stored or permitted to remain on portions of the site outside of the
building.
VIII. Landscaping
A. Unless otherwise stated herein, landscaping in this PUD shall conform to the
Dublin Landscape Code Section 153.130 et seq.
B. Landscaping on this site shall be maintained according to existing easements
and restrictions.
C. The facility staff of an office of veterinarians and animal hospital shall not use
the perimeter mounds within Muirfield Square for pet relief.
D. This property shall be exempt from vehicular use area screening
requirements along property lines internal to the Muirfield Square
Development.
IX. Lighting
A. All modifications to existing exterior site and building lighting shall comply with
the City of Dublin Zoning Code, Section 153.149, Exterior Lighting
Requirements.
B. Exterior light fixtures may be pose or wall mounted, dark in color, and shall
consistently utilize similar types and styles.
C. All interior lighting visible from the exterior shall be dimmed or extinguished
after normal business hours.
D. Lighting shall be maintained according to existing easements and restrictions.
X. Architecture
A. Existing architecture in this PUD is of a high quality and is residential in style.
All buildings within Muirfield Square are constructed primarily of stained cedar
with stone accents, tinted glass panels, and a cedar shake roof. All building
materials shall be the same or similar to the colors and style of the existing
building
Page 5 of 7
PROPOSED TEXT
Muirfield Village Square Lot 1 Veterinary Hospital
Rezoning and Amended Planned Development District (PUD)
August 4, 2008
B. Buildings and all additions to the existing building shall utilize four-sided
architecture and building materials shall be consistent on all sides of a
building.
XI. Signs
A. Except otherwise stated herein, signs shall conform to the City of Dublin
Zoning Code, Section 153.150 et seq., Sign Regulations.
B. A sign plan shall be submitted for review as part of the preliminary and final
development plans. Signs shall be in accordance with that which is approved
as part of the final development plan.
C. Permitted sign colors include white text on an opaque light grey-bronzetone
background to match the existing Muirfield Square center identification
monument signs. All tenant signs must be similar in style, using consistent
font type and background colors.
D. The existing Muirfield Square center identification monument sign shall
remain on Lot 1.
XII. Noise and Odor Control
A. Except otherwise stated herein, noise and odor shall be controlled according
to City of Dublin Zoning Code Section 153.076, Public Nuisance Regulations.
B. Noise and odor control measures shall be submitted for review as part of the
preliminary and final development plans. Such measures shall be in
accordance with that which is approved as part of the final development plan.
1. Noise control: No noise disturbances shall be permitted within Muirfield
Square. In this commercial PUD the re#ail, office or veterinary uses
sound pressure levels, as measured by dosimeter, shall not exceed 55
dBA at the property line except for the Lot 1 located at the intersection of
Muirfield and Memorial Drives.
a. Lot 1 sound pressure levels shall be measured (1) behind the
pavement curbs adjacent to the earthen mounds located on the Lot
1 boundaries along both Murrfield and Memorial Drives and (2) at
its southeast and southwest property lines.
Page 6 of 7
PROPOSED TEXT
Muirfield Village Square Lot 1 Veterinary Hospital
Rezoning and Amended Planned Development District (PUD)
August 4, 2008
b. Noise control compliance evidence shall be submitted for review as
part of the process to obtain a building permit and an occupancy
permit.
(1) Compliance to Receive the Building Permit. The design-build
contractor shall submit construction documents with
certification by a licensed professional sound engineer that the
design meets the established noise standard. The documents
shall also provide wall section and ceiling details and
specifications to confirm that the required soundproofing has
been designed into the facility
(2) Compliance to Receive the Occupancy Permit. The design-
build contractor shall have a physical noise compliance testing
done upon completion of construction and provide a written
report to the City of Dublin that confirms that the Established
Noise Standards have been met. The Occupancy Permit shall
be issued upon proof that the facility is in compliance with the
established noise standard and building codes.
2. Odor control: No odor nuisances shall be permitted with Muirfield Square
and any organic or other odor producing materials shall be controlled
and the wastes picked~p and/or disposed of on a regulary scheduled
basis. All biohazardous and pathological medical waste, specimens and
remains shall be contained in industry-standard biohazard waste
containers and/or freezers within the building, to be removed from the
site on a regularly scheduled basis. Biohazardous waste shall not be
stored external to the building.
Page 7 of 7
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
JULY 10, 2008
CITY OF DUBLIN.
-aa u» ana
tort' ~. norms
5800 Shier-Rings Road
Oubfin. Ohio 1301 b• 1236
Phone/ TDO: 614.410.!600
fox: 6 1 411 0-474 7
Web Sifa: www.dublin.oh.us
Creating a legacy
3. Muirfield Square -Veterinary Hospital 6001 Memorial Drive
08-033Z/FDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
Final Development Plan
Proposal: A veterinary clinic in Lot 1 of Muirfield Square, located at the
southwest corner of Muirfield Drive and Memorial Drive.
Request: Review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan
and a final development plan under the Planned District provisions
of Code Section 153.050.
Applicant: Muirfield Memorial Enterprises, LLC; represented by John H.
Turner, Coldwell Banker Commercial NRT.
Planning Contact: Justin Goodwin, Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4677, jgoodwin@dublin.oh.us
MOTION #1: To approved this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan because it complies
with the review criteria and the existing development standards within the area, with one
condition:
1) That the text be modified to prohibit the use of the perimeter mounds for pet relief
by the facility staff.
*John Turner, ageed with the above condition.
VOTE #1: 5 - 0.
Page 1 of 2
it;~ '~l1!iMIT7Ep TO CQUNCIL
731-Q~I Ufa MEETING UN.1~"r~D
PI,ANNiNG AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
JULY 10, 2008
3. Muirfield Square -Veterinary Hospital 6001 Memorial Drive
08-033Z/FDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
Continued Final Development Plan
MOTION #2: To approve this Final Development Plan application because it complies with
the review criteria and the existing development standards within the area, with five conditions:
1) That landscaping comply with Code and is coordinated with the larger Muirfield Square
landscape plan, subject to Planning approval;
2) That inconsistencies between the site and landscape plans be corrected and submitted to
Planning prior to submitting for a building permit;
3) That the directional sign and Urgent Care pendant sign be modified to identify the nature
of the Urgent Care as described in the planning report, subject to Planning approval;
4) That the Urgent Care pendant sign be reduced in size and configured to minimize conflict
with vehicles beneath the Urgent Care entrance canopy, subject to Planning approval;
5) That the seven parking spaces to the northwest of the building be converted to open
space, subject to Planning approval.
*John Turner, agreed with the above conditions.
VOTE #2: 5 - 0.
RESULT: This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan and Final Development Plan
application was approved.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
L `1~~_ C~
ustin Goodwin
Planner
Page 2 of 2
Dublin Planning and %oninb Commission
July 10, 2008 -Minutes
~~~~ Page5ofl4
Mr. Walter made the tion to table this Corridor evelopment District Si application in
order to allow the a licant to modify the font d materials for the signs. r. Zimmerman
seconded the mot' n. The vote was as t~~llow . Ms. Amorose Groomes, s; Mr. Taylor, yes;
Mr. Fishman, y ; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; an r. Walter, yes. (Tabled 5 0.)
2. akes at Ballantrae Eiterman Ro
08-049AFDP ended Final Development an
T ddLimmerman swore in e applicant, Michelle H tines, Duffy Properties, L ., City
representatives, and all oth ~ s who wished to speak in gards to this case. The Co issioncrs
chose to forego the pre ntation on this consent ca Ms. Huffines agreed to th - condition as
listed below.
Motion and V e
Mr. Zimme an made the motion to ap ove this Amended Final Dev opment Plan because it
complies nth the review criteria and a existing development sta ards within the area, with
one co ition:
1 That Certificates of Z tng Plan Approval be obtai for all existing patios no 1 r than
November 1 U, 200
Ms. Amorose Groo s seconded the motion. Tl vote was as follows: Mr. ylor, yes; Mr.
Fishman, yes; Walter, yes; Ms. Amoco e Groomes, yes; and Mr. immerman; yes.
(Approved 5 -
3. Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital 6001 Memorial Drive
08-0332/FDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
Final Development Plan
Todd Zimmerman swore in John H. Turner, Coldwell Banker Commercial NRT, representing the
applicant, Muirfield Memorial Enterprises, LLC, City representatives, and all others who wished
to speak in regards to this case.
As requested by the Commissioners, Justin Goodwin presented a brief overview of this request
for review and approval of a rezoning and a final development plan to allow a veterinary hospital
use and minor modifications to an existing 3,850 square-foot building located in the
northernmost portion of Muirfield Square, within the Muirfield Village Planned Unit
Development District. Mr. Goodwin said at the May 15, 2008 Work Session, there was
particular discussion regarding the provision of adequate open space for animal use at the site.
He said the site had approximately 48 percent open space, about 22,000 square feet of that
located within the perimeter mounding along Memorial Drive and Muirfield Drive. IIe said
there is also approximately 1,100 square feet of irregularly shaped lawn area to the northwest of
the building which was a particular point of discussion at the Work Session. He said the
Commissioners expressed interest in expanding the lawn area to provide for greater open space
immediately adjacent to the building and requested more information regarding the desigm
;~ SlIt3MITTED TO COUQN'C~I~L ~,~
7~`0~FUi~ MEETING ON.~~=s'
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
July 10, 2008 -Minutes
Page h of 14
standards and construction techniques for noise control. He stated there was also some
discussion regarding outdoor animal waste control.
John Turner, representing the applicant, recalled that at the Work Session, the Commissioners
were interested in noise and odor control, as well as dog exercise and green space. He said the
applicant has provided revised plans outlining the details of'how noise will be handled. He said
the development text has been revised to require a noise study that will measure sound on the
boundaries and the applicant will submit a written report prior to gaining the occupancy permit.
He said noise was a very valid concern, but lle did not think there will be a high decibel problem
and the City could check on the noise levels after occupancy.
Mr. Turner said regarding the waste and odor concerns, they have provided details and
supplemental material to the Commission to explain how it is collected and picked up. He did
not think there would be any problem regarding odor control. He said anything that would
generate odor would be stored inside until it is picked up.
Mr. Turner said they will supply the pickup materials and disposal for pet owners to use when a
pet uses the lawn. He said benches will be provided for pet owners to rest while their leashed pet
visits the green space. He said the green space available totals about 5,000 square feet. He said
pet patients will be taken out regularly and staff will pick up after them. Mr. Turner explained
that certain animals will need exercise therapy that will take place inside. Mr. Turner said many
of the nearby residents use the mounds to exercise their dogs regularly. However, he said the
hospital will police those mounds to make sure they are kept clean.
Mr. Turner said they do not feel it is necessary to remove the paved area to expand the green
space because of the type of patients they have.
Mr. Zimmerman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in regards to this application.
['T'here was no one.]
Mr. Walter said he appreciated the effort that Mr. Turner went through to work with the
Muirfield Civic Association and take their needs into consideration. lie said the information on
sound proofing and waste handling provided a lot of detail which he was very pleased.
However, he said he was very displeased with the open space. He said he thought the
Commission was specific about the desire for that open space and expressed his disappointment
of the lack of the open space in that specific area.
Mr. Turner said he had an eleven-page report on the green space available and he said they did
not ignore the Commission's concern. Mr. Zimmerman explained that if that report were
presented this evening to the Commission, this case would have to be tabled so the Commission
and Planning could review it.
Mr. Fishman agreed with Mr. Walter and the lack of open space was the only objection. He said
he was going to propose a condition of approval to require the green space be maximized and
never removed.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
July 10, 2008 -Minutes
Page 7 of l4
Mr. Fishman said he recently attended a Muirtield Association meeting where they indicated that
they were very happy with this use.
Chris Amorose Groomes agreed with the comments made. She estimated that according to the
traffic count provided, there could be as many as 50 animals brought in per day, and the green
space provided for them to relieve themselves would be very tight. She said she had lived within
several hundred yards of this facility for a number of years and has not seen anyone walk an
animal on the mound. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not think the residents would want to
see the staff taking animals out adjacent to the busy roads. She said the safety issues are
si~ificantly increased at the corner with the proximity to the traffic. She stated she was not in
favor of this application without the increased green space and she did not want to see any
facility employees walking animals adjacent to Muirfield or Memorial Drives. She did not think
it was safe or fit with the neighborhood.
Mr. Fishman added it would be unattractive to have pets use the mounds and he was concerned
that animals would damage the existing trees and vegetation on the mounds.
Mr. Turner clarified that the vet hospital will not use those mounds for the animals, but they
would use the green space around the building.
Mr. Taylor said he did not think that the vet hospital's responsibility of providing adequate green
space has been done and there was room for improvement. He commented that he was impressed
by the sound control documentation provided and thanked the applicant for it.
Mr. Walter said he was inclined to be in favor of this application, given the condition that the
eight parking spaces are eliminated on the northwestern edge of the property and that they be
replaced with green space.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there could be a condition added to prevent animals from being
taken onto green space that is outside the perimeter of the parking area. Ms. Readier said that
could be included in the text as a condition, and then it would be an enforcement issue.
Mr. Fishman asked if the Commission could condition that the green space can never be
eliminated. Ms. Readier said the City could not prevent someone from providing a revised plan
in the future and requesting the Commission to change that plan. She said a future Commission
cannot be bound by saying that it never can be changed; it would have to come back as another
application.
Mr. Zimmerman said he had looked at the green space provided for animals at two clinics in
Dublin and one in Upper Arlington and noted that their sizes varied. He said he was told by staff
at the Upper Arlington vet clinic that regardless the size of the green space, it must be constantly
cleaned and maintained. He said he could live with the size of the green space on the north side,
as long as that minimum of square foot available was maintained without using the mounds. Mr.
"Zimmerman pointed out that the Urgent Care signs should identify that it is a veterinary urgent
care facility.
Dublin Planning and Toning Commission
July 10, 2008 -Minutes
Page 8 of 14
Mr. Langworthy suggested that Mr. Zimmerman ask the applicant to postpone the decision to
consider the new information submitted and if the applicant would remove the eight parking
spaces.
Mr. Turner clarified that there were seven, not eight parking spaces along the northwest side of
the building. He requested a few minutes to discuss the options with the applicant.
Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that the condition would require the conversion of the existing
parking spaces on the northwest side of building into green space and limit the use of the green
space for any animal exercise or relief to the perimeter of the building.
Mr. Goodwin suggested the condition be reworded in a way that pertains specifically to the
veterinary staff and asked if it was expected to pertain to visitors who arrive and do not know.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she would defer to Ms. Readier what she felt was appropriate.
Mr. Zimmerman called a short recess at 7:33 p.m. so that Mr. Turner could consider the options,
and the meeting reconvened at 7:38 p.m.
Mr. Turner said the applicant did not want to receive a negative vote and discussed the
elimination of the seven parking spaces for green space. He said they had major concerns
regarding the parking and open space required with future expansion of the building. He
proposed that the seven parking spaces be eliminated and converted to grass, if the Commission
agreed that the square footage of green space and parking be maintained into the future when
they plan to expand the building. He said they will need 36 parking spaces, because they will
have at least six vets and they had intended to use the seven parking spaces for expansion. Mr.
Turner would agree to eliminate the parking spaces and set a standard of how much square
footage of green space they would maintain. He said when they expand the building, they plan
to take out the two driving lanes immediately behind the building, and eliminate the curb in the
urgent care drive. He agreed to maintain the square footage of green space if they were allowed,
when they expand the building to add a few parking spaces back, still maintaining the green
space.
Mr. Walter asked if the Commission could bind a new application with a condition on this
application. Ms. Readier said they needed to be separate because the Commission could only
address what was before them right now.
Mr. Zimmerman asked how many spaces existed. Mr. Goodwin said there were 41 parking
spaces on this site and shared parking agreements throughout Muirfield Square.
Mr. Taylor did not think it would be necessary to require a percentage of green space to be
maintained if a future expansion were proposed, because green space that is inconsequential to
the overall function of the site will be removed.
Mr. Walter said as long as the green space area is expanded into the seven spaces, and the new
total area remains, the rest of it is somewhat irrelevant because it was for some future
Commission to decide.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
July 10, 2008 -Minutes
Page 9 of 14
Mr. Turner said they wanted to move forward with their application
Ms. Amoroso Groomes said a 5"' and 6`'' condition need to be added.
Mr. Goodwin suggested the following Condition 1 be added to the Rezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan: That the text be modified to prohibit the use of perimeter mounds for pet
relief by facility staff.
Mr. Goodwin suggested the following Condition 5 be added to the Final Development Plan:
That the seven parking spaces to the northwest of the building be converted to open space,
subject to Planning approval.
Mr. Goodwin assured the Commission that Planning would make sure that the curb is continued.
Mr. 't'urner asked for clarification about the reduced size of the Urgent Care sign. Mr. Goodwin
said as listed in the Planning Report, it would be a four square-foot maximum for directional
signs. Mr. Turner was concerned that the added verbiage requested to distinguish between pets
and humans might make the signs unreadable. Mr. Goodwin said the condition was worded to
allow Planning some discretion to work with the applicant to determine the appropriate design
and size of the sign.
Mr. Zimmerman asked how the other Commissioners felt about adding the sign verbiage. [The
Commissioners agreed it was necessary.]
Motion and Vote # 1- Reioning/Preliminary Development Plan
Mr. Turner agreed to the one condition as listed below.
Mr. Zimmerman made the motion to recommend approval of this Rezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan to City Council because it complies with the review criteria and the existing
development standards within the area, with one condition:
1) That the text be modified to prohibit the use of the perimeter mounds for pet relief by the
facility staff.
Ms. Amoroso Groomes seconded the motion. Mr. Turner agreed to the condition. The vote was
as follows: Mr. Taylor, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Ms. Amoroso Groomes, yes;
and Mr. Zimmerman, yes. (Approved 5 - 0.)
Motion and Vote # 2 -Final Development Plan
Mr. Turner agreed to the five conditions as listed below.
Mr. Zimmerman made the motion to approve this Final Development Plan because it complies
with the review criteria and the existing development standards within the area, with five
conditions:
Dublin Planning and %oning Commission
July 10, 2008 -Minutes
Page 10 of 14
1) That landscaping comply with Code and is coordinated with the larger Muirfield Square
landscape plan, subject to Planning approval;
2) That inconsistencies between the site and landscape plans be corrected and submitted to
Planning prior to submitting for a building permit;
3) That the directional sign and Urgent Care pendant sign be modified to identify the nature
of the Urgent Care as described in the planning report, subject to Planning approval; and
4) That the Urgent Care pendant sign be reduced in size and configured to minimize conflict
with vehicles beneath the Urgent Care entrance canopy, subject to Planning approval; and
5) 'T'hat the seven parking spaces to the northwest of the building be converted to open
space, subject to Planning approval.
Ms. Amoroso Groomes seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Taylor, yes; Mr.
Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Ms. Amoroso Groomes, yes; and Mr. Zimmerman, yes.
(Approved 5 - 0.)
WORK SESSION•
Mr. Zimmemmat . xplained the Work Sessi purpose and procedure . 1-le advised that all
comments m e by the Commission are ' formal and non-binding and are intended only to
provide ge ral guidance to the applica regarding the application.
4. Perimeter Center, Subar J -MAG -Porsche 6325 Perimet Loop
08-059INF nformal
WOR SESSION
Claudia Husak presented is informal request by the idwestem Auto Group ( AG) to discuss
changes to the archite re and a sign for a port' n of their existing dealer ip, located in the
Perimeter Center P ,Subarea J. Ms. Hus said there are two buil gs on this site, the
northern buildin 7 •ontains the Land Rover •and vehicles and the sou ern 57,000-square-foot
building has ariety of automobile br ds. She said this propos is to modify the angled
portion of e northern building by r acing the front facade ' h mere of a curved desi
which i-t eases the width and heigh ~fthe showroom.
Ms usak said the MAG d elopment text identifies to need for noteworthy, novative
chitecture and does not unit a box design. She tated that Planning's oval tion of the
proposal finds it remintsc t of a box design.
Ms. Husak said the roposed Porsche building ' eludes a wall sign. She s ' no other wall signs
exist along the m building, but there are round signs at the entranc She said a wall sign
was approved or the Land Rover buildii ,but the other main francl 'sees do not have any wall
signs alon pis building.
Ms. sak introduced two dis ssion points for the Cot issioners' input. [The it icized
dis ssion points are followed y the Commissioners' co ents.]
Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smit and Hale, representing M said a new final develo gent plan was
approved, but it had t been built. He said th plan has been updated a~ SAAB has been
PLANNING REPORT
1
crrY of Dusl.iv_ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
~ u~..a
s~ ~~~n
o~,.ot:~awt~tr.~ JULY 10, 2008
etaata~~
Fmc 614 ~tOJ7~7
Weh Sik: rrv.duNnab as
SECTION I -CASE INFORMATION:
3. Muirfield Square -Veterinary Hospital 6001 Memorial Drive
08-033Z/FDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
Final Development Plan
Proposal: A veterinary clinic in Lot 1 of Muirfield Square, located at the
southwest corner of Muirfield Drive and Memorial Drive.
Request: _ Review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan
and a final development plan under the Planned District provisions
of Code Section 153.050.
Applicant: Muirfield Memorial Enterprises, LLG; represented by John H.
Turner, Coldwell Banker Commercial NR'I'.
Planning Contact: Justin Goodwin, Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4677, jgoodwin@dublin.oh.us
Case Summary
This is a request for review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan to add
veterinary medical office and clinic services to the permitted uses for an existing lot within
Muirfield Square in the Muirfield Village Planned Unit Development llistrict. 'I111s is also a
request for review and approval of a final development plan including exterior modifications to
an existing building and existing landscaping.
Work Session Update
Un May 15, 2008 the Planning and Zoning Commission provided informal feedback regarding
the proposed veterinary use and site modifications. The Commission requested further
information regarding noise control measures and suggested the expansion of an existing lawn
area for pet leisure and outdoor relief. The applicant has proposed internal design and sound
insulating materials to mitigate noise impacts on surrounding properties. No additional open
space is proposed.
Site Ilistary
11iis proposal concerns a single lot (Lot 1 of 9) within the 10-acre Muirfield Square
development. The site was zoned PUD, Plailried Unit Development District on July 2, 1973 as
part of the original 1,500-acre Muirfield Village PUD (ORD 2b-73). The original PUD ordinance
designated roughly 50 acres at the intersection of Muirfield and Memorial Drives for
"commercial" use; however, no development text or detailed development plans are attached to
the 1973 ordinance or associated records.
I~;; `.;t1;~MITTED TO COUNCIL
l-'~~'V9i UIZ MEETING 0~~1.~
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 10, 2008 --Planning Report
Application No. OS-0337./I=DP -Page 2 of 12
A final development plan for the 10-acre site now known as Muirfield Square (also Muirfield
Village Square) was approved by the Planning and 7,oning Commission vn August 26, 1986. The
approved Final Development Plan designated the pernutted uses within the development as those
permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial District, along with a series of additional uses
generally in character with the permitted uses of the Zoning Code.
Muirfield Square was originally developed as a series of nine retail and office "pod" buildings,
each connected by a covered walkway system, with the exception of the building on Lot 1 (the
subject site of this application). This building was originally designated for financial office use
on the approved Final Development Plan.
In subsequent years, a series of revised final development plans were approved by the Planning
and "Coning Commission. Designated uses shif3ed primarily to office and a series of lot splits led
to the creation of separate platted parcels for all buildings in Muirfield Square. On August 8,
2002, the Commission approved a Revised Final Development Plan designating 9.2 acres of
Muirfield Square (excluding Lot 1) for office uses only. The existing plat includes easements for
cross-access, parking and utilities. Property owners in Muirfield Square share responsibility for
maintaining landscaping, parking lot lighting, parking areas and signs.
Site Description
Location
The 1.39-acre site (Lot 1 of Muirfield Square) is located at the southwest corner of Memorial
Drive and Muirfield Drive and has frontage along both publicrights-vf--way.
Site Character
An existing 3,850-square-foot, one-story office building is located in the southeast portion of the
site. The building is configured for two tenant spaces and has two separate front entrance doors
accessed beneath a roof canopy along the northeast elevation, facing Muirf eld Drive. An
approximately 240-square-foot service area is screened by a six-foot wood fence along the
southwest elevation, facing a central parking area within Muirfield Square. This building was at
one time used as a bank and includes two drive-thru aisles and an associated canopy along the
southeast elevation. Mounding with evergreen and deciduous landscape treatment surrounds the
perimeter of Muirfield Square, including the Muirfield Drive and Memorial Drive frontage of
Lot 1.
Parking and Access
The site has no curb cuts to public streets; vehicular access to the site is provided through two
shared drive aisles crossing the southwest and southeast property lines. Code required parking
for the existing business office is 16 spaces. Forty-one parking spaces are located on the site, to
the northwest and northeast of the existing building. Vehicular access to Muirfield Square is
provided through two shared access points; one located along Memorial Drive and aligned with
Cromdale Drive, the other along Muirfield Drive. Cross access and shared parking throughout
Muirfield Square is provided through recorded easements and agreements.
Planning andI.oning Commission
July 10, 2008 -Planning Report
Application No. 08-0337./1~DP -Page 3 of 12
Surrounding Zoning and Uses
The site and surrounding area is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District. The site is
surrounded by office uses within Muirfield Square and across Memorial Drive. Sixty residential
lvts are located within 500 feet of the site in Muirfield Village Phases 1, 4 and 36, and in the
Berkshire Commons Planned Unit Development.
Development Text
The applicant has provided a develvpment text that will regulate development for Lot 1 of
Muirfield Square within a new Planned Unit Development District. The main change from the
previously approved development text for Muirfield Square is the incorporation of veterinary
clinic services as a permitted use and a clarification of peilnitted and conditional uses as
described in the original Final Development Plan. The text also clarifies development standards
for Lvt 1.
Use
The applicant is proposing to revise the list of uses permitted under the original Muirfield Square
Final Development Plan to permit veterinary hospital and associated uses in this PUD. Proposed
services are intended for small animals (family house pets only) and include complete wellness
care, diagnostic and medical care, dentistry, radiology, ultrasound and emergency services, and
sales of pet food and supplies. The proposed rezoning will prohibit kennels, boarding and animal
day-care services, but will permit overnight medical recovery for animals when necessary.
Business and professional office uses as listed in the Neighborhood Commercial District will
remain permitted uses in this PUD; however, retail store and personal service uses as listed in the
Neighborhood Commercial District and in the original Final Development Plan, with the
addition of pet grooming services, will be treated as conditional uses. Drive-thru and outdoor
service facilities are also listed as conditional uses. All conditional uses will require a traffic
impact study for approval.
Density
The proposed development text permits a facility density of 5,000 square feet per acre for Lot 1.
The existing facility is 3,850 square feet on 1.3 acres (a density of approximately 2,770 square
feet per acre). The existing average density of all lots in Muirfield Square is 6,189 square feet
per acre. The text requires a traffic impact study be conducted far any amended final
development plan that includes a future building expansion.
Setbacks and Easements
The approved plat for Muirfield Square shows a 140-foot building setback along Muirfield
Drive, a 50-foot parking setback along Muirfield Drive and a general 40-foot setback along
Memorial Drive. No changes are proposed to these existing setbacks. The approved plat shows
no setback requirements along internal lot lines within Muirfield Square; however a 10-foot
platted gas line easement runs parallel to the southwest boundary of Lot 1. An additional five-
fovt side yard building setback is proposed along the southeast property line and a 40-foot rear
yard building setback is proposed along the southwest property line. No pavement setbacks are
proposed along internal property lines due to existing shared drives and cross-access easements.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 10, 2008 -Planning Report
Application No. 08-033UFUP -Page 4 of 12
Architecture
Existing architecture is residential in style, consisting of stained cedar with stone accents, tinted
glass panels and a cedar shake roof. The text requires all materials to be the same or similar to
the colors and style of the existing building.
Signs
"I'he revised sign plan for Muirfield Square approved in 1989 specified tenant sign band colors to
include a grey background with white backlit letters. This development text permits both grey
and bronzetone background colors for tenant signs on Lot 1.
Noise and Odor Control
The development text requires the site to comply with Dublin Nuisance Regulations. Code
requirements for noise and odor control are general. Noise must not exceed a level normally
perceptible from other development in the area or from usual street traffic as observed from the
property line. Odor must be controlled so as not to be offensive or to create a hazard. The text
requires all biohazardous medical waste to be contained within the building. The proposed text
specifies that noise may not exceed 55 decibels (dBA) as measured from the edge of the parking
area and perimeter mounding on Lot 1 and from the internal property lines within Muirfield
Square. The text requires that the applicant conduct noise testing to demonstrate zoning
compliance prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
Final Development Plan
Architecture
The applicant is proposing minor modifications to the building elevations, including enclosure of
the existing canopy on the northeast elevation to serve as a consolidated entrance, and the
installation of an Urgent Care access door beneath the existing drive-thru canopy along the
southeast elevation. The enclosure of the front canopy will increase the building size to 4,012
square feet. All proposed modifications will match the materials and colors of existing approved
elevations. Any exterior modifications must be approved by the Muirfield Village Design
Control Committee and the Muirfield Square Owners Association in addition to Commission
approval.
Parking ahd Access
Code does not specify a parking requirement for veterinary clinics, but does require a mizumum
of 1 space per 250 square feet for related pet care services such as training and grooming. Based
on this parking requirement, a pet care service in this building (including the proposed enclosure
of the entrance canopy area) requires 16 spaces. The proposed final development plan provides a
total of 41 spaces on the site, all of which are currently existing. The existing drive-thru aisles
will be retained and used as adrop-off for urgent care patients.
Signs
"I'he proposed final development plan includes a 35.8-square-foot wall-mounted sign on the
northwest elevation facing Muirfield Drive and a second, identical wall sign along the southwest
elevation facing a shared parking area for Muirfield Square. A 5.5-square-foot hanging pendant
sign indicating the Urgent Care entrance is proposed beneath the existing drive-thru canopy. A
Planning and "Coning Commission
July 10, 2008 -Planning Report
Application No. OS-0331/FDP -Page 5 of 12
3.9-square-foot directional sign is proposed for the southwest entrance to the site, indicating
visitor parking and urgent care entrance locations.
Code allows corner lots having at least 100 feet of frontage along two public rights-of--way to
have two wall signs. The proposed signs consist of white backlit letters on an opaque "light ~-ey-
bronzetone" (PMS 4535 or equivalent) background to match the existing center identification
sign located at the intersection of Muirfield and Memorial Drives.
Landscaping and Open Space
The existing site contains approximately 48 percent open space and landscaped areas, including
approximately 22,500 square feet of landscaped perimeter mounding and three separate lawn
areas surrounding the building. The proposed plan includes additional landscaping along the
front building elevation and additional trees in the drive-thru perimeter buffer. The plan
indicates the addition of an 80-square-foot paver patio sitting area within the existing 1,124-
square-foot lawn area to the northwest of the building. The applicant is proposing to relocate
two existing wood benches from the front entrance canopy to the patio location.
At the May 15, 2008 work session, Commissioners recommended the expansion of the lawn area
located to the northwest of the building. The applicant is confident that the existing greenspace
on the site can sufficiently address concerns expressed at the work session.
Traffic Impacts
The applicant has indicated that the proposed veterinary clinic within the existing facility will
employ up to 13 staff members during normal business hours and anticipates up to 12 patients
per hour at maximum staffing levels. Additionally, the applicant anticipates an average of three
to five urgent care visits per 24 hour period. The facility will be staffed 24 hours a day in order
to accommodate emergency on-call staff and to provide overnight recovery care. Vehicle traffic
will also include two van deliveries per week day and bi-weekly waste removal. Enlrineering has
requested a traffic impact study for any future expansion of the facility or conversion of the
facility to a more intense use, which is required in the development text.
Stormwater
The City of Dublin Stormwater Management Ordinance provides an exemption for any
construction which adds less than 500 square feet through expansion of a building, structure or
pavement which results in new impervious area on a project site. The site currently contains
approximately 31,800 square feet of impervious surface. The proposed final development plan
includes a net increase of 80 square feet of impervious surface, resulting from the installation of
paver materials to serve as a base for benches in an existing lawn area. Planning has noted minor
inconsistencies with regard to impervious surface calculations on proposed site and landscape
plans, which should be addressed prior to submitting for building permits.
Noise and Odvr' Control
1'he proposed final development plan includes procedures for managing solid and biohazardous
waste materials and for mitigating noise disturbances. A waste receptacle is proposed along the
front entrance walk, and will include a dog waste pick-up dispenser affixed to the side. Animal
waste from this receptacle and from within the facility will be disposed in a closed 65-gallon
Planning and Zoning Commission
July ] 0, 2008 -Planning Report
Application No. 08-0337JFDP -Page 6 of 12
trash container within the existing fenced service area to the rear of the building. Nonhazardous
solid waste will also be stored in an identical container within the fenced service area. All
biohazardous medical waste will be stored in industry-standard containers within the building
and removed from the site on a regular basis. The applicant is also proposing the weekly
flushing of lawn areas to prevent deterioration from canine urine, and regular monitoring of lawn
areas by veterinary staff to ensure proper disposal of animal waste.
Throughout the facility, the applicant is proposing the installation of sound deadening wall
boards, suspended acoustical ceilings and sound reducing insulation. Additionally, the canine
recovery and isolation ward will be located in the northwest portion of the building, farthest from
the closest adjacent facility within Muirfield Square. Construction details and design
specifications will be required for building permit approval.
SECTION II -REVIEW STANDARDS:
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
The purpose of the PUD process is to encourage imaginative architectural design and proper site
planning in a coordinated and comprehensive manner, consistent with accepted land planning,
landscape architecture, and engineering principles. The PUD process can consist of up to three
basic stages:
1) Concept Plan (Staff; Commission, and/or City Council review and comment);
2) Zoning Amendment Request (Preliminary Development Plan; Commission
recommends and City Council approves/denies); and
3) Final Development Plan (Commission approves/denies).
The general intent of the preliminary development plan (rezoning) stage is to deterrnine
the general layout and specific zoning standards that will guide development. 'The
Planning and 7.oning 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. Atwo-thirds vote of City Council is required to override a negative
recommendation by the Commission. If approved, the rezoning will become effective 30
days following the Council vote. Additionally, all portions of the development will
require final development plan approval by the Commission prior to construction.
Evaluation and Recommendation based on Preliminary Development Plan Criteria
Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan. The following is an evaluation by Planning based on
those criteria. The criteria are arranged in the following categories and are in a different order
than listed in the Code:
Adopted Policies and Plans (Criteria I, 2, 3, and 4) The proposed development is consistent with
the Dublin7,oning Code; is in conformity with the Community Plan; advances the general
welfare of the City; and the proposed uses are appropriately located in the City so that the use
and valzee of property within and adjacent to the area will be safegz~arded.
Planning and toning Commission
July ] 0, 2008 -Planning Report
Application No. 08-033L/I~DP -Page 7 of 12
Criteria met: The Future Land Use Plan of the 2007 Community Plan identifies the land
use for this site as '`Mixed Use Neighborhood Center." In Planning's opinion, this
project will add a needed use to the Muirfield Village area and will benefit the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Parrs and Open Space (Criteria S and 6) The proposed residential development will have
sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; and the proposed
development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural
resources of the site.
Criteria met: This requirement is not applicable to commercial development; howeverr,
the site includes substantial areas of perimeter mounding with landscape treatment, which
will not be disturbed by this proposal.
Traffic, Utilities and Stormwater Management (Criteria 7, 8, and 11) Adequate utilities, access
roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; and
adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding;
public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bikEy
circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non-
conflicting circa~lation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians,- and adequate provision is
made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable,
usuaC and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas.
Criteria met: 1fie site wit! have access to adequate utilities. Access to this site is
ensured tlu-ough existing easements within Muirfield Square. 'T'here is no substantial
increase to the amount of impervious surface and no re-grading taking place with this
proposal. Construction drawings and final details will be required at the building permit
stage. Future expansion of the facility will require a traffic impact study to ensure
adequate transportation infrastructure is provided.
Development Standards (Criteria 9, and 1 D) The relationship of buildings and structures
provides for the coordination and integration oJ' this development to the community and
maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; and the development standards, and the
design and layout oJ'the open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other
elements contribute to the orderly development of lurid within the City.
Criteria met: The proposal is using the existing building on the site. Proposed external
changes include the enclosure of the existing front entrance canopy, installation of an
urgent care access, and installation of an outdoor sitting area in the existing lawn area.
The existing building has coordinated with the neighborhood context for many years, and
the proposed architectural modifications will utilize matching materials and colors. The
neighboring properties will see no changes to the existing traffic accessibility or parking
areas as no changes are proposed.
Design Standards (12, and 13) The design, .rite arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the
proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included
in the Code or the Subdivision Regulations; are consistent with the intent oJ' the Planned
Development District regulations; and the proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality
Planning andloning Commission
July 10, 2008 -Planning Report
Application No. 08-033l./FDP - Pagc 8 of 12
of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the
City.
Criteria met: The development text outlines all applicable development standards for
this project. The proposal complies with the text requirements of high-quality, four-sided
architecture which complements the existing buildings in the adjacent properties.
Infrastructure (Criteria 14, 1 S and 16) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for
the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various
phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; the proposed development can be
adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements; and the applicant's
contributions to the public infrastructure af•e consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are
sufficient to service the new development.
Criteria met: There are adequate services in place for the proposed development. No
infrastructure changes are needed to facilitate this proposal because there are no changes
to the access points, and Muirfield and Memorial Drives already meet the Thoroughfare
Plan.
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:
l) Concept Pian (Staff, Commission, and/or City Council review and comment);
2) Zoning Amendment Kequest (Preliminary Development Plan; Commission recommends
and City Council approves/denies); and
3) Final Uevelopment 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 PL; D 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 far review in
all respects, including payment of the application fee. Appeal of any action taken by the
Commission shall be to the Court of Common Pleas in the appropriate jurisdiction. Following
approval by the Commission, the applicant may proceed with the building permit process. In the
event that updated citywide standards are applicable, all subsequently approved final
development plans shall comply with the updated standards if the Planning and Zoning
Commission determines that the updated standards would not cause undue hardship.
Evaluation and Recommendation based on Final Development Plan Criteria
Section 153.055(B) of the Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a final
development plan. Following is an evaluation by Planning based on those criteria. The criteria
are arranged in the following categories and may be in a different order than listed in the Code:
Planning and Zoning Commission
July lU, 2008 -Planning Report
Application No. 08-U33"/./FDP -Page 9 of 12
Adopted Policies and Plans (Criteria 1, 3, 9, & 10). The proposed modifications conform to the
approved preliminary development plan, have adequate public facilities and open spaces, are
carried out in progressive stages, and conform to all other applicable zoning text and Code
requirements.
Criteria may be met thronQh conditions: 1'he proposal conforms to the preliminary
development plan in teems of permitted use, lot coverage, and setbacks. The applicant
has indicated that renovations to the facility will be constructed to mitigate noise impacts
on surrounding properties. Appropriate construction details must be provided during the
building permit stage.
Planning has determined that some existing landscaping is in poor condition and requires
pruning, as indicated on the proposed landscape plan. Landscaping throughout Muirtield
Square is jointly maintained and the proposed landscape plan should be coordinated with
the larger Muirfield Square landscape plan to ensure consistent Code compliance
(Condition 1). Inconsistencies between site and landscape plans must he corrected prior
to submitting for a building permit (Condition 2).
Site Safety and Circulation (Criteria 2 & S). The proposed modifications provide for safe and
efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation and provide adequate lighting. for such uses.
Criteria met: 1'he site provides adequate lighting, and vehicular and pedestrian
circulation for the proposed uses.
Development Uetails (Criteria 4, 6, 7, & 8). The details of the development are sensitive to the
natural characteristics of the site, include appropriate landscaping and signs, and provide
adequate ,farm druinage.
Criteria may be met through conditions: Overall, the proposal confotms to the
preliminary development plan requirement for appropriate landscaping details, adequate
stormwater management, and sign details. Signs conform to the standards outlined in the
development text. Planning recommends minor modifications to the proposed directional
and urgent Care identification signs to clarify the nature of the Urgent Care with
additional wording such as "Veterinary", "Animal" or "Pet" (Condition 3).
Although the proposed hanging pendant sign beneath the Urgent Care canopy does not
meet the Code specifications for a directional sign, this third sign identifies a special
building entrance and serves a directional function. Planning recommends that the sign
be modified to meet the Code-required maximum size for directional signs (four square
feet) and that any modifications to this sign be coordinated with Planning to minimize the
potential for conflict with oversized vehicles that may attempt to use the Urgent Care
drive aisles (Condition 4).
SF.CTiON III -PLANNING OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION: Approval
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
In Planning's opinion, this proposal complies with the rezoning/preliminary development plan
criteria and the existing development standards within the area. Approval is recommended.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 10, 2008 -Planning Report
Application No. 08-033ZJE'DP -Page 10 of 12
Final Development Plan
In Planning's opinion, this proposal complies with the final development plan criteria and the
existing development standards within the area. Approval with 4 conditions is recommended.
Conditions:
1) That Landscaping comply with Code and is coordinated with the larger Muirfield Square
landscape plan, subject to Planning approval;
2) That inconsistencies between the site and Landscape plans be corrected and submitted to
Planning prior to submitting for a building permit;
3) That the directional sign and Urgent Care pendant sign be modified to identify the nature
of the Urgent Care as described in the planning report, subject to Planning approval; and
4) That the Urgent Care pendant sign be reduced in size and configured to minimize conflict
with vehicles beneath the Urgent Care entrance canopy, subject to Planning approval.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 10, 2008 -Planning Report
Application No. 08-03371FDP -Page I 1 of 12
Preliminary Development Plau
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;
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 commutty 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;
l2) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development
justify any deviation from the standard development regulativns included in the Dublin
"Coning 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;
Planning and Zoning Commission
July ] 0, 2008 - Planning Report
Application No. 08-033IlFDP -Page 12 of 12
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.
Final Development Plan
Review Criteria:
In accordance with Section 153.055(B) flan Approval Criteria, the Code sets out the folivwing
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 tv the natural characteristics of the site in a
manner that complies with the applicable regulations set forth in this Code;
5) The development pravidcs 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.
Development Context
Noah's Ark Veterinary Hospital ns 5ui~tvi~i ir~L~ ~U
~ ~ ~ ..4
Residential Context
~'~~ ~'~J~P~11TTE=u i0 CO'~'NCiL
Noah's Ark Veterinary Hospital ~ ~ ~ ~d ~ . r
Proposed Landscape Plan
V~j
1L
iG
!G
;~
,,
,~
;~
,~
,,
,~
,,
' r
l .a,
.-,
~.
..-~ ~-,
`~---',
/ o ---
~ ~'
3Y 1
~^
2~
~~~
//
o~,~
L'> ~)
~ ~~
T~~i~s SU[~MITTED TO COUNoC_I~~1r
c~~~i ;~f~ MEETING ON 6 "I"Q~
~",~~~--
::
.,
~ ~~ , ,~ .
~~ _~ ~ ~ o
~~.
~.
.,
08-033Z/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Proposed Elevations
PROPOS
STORffTtONT '
EXIST,NG
Northwest Elevation
08-033Z/FDP
Kezoning/Final Development Pian
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
0001 Memorial Drive
Proposed Elevations
Northeast Elevation
~.,,~~.., ~,.~~..~~ ON GLASS
Southeast Elevation
08-033Z/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Proposed Signs
P
C~
Wall Sign (Northeast and Southwest Elevations)
Pendant Sign (Southeast Elevation)
Directional Sign (Corner of Northwest and Southv-os-o33ziFnp
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
- --~
5.2'
z ~~ z.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
WORKSESSION
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
MAY 15, 2008
CITY OF DUBLIlV_
Iowa u» ewd
~, •~• ~+w
5800 Shieritinps Road
DubGrL Otwo 43016-1736
Phone! IDO: 614.410-4600
Fwc 614.410-4747
web Site: www.dubit.ohus
Creating a Legacy
7. Muirfield Village Veterinary Hospital 6001 Memorial Drive
08-033Z/FDP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan
Final Development Plan
Proposal: A veterinary use and minor site modifications including parking,
landscaping, and signs, located at the southwest corner of
Memorial and Muirfield Drives.
Request: Review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan
and final development plan under the provisions of Code Section
153.050.
Applicant: Muirfield Memorial Enterprises, LLC., represented by John H.
Turner, Coldwell Banker Commercial NRT.
Planning Contact: Justin Goodwin, Planner.
Contact Information: (b14) 410-4b77, jgoodwin@dublin.oh.us
RESULT: The Commission informally reviewed this request for arezoning/preliminary
development plan and final development plan for Noah's Ark Veterinary Hospital within the
Muirfield Square development. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to add
veterinary medical office and clinic services to the permitted uses of the existing Planned Unit
Development zoning. The Commissioners reuested additional green space and information
regarding noise control.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
J tin Goodwin
P anner
08-033Z/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
G001 Memorial Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 15, 2008 -Meeting Minutes
Page 20 of 2G
WORK SES ON
Mr. Zin rman explained tl Work Session pu ose and procedur He advised th all
comme s made by the Co fission are info 1 and non-bindin and are intended ly to
prov~ a general guidance the applicant reg ing the applicatio
7. Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital 6001 Memorial Drive
08-033Z/FDP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan
Final Development Plan
WORK SESSION
Justin Goodwin presented this application for informal review of a combined rezoning and final
development plan application for a veterinary hospital in an existing one-story office building in
the southern portion of the Muirfield Square development. He said the building was once used
as a bank and includes a drive through canopy with two drive aisles. He said mounding with a
landscape treatment surrounds the perimeter of the entire Muirfield Square development
including the Muirfield and Memorial Drive frontages of the site.
Mr. Goodwin said the applicant was proposing to rezone the property to add veterinary medical
office services to the permitted uses of the existing PUD, Planned Unit Development zoning. He
said the proposed veterinary office is intended for house pets only and will provide general
medical care and emergency services. He said boarding and grooming services will not be
permitted, however the facility will permit overnight recovery care for pets and thus, will be
staffed 24 hours per day to provide care and on call emergency services if necessary.
Mr. Goodwin said the proposed final development plan includes two wall mounted 38-square-
foot signs, on the northeast entrance canopy facing Muirfield Drive and on the southwest
elevation facing a shared parking area for Muirfield Square. He said Code allows two wall-
mounted signs on corner lots, each facing the right-of--way. He said although the rear elevation
of the building does not directly face a public street, the orientation of the site and the building
does make the rear elevation generally visible from the Memorial Drive access point to Muirfield
Square and from the central parking area within the development. He said a directional sign was
proposed near the southwest entrance to the site.
Mr. Goodwin said the existing uses within the Muirfield Square development are most similar to
those permitted in the SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District. He explained that
veterinary offices and animal hospitals are permitted in the SO District as a conditional use,
provided that the facility does not include an outdoor recreation area and is not located less than
five hundred feet from any residential uses. However, he said the Commission has the discretion
to reduce the minimum distance from residential uses. He said a 500-foot radius around the site
includes 60 residential lots in Muirfield Village and the Berkshire Commons subdivision.
Mr. Goodwin said since the distribution of packets, the applicant has notified Planning of
potential modifications to the proposed final development plan. He said the applicant has
indicated that the seven additional employee parking spaces proposed for the drive-thru area will
be removed from the plan and the existing drive-thru canopy is to be configured to allow for an
emergency or urgent care access point into the building. Mr. Goodwin said new elevations were
not submitted.
08-0337/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
llubhn Ylannmg and Gonmg Commission
May 15, 2008 -Meeting Minutes
Page Z 1 of 26
Mr. Zimmerman confirmed that surrounding residents were notified of the Work Session and
that the applicant had met with the Muirfield Village Civic Association. 1Vir. Goodwin reported
that no negative feedback had been received, as long as proper measures were taken to address
noise and odor concerns.
Jack Turner, Coldwell Banker Commercial DRT, representative for the applicant, said that this
veterinary hospital will look very much like any other office building. He said the main
concerns of the residents were noise and odors, which were being addressed by revising the
development text to address them. He said there will be rules and regulations regarding pet
waste pickup. He said they will supply the equipment and disposal receptacle. He said the
veterinary waste will be handled the same as in any medical office with special pick up and
deliveries. Mr. Turner said deceased pets will be picked up daily for cremation off-site. He said
the existing drive-through lanes will be used for bringing pets placed on a gurney through a
canopied side door for urgent care, day or night. Mr. Turner assured that the residents would not
hear any noise and there will not be any odors.
Mr. Zimmerman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in regards to this application
and no one came forward.
Mr. Taylor expressed concerns about inside noise. He said sound transmission through building
materials is greatly affected by the frequency. He pointed out that noise at night travels more
freely through the air and it is also quieter around the neighborhoods then. He asked that future
plans include something more quantifiable in terms of sound transmission to address the
different frequencies of sounds that might be happening inside the building.
Mr. Walter shared the internal noise concern. lie said he would very much like to see a positive
recommendation from the Muirfield Civic Association as part of this application when it returns.
Mr. Walter was concerned about the urgent care hours and would like to understand more about
that, and about after hour lighting in the facility.
1Vls. Amorose Groomes said she would like the applicant to look at removing the asphalt and
sidewalks to the west of the building to provide a green area for the animals to go outside and
walk or wait. She suggested eliminating a row of parking and perhaps leaving the sidewalks and
extending the curb. Mr. Saneholtz agreed. Mr. Fishman said he would like to see the grass
expanded around the corner to the north at least to where the handicap accessible parking spaces
are located.
Mr. Walter asked if the southeastern parking area was commercial parking for the existing
businesses. Mr. Goodwin said it was shared parking. Mr. Turner said they have 42 parking
spaces. Mr. Goodwin said per Code, they need 16 parking spaces.
Mr. Goodwin said Planning would like the Commission to address the three discussion points
listed in the Work Session memo. [Each discussion point is listed with the Commissioners'
comments following.]
Does the Commission support a proposed veterinary ace with the described limitations as an
appropriate use within this development?
Mr. Walter said he thought this was a great location for the facility. Ms. Amorose Groomes said
08-0337,/F DP
1Zezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Mc;morial Drive
llubhn Planning and Gomng Commission
May 15, 2008 -Meeting Minutes
Page 22 of 26
she was in favor of grooming services being added because they were sorely needed in this area.
She agreed with Mr. Walter that this was a good use in this location provided any noise created
could be mitigated for the residents on Memorial Drive because they would probably be the only
ones impacted.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not know if he would have the favor of this body if Mr.
Turner did not provide any azea for a dog or any animal to have the opportunity to exercise while
waiting or staying ovemight. Mr. Fishman echoed that. Mr. Zimmerman said the berm area
should not be used.
Mr. Saneholtz noted that there was a veterinary clinic on Perimeter Drive that was within 500
feet of the apartments that surround it, and he encouraged Planning to look into whether or not
there had been any complaints about it. He said he did not think it was the kind of use that really
had the volume of animals that really would ever cause anyone any distress. He agreed that they
had to be very careful about any conversation about expansion plans. Mr. Saneholtz said he
thought the existing drive-through use was creative. He echoed that there needed to be green
space for the animals that is not on City property or within the rights-of--way.
Mr. Freimann said he had a hard time seeing this being an appropriate use for the area because it
will be hard to control the noise and odors. He also was concerned about the inflow, egress, and
control of animals. He said he was very concerned about the impact. Mr. Freimann noted that
there is a lot of asphalt and limited green space. He said he would like to see plans for noise,
odor, traffic, and staging control measures before he would he would believe this was an
acceptable use.
Mr. Turner clarified that one of the issues at the neighborhood meetings was that they did not
want any runs or exercise of dogs outside, and was surprised to hear that the Commission wanted
to have a provision for the animals to be exercised outside.
Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that they were not indicating exercise at all, but the opportunity
to be outside for whatever an animal needs to do, but not to spend extended periods of time. She
said a dog deserves the ability to be able to stretch its legs, get a breath of fresh air, anal use the
facilities. Mr. Saneholtz added that this should occur on a leash, not in a run or fenced area.
Mr. Freimann said he had concerns about the staging of appointments. He said it would be
inhumane if an overnight animal was not allowed to go outside at all. Mr. Turner mentioned that
some of the 42 parking spaces may be required for the total Muirfield Square and he may not be
able to eliminate spaces for the green space.
Mr. Turner said they plan to house the dogs overnight in the corner of the building, far away
from the adjacent building, and technicians will be present 24 hours a day to quiet any animal
that is uncomfortable.
Mr. Turner mentioned that they had plans to expand their building in the future by approximately
2,000 square feet. He said that needs to be considered when laying out the interior. However,
he said that was not being proposed at this time. He said he preferred to create the green space at
the time of the expansion.
OS-0337./FllP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
(1001 Memorial Drive
llubiul Planning and Loping C;ommisston
May 15, 2008 -Meeting Minutes
Page 23 of 26
Mr. Fishman questioned whether the building expansion would be granted in this condominium
project with a shared parking lot. He requested that information regarding the building expansion
be available when the application returns. He recommended that the applicant should check with
the Muirfield Association, the City, and look at the deed.
Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that was not part of this application, but perhaps if Mr.
Fishman could request it on behalf of the Muirfield Village Association, it would be more
appropriate.
Mr. Turner said they were going to answer that because they were doing a renovation and the
renovation is taking a potential expansion into consideration. He said if they are not permitted to
do that, that renovation obviously will have a different appearance. He said when they come
back, they will answer Mr. Fishman's question.
Is the location of a second wall sign along the rear (southwest) elevation appropriate?
Mr. Walter said he was comfortable with the location of the proposed sign. Ms. Amorose
Groomes did not think the interior directional sign was necessary with two other signs on the
building. Mr. Goodwin said if there was an urgent care access, perhaps it made sense to include
a directional sign. Ms. Amorose Groomes said if that was the case, it may be appropriate, but if
the urgent care drop-off area is not delineated, then she did not see any need for that internal
ground sign.
Is the use of the former drive-thru area for an urgent care entrance appropriate? (This
discussion point was modified from the Work Session memo due to proposed changes by the
applicant).
No concerns were raised regarding the addition of an urgent care entrance to the building.
Mr. Zimmerman thanked Mr. Turner.
8. Vrable{~Stratford at Riverside Drive
This w~rk session was po oned prior to
was o discussion.
Other Adminis alive Business
Jennifer Rau explained that development
Express a lication had bee provided as one
inquirie about the length o time before an ap ;
She e lamed that Plans ' g and the Design e~
an scant prior to a m, tiny.
Mr. Saneholtz s from observing t e timeline, it
reviewed the ns before they ev get to a Work
process
le to the
comes to
Riverside
/ WORK SESSION
owners were not ied. There
that
for the Holida Inn
oners in res nse to
many ~es with the
of staff had
OS-0337/FDP
Rezcming/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary hospital
6001 Memorial T_}rive
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
R>~,CORD OF ACTION
AUGUST 8, 2002
..t:n'~ uF• nl~lli.l~
Division of Pta~g
5800 Shier-R""mgs Road
DtbGn, Ohio 43016-1136
Phone/FDD: 614 410600
Fax: 614.761-6566
Weh Site: www.dubtm.oh.us
The Planning and Toning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
Revised Final Development Plan 02-059ItFDP -Muirfield Square - G025-61$9
Memorial Drive
Location: 9.20 acres located south of the intersection of Memorial and Muirfield Drives.
Existing Zoning: PUD, Planned Unit Development Uistrici (Muirfield Village plan).
Request: Review and approval of a revised final development plan under the PUD
provisions of Section 153.056.
Proposed Use: A 20,785 square foot expansion of a 61,973 square foot office/retail
center.
Applicant: John Snoble, Memorial Drive Office Complex, LLC., 617,5 Memorial Drive,
Dublin, Ohio 43017; clo Christopher T. Cline, Blaugrund, Herbert & Martin, Inc., 5455
Rings Road, #500, Uublin, Ohio 43017_
Staff (:ontact: Kelly Canter Dannenfelser, Planner.
MOTION: To approve this revised final development plan because it will "downzone" the
permitted land uses and lessen its potential intensity, the uses will be more restriciive and
compatible with the neighboring properties, and it provides for the expansion of an existing,
successful Dublin business, with 13 conditions:
1) That the Landscaping plan and perimeter buffer landscaping become compliant
with Code by Spring 2003;
2) That the text be modified to permit a density of 9,000 square feet per acre;
3) That. the text disallow any metal roofing material;
4), That any entrance improvements be subject to approval by the City Engineer;
5) 'Chat the existing buffers along the residential areas remain intact, and that off-site
buffering be subject to staff approval;
6) `that the eight lots be combined prior to application for a building permit;
7) "hhat a tree preservation plan (including ways of protecting existing trees during
construction) be submitted, subject to staff approval;
8) 'T'hat the trash pickup hours meet Code;
9) That second shift employees use a designated portion of the parking tot and a
specified building entrance, both located away from residential areas;
Page 1 of 2 08-0332/FllP
Rezoning/hinal Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
1001 Memorial Drive
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
AUGUST 8, 2002
1. Revised Final Development Plan 02-059RFDP - Muirfeid Square - 6025-6189
Memorial Drive (Continued)
10) That the delivery hours, other than courier service, be limited to 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.;
t 1) That the lighting be compliant with the Dublin Lighting Guidelines, subject to
staff approval;
12) That there be no parking on adjacent residential streets; and
13) That the smoking break area be relocated, subject to staff approval.
* Mr. Cline agreed to the above conditions.
VOTE: 5-2.
RESULT: This revised final development plan was approved.
STAFF CI;R"I'IFICATION
~- ~r U ~,
~~
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
Page 2 of 2 OS-0332/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirficld Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Dublin Planning and Toning Commission
Minutes -August 8, 2002
Page 2
Ms. Boring gave t example of a prev" us executive
believes this is omparable. Mr. 'ark responded t
executive ses •'on to determine w} her their question
Law. If t e is no exception, ey will come back
sess' n concerning a
i the Commission
ire covered by exc ~
the public sessi
[ealership. She
l break into an
in the Sunshi~
Ms. oring then made a otion to adjourn ' o an executive se . con
ineo ,
i. Revised Final llevctopment Plan 02-059RFDP -Muirfield Village PUD -Muirfield
Square - 6025-61.89 Memorial Urive
Mr. Sprague said tonight's procedure will include background tiom Bobbie Clarke first, and then
the staff report fiiom Kelly Dannenfelser. The applicant's counsel:Chris Cline, and then the
attorney for some Muirfield residents, Mike Close will be able to ask questions. Then there will
be questions from staff; the audience, and there the Commission. Mr. Sprague said Dublin's
special counsel, "l'om Clark may interject questions or advice. Following the staff report will be
the applicant's presentation. Ile thought Mr. Cline would be sworn in, but there may be a
designee to offer testimony. Once the applicant's presentation is done, the Commission can ask
questions. Public testimony from the audience will be taken next. Everyone will get to
participate for a full record. Mr. Sprague said then, public comment will be closed to permit
discussion among the Commissioners and staff. Finally, there will be a motion made.
c cerns fall under t executive session arameters. Mr. M s
e vote was as fol ws: Mr. Ritchie, s; Mr. Gerber, yes• r.
yes; Mr. Saneh tz, yes; Mr. Mess' eo, yes; and Ms. oring
Commission cnt into an execute session at 6:40 p. .and retu
Mr. C( announced proce cal questions wer asked and ans
He ~ not think it wool affect anyone's d rsion with regard
C mission was back ' the public sessio ,and he did not exp
Mr. Sprague said a court reporter was making an unofticiai record as requested by attorney Chris
Cline. He then swore in everyone who expected to offer testimony.
Bobbie Clarke introduced Dublin's new City Manager, Jane Brautigarn who was formerly in
Loveland, Colorado. She invited everyone to take the opportunity to welcome Ms. Iirautigam.
Ms. Clarke said the rule of Tom Clark tonight was as Dublin's attorney because Dublin's law
director had a contlict of interest and was not involved err the consideration of this case. She said
Mr. Clark is Grove City's attorney, and he has advised the staff and suggested changes to the
meeting procedures, etc. Ms. Clarke introduced Kelly Darrnenfelser, the planner for this case.
Ms. Clarke said the Commission packet contained the applicant's submission for a revised final
development plan (application, proposed final development text, legal description, proposed
plans, building elevations, and color photo). She said staff altered the site plans to delete Lot 1
which is not part of this applicat.ion_ "I'he packet also included the agenda, staff report, Code
regulations, maps and graphic materials, old Muirfield Village coning plans, and previous final
development plans for this site. 'T'here was also a compilation of resident correspondence, with
Zimmerman, y . ; Mr. Sprague,
yes. (Ap oved 7-0.) ['fhe
rned at 6: p.m.]
wer in the executive ession_
tonight's case. I said the
t another executiv session.
to determine ether her
seconded tli motion and
08-U33I/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development flan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Urive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 8, 2002
Page 3
recent letters being distributed this evening. A letter from Mr. Cline addressing staff report
issues and the most recent traffic counts supplied by Paul I Iammersmith was distributed. .
Ms. Clarke said the Muirfield Village PUD preliminary development plan was approved in 1973
by the Dublin Village Council. She said Dublin used outside planning consultants prior to 1982,
and the early records are sketchy. The Muirfield Village PtJll initially included 1,500 acres with
zoning for 6,000 units and a variety of other uses. The early plans have evolved a great deal over
time. The initial plans included three golf courses, and only two golf courses were developed.
Acreage was added. The overall development has only about one-third of the dwellings
projected. The early drawings do not show Memarial Drive connecting either to the east or west.
Ms. Clarke said when joined the staff in 1985, she compiled and copied all the Muirfield Village
data back to 1970. She used these to prepare Muirfield cases over the next ten years. Once most
of the land in Muirfield was developed, these historical records were microfiched. Ms_
Dannenfelser retrieved them, made copies for Mr. Cline, and used them in preparing this staff
report. 'To the best of Ms. Clarke's knowledge, the documents arc complete. She said in 1986,
she prepared the staff report for the Muirfield Square final development plan for a shopping
center. She was quoted in the 1986 Commission minutes, -"There is no Muirfield Village PUD
text that spells out the permitted uses and development standards." She said that is still true.
The Commission initially disapproved the pod design for the shopping center. It was later
approved as a "reconsideration" item. It took two years to construct it, and it was not very
successful as a retail center. 'There were several revisions to the final development plans. T'hc
shopping center was broken into separate lots and re-marketed as an off cc' development. Each
lot contained a building and some parking, with cross access easements, etc.
Ms. Clarke said this applicant, National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc. (NFCE), has
acquired Lots 2 through 9. NCFE is a growing corporate citizen. Dublin would like it to grow
within the City. While the site is not in landscape compliance, this will be resolved by next
spring. There are no other outstanding Code violations, and based on zero complaints, staff must
conclude that NFt;E is a good neighbor.
Ms. Clarke said this site is commercially designated in the original PUD. The residential
buildings are low and well screened from the roads. There must be an acceptable way to use the
buildings. During the preparation of this case, which requests expansion of over ?.0,000 square
feet, staff tried to find a compromise. Staff still believes there is an opportunity for awin-win
outcome with a few changes. "These changes need to run with the land, be creative and include:
• Lowering the density to 8,500 square feet per acre, at an absolute maximum, as stated in the
previous staff report.
• Future expansion should be eliminated.
• A list of permitted uses should be established, including office and non-retail uses.
• 1/xterior lighting and hours of operation should be established that are compatible with the
neighborhood which is immediately adjacent.
• 'I'hc revised site plan should maintain exterior portions in all of the plaza areas.
• "I~he plans should meet all parking codes for the proposed uses.
• Il should completely conform to the Dublin Sign Codc.
. These should be reflected in a revised complete text.
08-033'1,/FDY
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary 13ospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Dublin Planning and 'coning Commission
Minutes -August 8, 2002
Page 4
Ms. Clarke said the outward facing plazas give great dimension to the exterior_ On the Muirfield
Drive side, the plaza is being completely filled in with building, creating a monolithic building.
Staff believes that part of that open space should be retained as part of this development.
Mr. Messineo said this seems contrary to the written staff report. Ms. Clarke responded that they
have not been able to reach agreement, but they would like to do so. 'I~he distance between the
parties is surmountable, but those are the issues. If the applicant would incorporate these into the
request, the staff would recommend approval Copies of the above points were distributed.
Ms. Dannenfelser showed several slides. Shc said the 9.2-acre site is located south of the
intersection of Memorial and Muirfield Drives, and excludes the earner office building. The
whole area is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District as part of Muirfield Village.
Residential areas surround the site. She said the average distance between adjacent houses and
the building is 189 feet. Across Memorial Drive is a two-story office buitding.
Ms. Darrncnfelser said there are now eight buildings on eight separate parcels. The buildings are
designed around three open courtyards, and the site has three driveways and 3 t 6 parking spaces.
A bikepath meanders adjacent to the homes, and a landscaped mound treatment borders the site.
Most of the one-story pod buildings are 4,900 square feel. The one-story additions would f tl in
part of the courtyards and most of the open areas between Buildings 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9.
Additional connections are proposed between Buildings 8 and 9, and 2 anti 3. An additional
expansion is proposed on Lot 2, facing I,ot 1. The building appears to terminate three to four
feet from the edge of the property, and the Code requires a minimum setback of five feet.
She said the current building-to-land area ratio, or buitding density, is 6,736 square feet per acre
for the existing 61,973 square foot building. The proposed 20,736 square foot building
expansion raises the density to 8,995 square feet per acre. The proposed text would permit a
density of 10,000 square feet per acre. Ms. Daru~enfelser said the propased density and building
mass are inappropriately large in a neighborhood setting. Dublin's large offices are located away
from residential neighborhoods. She gave several examples of commercial office sites.
This proposal would lower the parking to 3l0 spaces. The parking lot reconfiguration along
Memorial Drive removes 37 spaces, and a few spaces will be added in several spots around the
site. The dumpsters behind Building 9 will be moved to the central service area. The Code
requires one space per 250 square feet of general office, or 200 square feet of medical space.
With this proposed mix of uses, the Code requires 335 parking spaces, or 25 spaces rriore than
planned. She noted there are cross access/parking agreements for all of the lots, including Lot 1.
Ms. Dannenfelser said the parking lot has cut-off style, pole-mounted light fixtures. Neither the
existing lighting nor the propvsed bollard and pole lights comply with the Uublin Exterior
Lighting Guidelines or the Code far minimum light levels. She said the proposed text states that
this site will meet the lighting guidelines. Ms. Uannenfelser said the parking lot will be altered
to create a looped drive with landscaping and adrop-off point in front of Building 6. [t also
widens the entrance to 56 feet at the right-of--way line, and the Code maximum is 30 feet.
With a 33.5 percent expansion, the site needs to come into full conformance with the Landscape
Code. Additional plantings are required including a continuous six-foot high perimeter screen.
Currently, it has gaps. Ms. I)annenfelser said the applicant's letter states they will be in
cotrlpliance by next year. The proposal augments existing landscaping, but the site has fewer
plants than the plan shows, leavir3g gaps. Trees in the courtyards and parking tot will be
removed. A tree survey, a tree preservation plan, and tree replacement clan were nit tuhmitteci.
08-033Z/FDP
Rezoning/hinal Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
((1(11 MPmnrial T?rivt~
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 8, 2002
Page 5
Tree protection was not addressed. The perimeter is deficient by 22 shade trees and the interior
by seven trees. The additional planting requirement is one-inch of tree caliper for every 1,500
square feet of building coverage, or 58 inches of additional trees. 1~he plan is deficient.
Ms. Dannenfelser said all pods have residential roof lines, cedar siding, and large panel retail-
style glass windows and doors. She said Building 6 corresponds to the new front entrance facing
Memorial Drive. The cevised facade will be stone with the continued use of cedar shake roofing_
The areas to the right and left are the existing courtyards that will be replaced by building facade.
All the building cor+nections have flat roofs and cedar siding.
This proposal removes all the Muirfield Square signage. Anew ground sign is shown on Lot 1,
but the applicant's letter states it is not part of the application tonight. The Memorial Drive
facade will have wall signs flanking the main entrance.
Muirfield Eye Caze is the only tenant for now, but the text allows multiple options far future
users. The proposal does not show the existing sign or proposed tenant signs. These should
match those approved in 1989. The Code allows joint identification signs for sites with three or
more tenants, but this site no longer qualifies for that type of sign. She said Lot 1 is a sepazate
parcel and cannot be considered. Code also does not permit combining ground and wall signs.
Ms. Dannenfetser said the building will expand into most of the western landscaped plaza.
She said staff worked with the applicant for several months, but has unfortunately been unable to
reach a compromise. The proposed 20,785 square foot expansion violates accepted land
planning concepts, contradicts the P(1D purpose clause, and is not supported by the 17 criteria
for plan approval. The purpose of a PUD is to provide proper relationships between buildings,
and between buildings and the land. "I~his proposal abandons the residential individual pod
buildings, creates a single structure, and removes several open courtyards.
Ms_ Dannenfelser said the initial center functioned on a neighborhood scale, and was integrated
into its residential surroundings. "Phis still should be the central focus. The PUD facilitates
flexibility in building styles and types, and encourages proper relationship between buildings.
The innovative building design of Muirfield Square, with its residential pod layout, was a very
successful result of the PUD process. The scale and density are low, the site is largely hidden,
and the design reflects the architectural elements of Muirfield Village. The site is in the center of
the neighborhood, and keeping a balance between the residential and commercial components is
central to the PUll purpose. She said retail uses would still be possible in the enlarged building.
Ms. Dannenfelser said the 1973 prelinunary development plan is incomplete, and the routine
protections are not in evidence. The Planning Commission's responsibility remains the same.
She said staff' wants to continue to work toward a compromise and recognizes the applicant's
large investment in this community. Ms. Uannenfelser said specific items noted at the beginning
by Ms. Clarke needed to be addressed for siaft~ to recommend approval. She said staff
recommends disapproval, based on the seven bases listed.in the staff report. She reiterated each
of these bases and the applicable Code sections as outlined in the staff report.
Ms. Baring noted that a previous meeting, one resident opposed any expansion of retail use, and
elsewhere conversion to office is favored. In 1993, the staff report supports office use, rather
08-0337,/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village - Veteruiary Hospital
600 i Memorial Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes =August 8, 2002
Page 6
than retail. She noted that retail use did not work. She said the history clearly states office use
is preferred, but not that the staff wants retail.
Ms. Dannenfelser said staff initially recommended that the applicant downzone the properly, but
that application was withdrawn in June. Retail use is permitted here and that cannot be ignored.
Ms. Boring thought it should have been rezoned years ago and asked why it had not been. Ms~
Dannenfelser said she did not know, but this represents a much larger expansion.
Michael Close, attorney for several Muirfield Village property owners, asked if this proposal was
approved, would it preclude retail use in the future.
Ms. Dannenfelser said retail would still be a permitted underlying use under the zoning, but the
zoning shown on the 1973 bubble map states "commercial" on this site.
Mr. Close asked if this could still be a retail site without further action by the Commission. Ms.
Dannenfelser responded retail would still be within the underlying zoning. She said she believed
it would go to the Commission.
Mr. Close asked about parking if this whole building were retail. Ms. Dannenfelser responded it
would be grossly inadequate by the Parking Code. Mr. Close said retail use requires one parking
space per I50 squarc feet, or ~SU parking spaces- Ms. Dannenfelser was not sure of the total.
Mr. Close asked how many employees worked the first shift. Ms. Dannenfelser did not know.
Jamie 7itesman, president of the Muirfield Civic Association, asked if this proposal was
approved, could the building be adapted for half retail and half for adown-sized office. He
wanted to know if it would be difficult to use the expanded building for multiple tenants. Ms.
Datuienf:elser responded the owner might request ii as a revised final development plan, and a
PUD offers discretionary power to the Commission. IIowever, parking would be a problem.
Mr. Messineo said he understood, as an office use, this proposal is 25 parking spaces short of
meeting Code. Ms. Dannenfelser agreed. Mr. Messineo asked if even more parking is required
for retail use. Ms_ Dannenfelser said Code requires one space per 250 square feet of off-ice area
or one space per 150 squarc feet of retail area. She said approximately 570 parking spaces would
be required far an all retail building. Mr. Messineo said that seemed physically impossible.
Mr. Ritchie asked if the applicant did a traffic impact study for this expansion. Ms.
Dannenfelser said no, but one had not been requested- Mr. Hammersmith said this is not a
rezoning request, and parking is not being increased. "l~herefore, there was no necessity for
traffic impact study.
Mr. Close asked if it is the applicant's burden to show that this plan is in compliance, and to
present evidence to the Commission showing it is appropriate here. Ms. Iannenfelser said yes.
Ms. Boring asked if the parking lot would be adequate for the existing building (without
expansion) to be converted to retail use today. Ms. Dannenfelser said no, it is about 100 spaces
08-0331,/FDP
Rezoning/Pinal Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Eiospital
0001 Memorial Drive
Dublin Planning and Toning Commission
Minutes -August 8, 2002
Page 7
short for retail use. Ms. Boring said 100 paved parking spaces were being saved by its current
use*.
Mr. Sprague figured 335 parking spaces were required. Ms. Dannenfelser agreed, based on the
uses currently on the site. Mr. Sprague asked if the cross parking agreement was included. Ms.
Dannenfelser said no and that Lot 1, containing 41 spaces, was not included in the application.
Mr. Sprague said they were still deficient by approximately 30 parking spaces.
Christopher Cline, attorney for National Century Financial Enterprises (NFCE), said staff had
been trying to intimidate and twist their arms into rezoning, rather than permitting them to use
the final development plan process. lie said initially, they requested zoning asked for a<z
additional 35,000 square feet. This would have permanently transformed the center into an
office site and relinquished their retail zoning rights. Mr. Cline said he told the staff if it
recommended approval in its report, they would then do a rezoning to remove retail use after
approval. He said retail use was the only issue the staff presented to them. NCFE withdrew the
rezoning application_ With the smaller expansion, they decided not to relinquish the retail use.
Mr. Cline said the only other item discussed was a limitation to 8,500 square feet per acre. He.
said that was not acceptable. He said this application meets specific standards. He distributed
document notebooks to the Commission. The legislative phase created the standards, and the
final development plan phase is where the standards are applied. He said this is a good plan for ~.r
good neighbor. It is responsive and high quality, and he hoped the Commission would agree.
Mr. Cline said T'ab A shows a letter addressed to Mr. Sprague responding to several issues. Ho
said 10,000 square feet per acre was the anticipated intensity, and they are withdrawing the
request for the off=site sign. It is still a good idea and would beautify the intersection_ Mr. Cline
said this type of application is black and white. The 1973 P1JD ordinance did not have a place
where standards were requested. Ele said in the old days, it was expected that anything in ii
would override Code. The Code provides the standards. He said Tabs B and C contain 1973
Village Council and Planning Commission documents. Tab D references the text forwarded to
City Council along with two addenda. He said he did his best to try to find it. Whether there are
any standards in that text or whether they are lost does not matter. They will default to Code,
which is appropriate to judge this application. Tab D has the earliest land use map he found.
Tab E contains the 1986 Commission records. Mr. Cline thought Mayor Close's conr-ments at
that time are still applicable today. He said this staff packet omits the Commons Pleas Court
records, and these are at Tabs F and G of the notebook.
Mr. Cline said `l'abs V and W are the 1984 Village Council and Planning Commission minutes
dealing with the change to residential use of the acreage. He said the Clerk of Council faxed him
a notice stating that no dovv~r~-roving ordinance was found in a cursory review of the records. It
appeared as if there was not actually a rezoning of the surrounding land.
He included the Muirfield Village commercial deed restrictions. fie said there is a very strict
private process required under the deed restrictions by the MuirGeld Design Control Committee.
Tab I-i is the deed showing the various elements for compliance, and they are stricter than most
*As amended by motion and vote on September 5, 2002.
08-033Z/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary 1-Iospita)
6001 Memorial Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 8, 2002
Page 8
planrred districts. There is a detailed list of permitted uses with a recording reference at the top
right corner. (Official Court Record 08213HU5.)
He said they followed the approval process through Muirfield Village as shown in Tabs I and J
and were approved. Any plans presented to the Commission should be presented to Muirfield
first for approval as this applicant has done.
Mr. Cline said the reciprocal parking easement is at Tab K. It gives every one of the nine lots
access to every parking space or driveway on the rest of the eight lots. 'lfie previous staff report
is at Tab L. Including Lot 1, there are 25 extra parking spaces based strictly on office. He gave
more explanation of the parking. Lot 1 has a lot of available parking. The parking !ot is being
reconfigured, and everybody has a right to use all the parking spaces.
I-ie said this site is the NCFE executive campus where management takes place. Meetings with
customers and investors are conducted here. Mr. Cline said `hab M was an overview of NCFE.
Mr. Cline said Tab N contains details of NCFE's significant financial contributions to the City
and Dublin Schools. He said NCFE was an exceptionally diligent contributor. It is basically a
bank, and it makes an ideal tenant for this suburban community.
i Ie said they had proposed a rezoning for atwo-story 34,000 square foot addition to address
NCFE's long-term site needs with the elimination of retail usage. They then received resident
comments about the second story, sire, number of employees on site, and eliminating retail uses.
Same residents think the retail should go away and others think it is very helpful Ile said future
use of the site, if NCFE left, was probably their biggest concern. IIe said NCFE's objectives are:
• Connect the eight buildings to address environmental and federal medical security issues.
• Create an attractive entrance and reception and meeting areas for visitors.
• Add landscaping to improve the visual appearance of the entranceway and overall site.
• House essential management and sales work groups at the Muirfield Square site.
Mr. Cline said this plan meets these objectives without a rezoning. "They are working within the
administrative approval process. 'tenants can be relocated off the site to free up space for NC;I~ Ii,
and they are not planning much growth. They wilt connect the eight buildings and have the
small addition without changing the site character. He said they eliminated the second story.
'T'here is flexibility for marketing to future uses if NCFE should leave. With the changes, all of
the buildings could be leased independently or in groups, depending on the size desired.
Mr. Cline said under this final development plan, the entire site could not be retail due to lack of
required parking. He reviewed the uses approved in 1984 and the different parking ratios. "the
designations made in that final development plan match the Code parking. 'Co change the center
back to retail, he said they would have to meet the parking requirements- "They have designated
office as the only use permitted in these eight buildings, and they would have to demonstrate to
the Commission how they are meeting the Parking Code an a revised final development plan.
I{e said currently they had parking to spare, and they did not want to remove greenspace to add
parking. "l~here is enough space to add parking to convert two buildings to retail.
Mr. Cline said there was no question that office is a permitted use on this site, and they are not
permitting the restaurant or retail uses. This actual language was in they- ~~~'~~-•-`~~~- ~ - '-
08-0337./FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Ilospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August $, 2002
Page 9
density, there is no citywide office density standard. Parking is the primary deterrrrinant of
density. He said parking is not an issue in this application.
Mr. Cline said the site is already heavily landscaped, but they will work with staff to do as much
landscaping as will fit on the site. He said they thought they met the bighting Guidelines, but
they will work with staff on this too. They fall below 70 percent lot coverage. I-Ie said Tab S
showed the lot coverage proposed. Tabs T and U contain the setback information.
Mr. Cline said Dublin Code does not have a height limitation for office use, but the deed
restriction here is more conservative. He said the final development plan technical requirements
have been met with their submission. The standard for approval is whether this complies with
the preliminary development plan. He said they are going to dramatically decrease traffic.
Mr. Cline said the setbacks, lot coverage, and parking determine the density, and this density is
reasonable. These connected buildings are much less efficient than a new office structure. He
said several office density comparisons in the staff report were unfair and gave several examples.
Additionally, comparison to the Shoppes at Athenry was unfair because it was a retail shopping
center with completely different ratios. The neazest comparison is shown at Tab Q for 7100
Muirfield Drive with a density over 12,000 square feet per acre. Mr. Cline said the new
buildings are actually over-parked due to the internal inefficiency. He said Tab R gives the
Dublin Community Plan provisions for office density at 17,500 square feet per acre.
Roger Faulkenbery, NCFE executive vice president, said they are the leading I1S provider of
medical accounts receivable for financing. 11~ey grew from a few employees at Muirfield
Square in 1993, to 235 employees today, 19 of which work the second shift (four custodians and
15 processors). The rest of the staff works regular business hours, Monday through Friday.
Mr. Faulkenberry said they have more than 2,100 client locations, and they finance hospitals,
nursing homes, medical equipment agencies, etc. NCFE has financed over $19 billion of
accounts receivable since 1991, and they have raised $G billion in asset-backed securities to
finance this business. Medical providers often need outside financing due to the length of tune it
takes to be paid by Medicare, insurance companies, etc. Most of these organizations make their
money in the float time (b0-120 days) between receiving a claim and paying it, causing severe
cash tlow problems for the providers. Traditional banks do not understand health care, and
NCFE fills the niche for medical providers. NCFE finances accounts receivable, but it does not
do collections. They do not have call centers or collect delinquent accounts. They deal only with
third party payers. It provides finances that are secured by the collections on the accounts
receivable. They believe the party that generated that receivable is in the best position to collect
on it. Their total revenue growth rate has been 40 percent, up to $300M in 2001. Projected
revenues for next year are $350M-$400M. NCFE and its subsidiaries paid $1 M in taxes in 2001,
shown at Tab N. These directly benefited the City of Dublin and Uublin Schools-
Mr. Faulkenberry said NCFE has 42 Dublin residents, five of whom live in Muirfield Village.
Their anticipated hiring is mostly professional, i_e. accountants, attorneys, financial analysts, etc.
He said NCFE carefully considered the community meeting input in its plans. The reduced
renovation plan and expanded landscaping show this. 1Ie said they will always remain good
neighbors. They have no intention of leaving this center, especially in the next five to seven
years. `they wit! utilize their investment by staying here as long as possible. If additional space
is needed, they may move functions elsewhere. Their technology group is now at Metro Center.
OS-0337../FllP
Rezoning/t~inal Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
inn i ~,r~,.,,,,,-; ~ i n.:.,~
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 8, 2002
Page 10
Doyle Clear, Jr., Parsons Transportation Group, representing NCFE, reviewed "I'ab 7. He
examined changes in vehicle trip generation that would occur if the use were changed from the
mixed-use center to office only. lie used the land uses of the 1984 final development plan for
Muirfield Square and 62,000 square feet as the "existing" traffic and compared it to the
"proposed" trip generation from 83,000 square feet of office. At full occupancy, the larger office
would generate 2,200 fewer trips on a Saturday, 1,300 trips on a Sunday, and 1,200 fewer
vehicle trips on weekdays. There is a slight increase in morning peak hour traffic because retail
is generally slow in the morning. 1fie evening peak hour would be lower, based on the change in
use. Overall the office facility would generate significantly less total daily traf#ic based on the
ITE trip generation manual.
[Mr. Sprague called a short recess at 8:40 p.m., and the Commission reconvened at 8:55 p.m.]
Blake Rafeld, Blake Kafeld and Associates Landscape Architects, referred to 'l'ab S. The total
area of Lots 2-9 is 400,860 square feet (9.20 acres). They are adding 20,785 square feet of
building, but the overall lot coverage is decreasing by 3,287 square feet due to fewer drives,
parking, and walk areas. There are 316 parking spaces on hots 2-9, and 41 spaces are on Lot 1,
totaling 357 spaces. He said the property line dividing Lot 1 and Lot 8 bisects 12 spaces.
Viewed alone, Lots 2, 5, and 8, do not meet the parking Code, and this necessitated the cross
parking easements. He noted the lots will continue to function as a whole.
Mr. Rafeld explained the reconfigured parking lot includes 53 spaces on Lot 1 for a total of 363
spaces. The staff count on Lots 2-9 is 310 spaces- The northern parking area was reconfigured
to provide greenspace at the entrance. The lost parking spaces were gained adding spaces in
several other areas around the site. The applicant can meet the Code parking number, but they
believe the greenspace is a better trade-off. He presented landscape photos to the Commission.
The planted buffer mounds are mostly effective. Some areas are weak, due to loss of evergreen
tree branches. 1'he mound elevations measured #TOm the outside, range from two feet to eight
feet high. Measured from the pavement, the range is from zero to 6'/z feet. Buffers along the
south and west properties all exceed six feet in height of mounding and/or plantings. The east
site has dense plantings in excess of six feet for the full length. The mound along Memorial
Drive is 5'/Z to seven feet as measured from inside, or ?, to 6.3 feet #iom the outside- Tho
proposed plan adds under-story buffering adjacent to homes to make these areas opaque.
Junipers will be added under the evergreen trees. 'there is no room to add trees on the east,
south, or west lines.
They believe _30 trees are required in the parking lots, and they have 47. "They have provided 90
caliper inches of trees where staff says 58 inches are required by Code_ 1 [c said they will
provide a tree preservation and removal plan. He said they could add trees or pay the fee to
Dublin, as desired. "I~hey greatly exceed the internal areas requirement in the parking lot, and
their proposed plan adds 3,287 square feet over existing conditions. Upgrading the landscaped
islands from grass to wintercreeper is also proposed. They want to shield the AEP utility box
with a mound and stone walls, but that is not part of this application.
Mr_ Rafeld said they will consolidate the dumpster area on the south side of the site and enclose
it with stone walls. A six-foot high wood fence will enclose the utility and storage area.
Decorative pavement will be added to the north entrance, and the irrigation system will be
rebuilt- 1-Ie said they will shield the utility box on the north side of Iz"'~~~""~ ~' There will be
08-0332/l+'DY
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
rnn~ rat,.....,.-:,.i ~..:_.~
Dublin Planning and Toning Commission
Minutes -August 8, 2002
Page 11
flanking stone walls and columns at the main entrance. He said MF, Engineers has reached
agreement with I3arb Cvx regarding stormwater and will use the existing storage capacity.
Ike said only lighting in the north parking lot will change. He said staff notes that light levels are
below minimums there, but adding light may cause off-site impacts. He noted the proposed sign
and landscape irnprovements at the intersection are off site and not part of this application. They
will bring them back at a later date. Wall signs not being used will be removed, and new tenant
signs will comply with a comprehensive sign package to be presented later.
He said they believed that they had complied with the spirit of the Dublin Codc and that this plan
is worthy of Commission approval. They will correct the technical concerns raised regarding
tree preservation, landscaping, lighting, and signs.
Jeanne M. Cabral, Jeanne Cabral Architects, said ihese buildings were designed for a mix of
retail and office uses plus a restaurant. The main architectural element is a 70-foot square pod,
and the materials are consistent wish Muirfield Design Guidelines. Covered walkways tie these
pods together. She said previous owners have connected some buildings. T'he four pods of
Building 7 were connected since initially built. `tenants have changed over time from retail,
grocery, bank, dry cleaners, etc. to general office. There are now four tenants.
Ms. Cabral presented renderings, shown at "1'ab X. She said the new design replicates the
building pod shape, roof pitches, shapes, and heights, window configurations, and exterior
materials. The materials on the new portions will be the same. "f~hey have created a recognizable
main entry. Delivery people could not frnd the existing front door. The gable over the front door
is the same pitch as the rest of the structure and it has a glass transom bisected with grids.
She said most of the new structure is lower than the rest of the buildings - 21 feet versus 26 feet.
There is a new half of a building (iC) located along Muirfield Drive between I3uiidings 3 and 4,
and it has a courtyard. She showed views of` the property perimeter with the new construction
superimposed over the old photographs. "There are very few changes from the perimeter.
The connectors are set back from the face of these buildings. She said the architecture is not
different and the pod design has not been abandoned. Ms. Cabral said you could walk from
Building 2 to 9 and never go outside, but every building is lockable and separated by doors from
the next building. They are all independent of each other with separate mechanical systems,
bathrooms, fire separations, service areas, and exit doors. This allows for flexibility in future
leasing. She said the proposed building could be divided later and rented.
Ms. Cabral showed an overlay of landscaping and prvposed new construction. She said they are
taking away half of three courtyards, between Luildings ~ and 4, Lots 3 and 6, and Lots 6 and 9.
She said the proposed plan increases the paving and the planting in front of Building 6. "phis
center has a continuous appearance now because it has continuously covered walkways. She
said all the connectors are flat roofed, except for the construction at the main entryway. The
same fascia line will continue. Skylights will bring light into the center of the building.
Ms. Cabral said the density here compares to many upscale homes in Muirfield or Tartan Fields.
The difference in density prvposed by staff is not substantial..
Their objectives have always been to canned the buildings, add needed office and conference
space, respect the architecture, preserve the mounds, define the entrv, and respect the
08-0337,/FDl'
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary IIospital
0001 Memorial 1?rive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 8, 2002
Page 12
neighborhood. She believes this proposal is successful in all these. Ms. Cabral said NCFE needs
board, conference, training, and meeting rooms. I)ue to the existing spread out building design,
they already have more common area than usual. She said Buildings 2 and 5 through 9 need new
heating, cooling, and ducting systems. All of the buildings need new roofs. Some need siding
and glass storefront repair. NCFE is committed to refurbishing the whole exterior. 'The owner is
making the commitment to improve the property and to respect the neighborhood.
Mr. Cline said NCFE has been the first successful user of this site. Their impact is low, and if
NCFE does leave, the site will be left in better condition than it was found. I-Ie said they meet
the objective standards. Only the parking could result in a measurable shortfal! of all objective
standards, but they have rights to use Lot 1. He said "advancing the general welfare of the
immediate vicinity" is too open-ended. Speci#ic standards must be examined. Mr_ Cline said he
would not try to argue each of the bases. 1 Ie said he respectfully appealed to logic and the Iaw.
Ms. Clarke asked if Lot t had the right to use parking on Lots 2 through 9. Mr. Cline said yes.
Ms. Clarke asked if they could come in and change the use and say they have access to 300
parking spaces. Mr. Cline said they would have to come to the Commission for approval. Ms.
Clarke asked if they could make the same argument as NCFE. Mr. Cline agreed.
Ms. Clarke asked what was the density being requested. Mr. Cline said it was whatever is shown
on this plan. He is not requesting a specific density, they are requesting a plan.
Mr. Close said that Mr. Faulkenberry indicated that they had afive- to seven-year plan. Mr.
Faulkenberry agreed. Mr_ Close asked how long the houses surrounding that center are going to
be there. Mr. Faulkenberry said he assumed very much longer than that.
Mr. Close asked if Mr. Faulkenbcrry had or would make any comntment concerning the
addition of additional shifts, once this project is completed. Mr. Faulkenberry said they currently
have only a minimal second shift which finishes at midnight with custodians and a few
processors. l-Ie said there is no intention to increase that shift. He said expanding it was strictly
theoretical and highly unlikely, but he conceded it was possible if the business needed it.
Mr. Faulkenberry said 216 of~ the 235 employees have regular daytime work hours. Mr. Close
asked about the [)ublin staffs observations of parking lot use, where it found 62 to 90 available
spaces in the overall lot. if 100 employees are added to the first shift, Mr. Faulkcnberry assumed
most would drive to work due to a lack of bus service. Mr. Close asked where the shortfall
parking will be handled for those (assumed) 100 new employees. Mr. F'aulkenberry said the
numbers asserted were unreasonable and noted there are several tenants in the building currently.
Mr. Close asked Mr. Clear about the "existing" traffic noted in Exhibit %, and how long it had
been since there had been a restaurant on that site. Mr. Clear said the word "existing" reflected
the [and uses currently possible under the present zoning, not as actually exists. Mr. Clear did
not know when the restaurant closed, but he agreed it might have been around 1990. Mr. Close
asked iC Mr. Clear knew how much retail uses had been on this site in the past ten years. Mr.
Clear said he did not know. Mr. Clear agreed that "existing" was strictly theoretical, not actual.
It is meant to represent the current possible development package.
Mr. Clear agreed that retail had a higher turnover rate for parking space° '' '~`~
OS-033Z/FDP
Kczoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Conunission
Minutes - August 8, 2002
Page i 3
Mr. Close said Ms. Cabral about comparing lot coverage for homes and this site, at 20-25
percent, and asked how the required parking for these compazes. Ms. Cabral said offices have
higher parking requirements. A 4,000 square foot house should have at least three garage spaces,
plus a driveway, and a 4,000 square foot office would require 16 parking spaces_ She said there
is a lot of variation aniong sites and development Codes. Mr_ Close said commercial parking lots
also have driveways, etc. that are not required for residences, and Ms. Cabral agreed. Mr. Close
said 16 parking spaces would add at least 3,200 square feet to the lot coverage over a residential
Iot. Ms. Cabral said they are totally different. Mr. Close said the point is that lot coverage of
residential versus commercial is not a fair comparison. Ms. Cabral said she was just talking
about the actual lot coverage by the actual structure in her comparison.
Mr. Cline said several on-site businesses have moved employees out, creating new spaces.
Mr. Faulkenberry, said without this expansion, NCFE could not stay at Muirfield Square.
Mr. Zitesman asked if it would be possible, architecturally, to make the entry more visible and
noticeable without connecting the buildings. Ms_ Cabral said they need to connect the buildings
for security reasons, but it would be possible to simply enhance the entrance.
Joan Downing, Kirkwall Court, said she was almost in a car accident when a drive exited this
parking lot last week. She said she had counted 46 vehicles parked in the lot on Monday
evening, not 19. Mr. Cline said it was possible some employees were working late.
~;arol Pottmeyer, a resident, asked why the applicant could not expand elsewhere in Dublin. Mr.
Faulkenberry said if they need more space in the future, they will try to relocate sections of the
business. He added their technology division is now located at Metro V. Their strong desire is
to maintain the accounting, marketing, and portfolio management at Muirfield Square.
Ms. Pottmeyer asked what will control the maximum number of employees, density, and assure
there is not parking on the side streets. Mr. kaulkenberry said they are trying to minimize the
number of employees here. Ms. Pottmeyer asked what would limit the amount of cars for a new
owner. Mr. Cline said it has been a business site since the outset of Muirfield Village.
Mr. Ritchie asked where did the NCFE employees live. Mr. Paulkenberry said there were 42
Dublin employees and five of them [toed in Muirfield_ aim Nickell, NCFE, said the other
employees live in the Columbus area, start work between 7:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and leave
between 3:30 and 6:00 p.m. Mr. Ritchie asked which roads the employees use coming to work.
Mr. Nickell did not know. Mr. Ritchie asked if the employees ever use the Muirfield facilities.
Mr. Nickell said he has heard that employees have been seen walking on the bikepaths. Mr.
Ritchie asked if this firm. pays dues to the Muirfield Association. Mr. Nickell said no.
Mr. Sancholt said he had a similar concern about off street parking with another facility
approved by the Commission. He said it was represented that should parking on the streets
become a problem, that the Dublin Police would address the issue.
Mr_ Saneholtz said many concerns focus on the second shift, and he looked for limitations on this
component. A sizeable second shift in a professional environment would actually require
employees to share desks, computers, files, and this us generally unacce ' ' '
08-033ZJFllP
Rezoning/Final Development flan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes ~- August 8, 2002
Page 14
Mr. Nickell, said there is no plan to expand the second shift. After the neighborhood meeting,
they looked a processing center location closer to where their employees live. New
technological systems allow them to double their business without additional processors.
Mr. Gerber asked if they would agree to limit the number of shifts or hours of operation. Mr.
Nickel responded they would discuss it as a management decision.
Mr. Faulkenberry said they were open to this provided that they will not be forced to fire any of
the current second shift employees. He said there has to be a reasonableness test. Employees
need to work Late on occasion, and they need to maintain that flexibility.
Ms. Boring asked if the Muirfield homeowners' Association was approached for its input. Mr.
Cline responded that they went through the design review process and were approved. Ms.
Boring asked if there had been any official notice from their board that they did not approve this.
Mr. Cline said no and noted there are different associations within Muirfield.
Mr. Faulkenberry said they moved into the first portion of Mui~eld Square in 1993. IIe said
the second shift was previously larger; it began in 1999 with a staff of 35. It was reduced in size
due to a lack of productivity. He said they do not have any intention to expand the night shift.
I ie was not aware of any outside complaints due to the operation of a second shift.
Mr. Cline said there was no limitation of use of an offrce in the evening or 24 hours a day. Ms..
Boring asked if they were willing to include such a limitation as a condition. Mr. Cline
responded that this application is totally limited. Anything else needs Commission review, and
he did not think it could be limited more in a final development plan.
Kegarding the tree preservation plan, Mr. Cline said staff needed to work with them on it because
the site has no space to plant the extra trees. He will work with the staff on an agreeable tree
preservation plan. Ms. Boring said typically, if trees are cut down, a fee is paid to the City.
Regarding trucks, Mr. Faulkenberry said truck deliveries are typically for offrce supplies,
furniture, and Federal Express, etc. They gave their trash collector a 60-day notice because they
do not come as scheduled, after 9 a.in., etc.
Ms. Boring hoped the issue of off street parking on the residential streets would be addressed.
Mr. Cline suggested it be added as a condition: "That the site wil! have no off-site parking; all
parking will take place on the site." Ms. Boring said the smoking/break area was also a problem.
Mr. Nickell said the outdoor smoking area will be hidden.
Mr. Timmerman asked if the color of Buildings 2 through 9 would be changed. Mr. Nickell said
no_ Mr. Zimmerman did not want Building 1 to be very different from the others. Mr_ Cline said
NCFE is making its eight buildings much more uniform.
Mr. Zimmerman said the Code stated that the required minimum setback was five feet, and the
Building Code requires fire-rated walls when a building is within three feet of the property line.
Mr. Cline said they will combine the lots into one parcel which will eliminate such ('ode issues.
Mr. Zimmerman asked if employees from both shifts would enter/exit from one door. Mr. Cline
suggested that the second shift could park in an area that is the least intrusive to the residents.
08-0337.,/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirlield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial 1~rivN
Uublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 8, 2002
Page 15
Mr. Messineo said the west side trash coral should be relocated away from the residents_ Ms.
Corbel indicated on the drawing that a new stone trash enclosure would extend out 25 feet from
the building corners near Buildings 4 and 7. She said I~ed)x delivered in the rear.
Mr. Messineo asked about the traffic count data distributed. Mr_ Hammersmith said these were
purely two counts in the area which will be used to update Dublin's travel demand model.
Mr. Clear said the Dublin travel demand model was done in 1995 for the Community Plan. The
model will be updated as soon as MORPC updates its regional model in 2003. 1-Ie said traffic
counts around Dublin are being done.
Mr. Messineo asked what "processors" do. Mr. Faulkenberry said accounts receivable data is
submitted to them weekly by hospitals, etc., and it is electronically processed into their systems.
The payment information is posted against the specific receivables. This part of the process is
currently being converted to an electronic process. He said the electronic payment information
that is being transmitted to them from the payer, hospital or nursing home itself. Payments are
applied against specific receivables. 'I11ere aze 75 processors on the first shift.
Michael Close, attorney for the Muirfield residents, said to clarify the revieLV process, this
project was submitted to the Muirfield Design Review Board for approval. Mr. Cline said he
thought the formal name was the Muirfield Design Control Committee. Ete said this project was
never submitted to the Muirfield Civic Association.
Jamie 7_.itesman, Muirfield Civic Association president, said Muirfreld Village residents want to
keep this a residential community. He said the staff report says this project is inconsistent with
their community. "1'tris is in the heart of Muirfield, and the residents want to preserve Muirfield's
residential characteristics. IJe said they have concerns with parking, traffic flow, crime potential,
and the precedent set by putting a large commercial headquarters within a residential community.
Thcrc is other available commercial property in Dublin. Because very few employees will be
added, this expansion did not seem justified. He did not understand how this site could add
building area and parking, and still add greenspace, as stated. This approval creates a white
elephant, with its future use unknown. He fears that if this is not approved, maintenance of the
property will suffer. He is not convinced this is appropriate for the community.
Howard Adarns, a Muirfield resident, said Muirfield Village is a completed project with no
vacant lots. FIe said Muirfield Square resulted from a negotiated development plan in t98fi. It is
fully developed and is compatible with the residential neighborhood, and that is why it was
approved. 'Phis proposed high-density project in the middle of 2,200 families is iricorxipatible.
Ken Klare, a Muirfield resident, said the original planners recognized that a community could be
more than just houses. "phis center was envisioned as a mixed-use area that would be integral to
and enxich the neighborhood. It is not about accommodating a corporate enclave. 1-Ie said large
complexes in neighborhoods should meet a higher standard.
Mr. Klare suggested maintaining the openspace between the buildings as an integral part of the
environment, and that eliminating them would be an irreversible mistake. 1-le was certain this is
a good company, but he believed it is in the wrong place_
08-0337,/FllP
Rezoning/1~ final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary hospital
6001 Memorial llrive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 8, 2002
Page 16
Mr. Klare said plan approval criteria are subjective. He thought the development was Trot
consistent with the intent of the original ordinance and does not conform to comprehensive
planning. He said the development does not advance general welfare of the immediate vicinity.
'T'here are no benefits of the new arrangement and design that benefit him. It does not enhance
spaces between the buildings and the use of the open spaces. [Brief delay for court reporter to
change tapes.] Mr. Klare said "commercial," "office," and "retail' are not clear-cut terms. It
was initially approved as amixed-use project with a certain scale and locally-oriented uses. This
will have more traffic than the mixed-use center. Adequate parking is needed. He urged the
Commission to deny this application and commended the staff on its excellent report.
Warren Fishman said, as the president of the Muirfield Association, that the Muirfield
Association has nothing to do with design review. lie said the Muirheld Association has not
taken a stand on this application at the advice of its attorney. The Muirfield Association has a
design review committee, in the form of a consulting architect, and the architect approved the
design of the building based on the deed.
Ms. Boring said the Muirfield Association is generally not quiet about issues and asked why it
was being quiet on this project. Mr. Fishman responded that the Muirfield Association was
advised that they could get involved only* if they felt it was a detriment to Muirfield, but
whether it is or not is a matter of opinion. They were advised to monitor the situation and to not
take a stand.
Mr. Fishman said there are actually two associations in Muirfield. "l he Muirfield Association is
a forced association of all the residents, and he is president ~f that association. Their design
review committee is separate, and the Muirfield Association Board is not necessarily privy to it.
The Muirfield Civic Association is a voluntary association of about 304 members. 'They can
make a judgment on getting involved. Their president, Jamie "Litesman, had told him that they
chose not to get im~olved because they are a social organization.
Mr. "Litesman said it is not a political action association.
Mr. Fishman said, as a resident of Muirfield Village, the original approval of~ a SE,000 square
foot residential shopping center had disappointed many Muirfield residents- At that time,
Muirfield had less than 1,200 residents. Limited numbers of potential shoppers and poor
management resulted in a failure. Office uses were brought in and welcomed because they were
a big improvement over empty buildings. In his opinion, the offices have been great neighbors-
Generaily, he believes the idea of locating office buildings in residential settings has failed. Mr.
Fishman said it pulls traffic into the neighborhood. Cmployees really do nut walk to work.
He said he asked Mr. Cline for commitments that this development would remain as an office
use and at this size. He~said Mr. Cline could not commit to that. 1'he unknowns in the future,
and even more traffic, concern him. This is the only major .office building in any llublin
neighborhood, and it was done by accident. It was originally approved as a mixed-use
neighborhood center, but it grew into an office complex. It is currently a good neighbor. He
feared the temporary solution may create a monster. He urged caution in this case.
*As amended by motion and vote on September 5, 2002. 08-033E/rDP
Rezonint;Il~inal Development Ilan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 ~blcinorial Drive
Dublin Planning andZ.oning Commission
Minutes -August 8, 2002
Page 17
Ms. Boring noted that in 1993, the Commission reviewed Muirfield Square and Mr. Fishman
was then a Commissioner. Office use was considered to be a more appropriate use than retail.
The discussion on it was very, very short, and it was unanimously approved. Mr. Fishman
responded that the Commission felt it was a more appropriate use than the empty buildings.
There was no discussion of expanding the size of the center at that time.
Ms. Boring noted there have been several small expansions of the buildings proposed over time,
and the Commission approved them. Retailers do not seem interested in this site.
Mr. Fishman said an office tenant would be wetcome over any vacancy, and he cited Dublin
Village Center as an example. "ihe previous Commission actions did not expand the center to
82,000 square feet. The neighborhood expected amixed-use center for Local services, not
corporate offices. He repeated that NCFE is a good neighbor, and he hopes they stay in Dublin.
Mr. Close said this architecture and landscaping were always good, but it is in the wrong
location. I-le said the applicant has not met his obligation to show chat this is an appropriate use.
Mr. Close said the Commission disapproved a project in 1986 that looked much as it does today.
The applicant, Setterlin Companies, appealed the Commission's decision in Common Pleas
Court. Legally, it seemed that the proposed final development plan did conform to the original
preliminary development plan, even though it was highly unpopular with the residents. Setterlin
and the residents then entered into an agreement on a project of approximately 60,000 square
feet. He said that was the deal, and it was in compliance with the preliminary development plan~
Mr. Close said this application expands the project by more than 33 percent. It did not seem to
be a minor refinement of the final development plan that is in compliance with the preliminary
development plan- He said a contract was made with the residents of Muirfield at that time, and
adding an expansion of 33 percent breaches the deal made with the residents.
He said there were a number of reasons the shopping center failed. 1-Ie noted that Muirfield
Drive was not extended to the south until much later- He said he would have liked to see it work
as a neighborhood retail center. Neighborhood offices were expected such as those of lawyers or
doctors. Mr. Close said the site should be reused maintaining the pods, greenspaces, etc.
Mr. Close was concerned about the proposed density. The center was approved in the middle of
a neighborhood with a density of 5,930 square feet per acre. It is now 6,736 square feet per acre,
and the 8,095 square feet per acre requested is not consistent with the residents' deal.
i Ie said the staff observed 70-80 percent of the parking lot occupied in January. If 100
employees are added, there will be a parking problem. Because this is a planned unit
development, it is appropriate to look at how the parking lot functions, in addition to the Code.
Mr. Close said the traffic issues are valid- The 200 trips per day from this development will add
to the safety issue. He is very concerned with a building of this size and its potential future use.
The buildings, as they are today provide a more predictable future. He said the residents plan to
stay for up to 50 years, and the NCFE business is only planning for five to seven years. The site
will be too tight, and the second shift will need expansion. Ile hopes this business is successful
and remains in Dublin, but not here because it does not fit in the neighborhood.
08-033Z/rDP
Rezoninb/Final Devc]opment Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 8, 2002
Page 18
Mr. Close said the applicant relies on zoning provisions only when it is convenient. An
expansion of 30 percent or more requires a revised preliminary development plan for the
Commission and then City Council to approve the change. He said this is not a mirror change.
Mr. Close said 310 pazking spaces are proposed, and 335 are required by Code. If retail use is
reinstated, 570 parking spaces will be required. He noted the cross parking agreements are
private and not subject to Dublin's enforcement. The "existing" traffic numbers are very
misleading because the retail use wa_s discontinued years ago.
Mr. Close submitted a petition signed by 203 residents noting their collective apposition to this.
Ile said the staff report prepared by Ms. Dannenfelser was one of the strongest he had ever read.
This proposal provides no local services, abandons the residential-style pod design and
eliminates existing open plazas. He encouraged the Commission to reject this application.
Mr. Cline declined the opportunity for cross-examination.
Mr. Saneholtz said this issue is very gray- He wished the groups involved could find some
common ground. He encouraged the owner to pursue a compromise- He said it was a beautiful
project, but it presents a challenging location for the neighborhood. He said Mr. Close had made
same excellent points, but the application seems to be of high quality to the good of everyone.
Mr. Ritchie was surprised that there are still such large unresolved issues. The applicant should
have addressed the traffic issues better because of its neighborhood impact. Neighborhoods
consist of single-/rnulti-family housing, streets, infrastructure, openspace and parks, residents,
and services. `These components work together and define the neighborhood and its quality of
life. This proposal does not contribute in a positive way to its neighborhood or promote the
general welfare of the vicinity- It provides no benefits or services to the neighborhood.
Mr. Ritchie said the Conununity Plan shows areas for potential residential and commercial uses.
`The areas designated for commercial development to happen are more appropriately located and
have better access to the freeway system and the labor pool "They would be near restaurants and
shopping, away from residential areas. Mr. Ritchie could not support this application.
Mr. Messineo commended the applicant far a lovely project which made the most of the site and
buildings- lte had observed the site and found it very quiet, but residents are concerned.
Muirfield is very precious to Dublin, and it's something that the Commission has to protect.
Mr. I immerman also had visited the site and found the mature landscape screens the one-story
buildings well- lie found it difficult not to approve this application.
Mr. Gerber thanked the staff, especially Ms. Dannenfelser, for doing a great job. The staff had
recommended approval in Jatluary of what seems to be a larger project than this, and Ms. Clarke
presented a list of only eight items that need to be corrected. Fle was very concerned about the
report received and frustrated by it. "I'he offec seems to be working and the design is eornpatible
with the area. "The applicant has been a good corporate resident. He supports this application.
Ms. Boring said it was difficult to restrict Muirfield's large land mass from anything. It already
has commercial uses such as the golf tournament, etc. She did not quite grasp the deal that was
described and did not think it could last forever. Shc saw considerable movement on the Hart ~f
08-0337./FllP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
inn ~ n~to.,,~r; ai rlrivr
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 8, 201)2
Page 19
the applicant, and other neighborhoods have been asked to accept office uses right behind them.
It was justified by the taxes and what builds the community. She wauld like a bikepath on
Memorial and Muirfield Drives, but Muirfield will not agree to it. All parts of the community
must contribute to it. She noted the campany's outstanding financial background. A condition
to limit expansion is not necessary because they do not have the required parking.
Ms. Boring announced that she had both verbal and written communication with Mr. Cline and
Mr. Adams prior to the meeting. She said she totally respected Mr. Adams' role in Muirfield,
but things change over time with the economic conditions.
Mr. Sprague said hard cases make for hard decisions, and he agreed with Mr. Gerber's comments
about the staff. It is unfortunate the parties were unable to reach an accommodation. He said the
applicant bears the burden to demonstrate that the final development plan comports with the
preliminary development plan. The City does not appear to have at least part of the initial
documentation- Although it is maybe not the preferred use to some people, he does believe that
the proposal meets the element`s necessary for approval.
Ms. Boring asked whether conditions could be tacked on after the Commission approves this.
Mr. Clark said, no, and if conditions are desired, this proposal should be tabled for the staff and
applicant to work them out before returning to the Commission for approval.
Mr. Gerber said the Commission could draft its own conditions and ash the applicant for
agreement. Mr. Clark confirmed this.
Ms. Boring suggested the following conditions:
• "That the landscaping plan and perimeter buffer landscaping become compliant with Cade by
a reasonable date;
• "Chat the text be modified to a specific density, but less than 10,000 square feet per acre;
• That the text disallow any metal roofing material;
• That any entrance improvements be subject to approval by the City Engineer;
• "That the existing buffers along the residential areas remain intact, and that oft site buffering
be subject to staff approval;
• That the revised final development plan indicate tenant space to be leased far medical use;
• That the eight lots be combined within 30 days following approval by City Council;
• 7`hat a tree preservation plan (including ways of protecting existing trees during construction)
be submitted, subject to staff approval;
• That the trash pickup hours be reinforced and that it be done within our time limits;
• That second shift parking would be limited to a li-oni entryway; and it should be away from
residential areas;
• That the hours of delivery be limited to 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.;
• That the future use be addressed, subject to staff approval; and
• That there be no parking on residential streets.
Mr. Gerber asked if the future use would be limited to office and non-retail uses. Ms. Boring
noted that this had rx>t been addressed. She said if the use would change, the application would
come hack to the Commission, and retail would be controlled by the parking requirement. After
some discussion, the Conunissioners decided not to address this issue in the conditions.
Mr. Clark noted the applicant's text limits the uses to office and medical only. Mr. Cline agreed
and said the uses could not be changed without future Commission appr~-~~'
08-033Z/F DY
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Dublin Plaru~ing and Loring Commission
Minutes -August 8, 2002
Page 20
Ms. Boring and Mr. Gerber wanted to assure the lighting was compatible with the residences.
After some discussion, Ms. Boring suggested two bases for approval: The uses will be more
restrictive and therefore more compatible with the neighboring properties; and the proposal
provides for the expansion of an existing, successful Dublin business. Mr. Gerber suggested
adding: It advances the general welfare of the municipality in the immediate area.
Mr. Clark asked about the condition on density. Mr. Sprague said the density should matc}i the
plans presented. Ms. Dannenfelser said the submitted plan reflects 8,995 square feel per acre.
Mr_ Cline asked that the permitted density be rounded to 9,000 square feet per acre_
Ms. Clarke said one of the proposed conditions addresses combining the lots prior to City
Council action, but this application does not require Council confirmation. It was agreed that the
eight lots should be combined prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Ms. Boring added a condition that the smoking/break area location needed to be subject to staff
approval. Mr. Cline agreed. Mr. Cline requested that the conditions be verbally reviewed, and
Mr. Sprague recited the 13 conditions:
1) That the landscaping plan and perimeter buffer landscaping become compliant with Code
by Spring 2003;
2) "Chat the text be modified to permit a density of 9, 000 square feet per acre;
3) That the text disallow any metal roofing material;
4) 'Chat any entrance improvements be subject to approval by the City Engineer;
~) That the existing buffers along the residential areas remain intact, and that off-site buffering
be subject to staff approval;
6) That the eight tots be combined prior to application for a building permit;
7) "That a tree preservation plan (including ways of protecting existing trees during
construction) be submitted, subject to staff approval;
8) 11-tat. the trash pickup hours meet Code;
9) "I'ilat second shift parking would be limited to the front entryway; and one entryway be used
which would be away from residential areas;
10) That the delivery hours, other than courier service, be limited to 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.;
I l) "that the lighting be compliant with the Dublin Lighting Guidelines, subject to staff
approval;
12) 'That there be no off-site parking on residential streets; and
li) 'That the relocation of the smoking break area be subject to staff approval.
Mr. wine agreed to the l3 conditions as listed above. Mr. Cline read from the text: That
allowable uses shall be all office uses to include financial institutions, medical and professional
offices. Ancillary commercial uses such as cafeteria fbr oltice workers and eyeglass or
prosthesis sales associated with medical offices are included as permissible uses.
Mr. Gerber made the motion to approve this revised final development plan because it will
"dowruone" the permitted land uses and lessen its potential intensity, the uses will be more
restrictive and compatible with the neighboring properties, and it provides for the expansion of
an existing, successful Dublin business, with the above 13 conditions. Mr. Zimmerman
seconded the motion.
08-033Z/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary IIospita!
6001 Memorial Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 8, 2002
Page 21
Mr. Close said off-site parking was not the real issue. The issue is parking on residential streets.
A shuttle from a commercial parking lot would ziot be a problem. The problem is parking in
neighborhoods. Other Commissioners agreed, and there was additional discussion on how to
word a condition that would prohibit parking in adjacent residential areas.
Mr. Gerber amended his motion for approval regarding Condition 12. He recommended
approva! with 13 conditions:
1) That the landscaping plan and perimeter buffer landscaping become compliant with Code by
Spring 2003;
2) That the text be modified to permit a density of 9,000 square feet per acre;
3) That the text disallow any metal roofing material;
4) That any entrance improvements be subject to approval by the City Engineer;
5) That the existing buffers along the residential areas remain intact, and that off-site buffering
be subject to staff approval;
6) 'T'hat the eight lots be combined prior to application for a building permit;
7) That a tree preservation plan (including ways of protecting existing trees during construction)
be submitted, subject to staff approval;
8) `That the trash pickup hours meet Code;
9) That second shift employees use a designated portion of the parking lot and a speci fzed
building entrance, both located away from residential uses;
10)1'hat the delivery hours, other than courier service, be limited to 9 a.m.-5 p.m.;
1 l) That the lighting be compliant with the Dublin Lighting Guidelines, subject to staff approval;
12)'l~hat there be no parking on adjacent residential streets; and
13) That the relocation of the smoking break area be subject to staff approval-
Mr. Zimmerman seconded, with the amendment to Condition 12. Mr. Cline agreed to the change
in Condition 12 also. The vote to approve the revised final development plan was as follows:
Mr. Ritchie, no; Ms_ Boring, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Messineo, no; Mr.
7_immerman, yes; and Mr. Cicrber, yes. (Approved 5-2.)
I'he meeting was adjourned at 11:SU p.m
Respectfully su`b~mitted,
~• 7
Libby Fa cy
Administrative Secretary
Planning Division
08-0332/FDY
Rezoning/final Development Plan
Muirtield Village -Veterinary Hospital
600] Memorial Drive
RECORD OF ACTION
C111' U E D C B l,I ~ DUBLIN PLATINING AND ZONING CONIlVIISSION
MA.Y 6, 1993
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the foU.owing action in the application below at
its regular meeting:
4. Revised Final Development Plan - Muirfield Square -Revised I:ot Splits and
Change of Building Elevation
Location: 10.b00 acres, located on the southwest corner of Muirfield Drive and
Memorial Drive.
Existing Zoning; PUD, Planned Unit Development District.
Request: Review and approval of revised Final Development Plan under PUD
regulations of Section 1181.07 for the Muirfield Square Shopping Center to create
free standing parcels for Buildings 1 through 9.
Proposed Use: Mixed office and retail uses.
Applicant: Marietta Hotel Company, Inc., c!o Randall S. Arndt, Schottenstein, Zox
and Dunn, 4I S. High Street, Suite 2600, Columbus, OH 43215.
MOTION: To approve this revised final development plan wish the following two
conditions:
1) That a Final Plat be submitted to City Council for approval prior to any additional lot
splits; and
2) That the development text/deed restrictions be subject to review and approval by the
Law Duector.
voTE: 7-0
RESULT: This applicafion was approved and will be scheduled for City Council action on
the Final Plat as quickly as possible following its submission.
STAFF CERTIFICATION:
~~~
Mark W. es
OS-033Z/FDP
Rezoning/F~ final Development Plan
Muirficld Village -Veterinary hospital
G001 Memorial Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes -May 6, 1993
Page 12
Mr. Jones agreed that there are sig cant issues regarding pedestrian safety parking, and
traffic circulation still unresolved He suggested that the Commission es ~sh reasonable
parameters for Staff to work to resolve these with the applicant.
Mr. Fishman said he woul ' e to see the sign issue, the traffic iss ,the safety, and the
parking issues resolved presented to the Commission. Mr. us agreed.
Ms. Stillwell asked t the application be tabled for ope mo to allow Staff and the
applicant to work t ether and then to present the further i ormation needed in writing. All
of the Commissi members concurred.
Mr. Randy wman said the plan had been review y Engineering, and conceptually, ere
was agree nt that they are heading down the rig road to address pedestrian safety , d
traffic cir lation. Staff requests more detailed ' ormation.
Mr. s requested that the case be tabled. a wanted to be clear as far as dir lion goes.
He 'd he will return with an information sign package that has been clear by Staff_ He
s ported a blinking light at the pedestri crossing and a right turn into th parking lot.
Ms. Stillwell moved that these appli lions be tabled for thirty days so at Staff and the
applicant could provide a written fic study, appropriate circulatio plan addressing
pedestrian safety, and signage p posal. Mr. Rauh seconded the lion. The vote was as
follows: Mr. Fishman, yes; r. Geese, abstain; Mr. Manus, y , Mr. Peplow, yes; Mrs.
Stillwell, yes; Mr. Rauh, y ,; and Mr. Sutphen, yes. (Tabl -1.)
4. Revised Final Development Plan - Muirfield Square -Revised Lot Splits and
Change of Building Elevation
Mr. Geese moved that this case be removed from the table. Mrs. Stillwell seconded the
motion. The motion was approved unanimously.
Mr. Jones presented the Staff Report. The applicant previously requested approval of a
revised Final Development Plan to create separate lots splits for the sale of individual
buildings. On December 10, 1992, the Planning and "Coning Commission approved splitting
Building #7 as a separate lot_ At that time, the Staff identified Building Code conflicts that
would be created by new interior lot lines. The Building Code issues turned out to be quite
complicated. The City of Dublin, Washington Township Fire Department and the applicant
are realigning the property lines to minimize the conflict with the Building Code. The State
of Ohio Board of Building Appeals approved the proposal and issued an adjudication order
addressing the remaining Building Code issues.
The revised Final Development Plan showing the new lot lines for each of the individual
buildings is now being reviewed. Two of the new property owners are requesting minor
exterior building change in connection with their rouse. `Ilse resulting lots maintain
08-0337/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary 1-Iospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Nfinutes -May 6, 1993
Page 13
minimum required frontage for each. The proposed building uses will be consistent with the
originally approved uses, but in many cases will represent a less intensive office use. The
new owners of Building ~f9 are proposing minor modifications to the exterior, including a
new entrance foyer on the south elevation, new entrance doors on the other three elevations,
and a dumpster enclosure on the west side of the building. All the materials will.be identical
to the existing in both detail and in color.
Building #1, which was previously a bank, is being purchased by a design group for its
office. Their proposal is to eliminate the drive through lanes and to utilize that area as a
covered deck. They are proposing a 60-inch fence identical to an existing screeting fence
within the center. The owners are proposing to replace the existing sign box with individual
can letters over their entrance canopy. All other materials aze proposed to match the existing
in both detail and color.
Staff believes that the proposal will not produce any negative .impact and recommends
approval of this revised Final Development Plan with the following two conditions:
1) That a final plat be submitted to City Council for approval prior to any additional lot
splits; and
2) That the development text and deed restrictions be subject to review and approval by
the Law Director.
Mr. Fishman asked if the exterior modifications had been reviewed by the Muirfield Design
Review Control Committee. Mr. Jones said not to his knowledge, but it would be required.
Mr. Randall Arndt, attorney representing Marietta Hotel Company, stated that they are in
agreement with the conditions recommended by Staff. Mr_ Arndt said he represented the
owner of six of the parcels remaining with Marietta Hotel Company, a subsidiary of
BancOne who took the property back. The proposed exterior modifications are requested by
two of the individual lot owners and he could not speak on their behalf. He believed that
existing deed restrictions require that changes be reviewed.
Mr. Geese moved that this revised Final Development~Plan for Muirfield Square be approved
with the following two conditions:
1) That a final plat be submitted to City Council for approval prior to any additional lot
splits; and
2) That the development text/deed restrictions be subject to review and approval by the
Law Director.
Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Geese,
yes; Mr. Manus, yes; Mr. Pepiow, yes; Mrs_ Stillwell, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; and
Mr. Sutphen, yes. (Approved 7-0.)
08-033E/FUP
Rc;zoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting, November 9, 1989
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 5
will probably a 1990-1991. Ms. Jordan agreed tha he parking could be done
at the begin ng of Phase II if parking becomes a roblem. She also noted
that parks is prohibited on the street and is forceable by the police.
Mr. Camp 1 suggested that additional traffic igns be posted.
Mr. C bell asked if the parking lot would a surrounded with deciduous
trees versus evergreen trees, to avoid ob ructions in view when the police
are riving through surveillinq the park
area resident expressed that the p k should be secured at night because
ad already seen people in the park night. Ms. Jordan noted that peopl
are accessing the park now from th old haul road which will eventually
closed off with gates. Ms. Jorda requested that the neighbors contac the
police if they observe people i the park at night.
In response to a question by r. Leffler, Ms. Jordan stated that t e search
continues for outside funds on the Japanese garden .portion of a park.
Ms. Clarke clarified for he residents that only the first ph a (upper 4 acres)
of the 12-acre paxk was resently being reviewed. Ms. Zink tlined the entire
perimeter fencing poi, ing out areas where different types f fencing will be used.
Mr. Manus moved to pprove the Final Development Plan f Donegal Cliffs Park,
Phase Z with the slowing conditions:
1. Street tree rogram be instituted along the iron ge; and
2_ Entry sign installed in compliance with Cod
Mr. Leffler econded the motion, and the vote w as follows: Mr. Manus, yes;'
Ms. Rausc yes; Mr. Geese, yes; Mr. Campbell, es; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr.
Leffler, es; Mr. Berlin, yes. (Approved 7- .
4. Revised Final Development Plan - Muirfield Square
Ms. Clarke presented slides of the site and surrounding area as well as
information contained in the Staff Report dated November 9, 1989.
-The site is an existing shopping center on a ten-acre parcel located on the
southwest corner of Muirfield Drive and Memorial.Drive. The shopping center
is 59,300 square feet in area, has vehicular access from both streets and
parking for 402 cars. The retail center consists of a series of 9,900 square
foot "pod" buildings which are square and generally have access from all
sides. These pods are grouped around a series of three courtyard areas.
-The applicant is requesting several modifications to the center including an
additional shopping center sign on the corner, a clarification on the tenant
sign package, a break in the Muirfield Drive median, expansion of the
restaurant component, improvement of the open air courtyards, and conversion
of some of the office space to retail use. Details on these modifications,
including Staff's recommendation on each, are provided in the Staff Report.
-The applicant must also secure approval from the Muirfield Design Control
Committee to proceed with any architectural changes. The neighbors, Muirfield
Association and Muirfield Design Control Committee were all notified of the
meeting. The Design Control Committee recommended approval of the tenant
signs (permitting more than one per tenant), approval of the "Moneystation"
sign, approval of the restaurant expansion (both interior and exterior), and
approval of all the patio improvements. The Committee r- -------'-' '= --~~-•~••-'
of a second sign along Muirfield Drive; however, they ~~
08-0337,/FDP
( Rezoning/Final Development Plan
' ~ Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
f 6001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting, November 9, 1989
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 6
sign at the corner if the existing sign were removed: They also recommended
disappzoval of the median break, and they felt that the conversion of office
to retail use would be very controversial within the community.
-Two letters had been received from area residents and were distributed to
Concm-ission members at the meeting.
Mr. Mack stated his concurrence with the Planning and Zoning Department
Staff`s disapproval of the median cut_ He also noted concern about adequate
pedestrian paths in areas with outdoor seating and the probable increase in
litter and debris in the areas of outdoor seating.
Mr. Ron Newcomb, representing Setterlin Development Company, explained that
the developer has employed a consultant to perform retail and consumer
studies. Several changes were suggested to bring more activity to the center
but still have it remain a neighborhood center.
Ms. Marian White of the Crescent Group, consultant for`the.applicant, stated
that she has been studying the center since of.May of 1989 and presented the
following information:
-This will be a neighborhood center; it will not be drawing traffic from
outlying areas.
-Desire to enhance the neighborhood atmosphere and perhaps have bands (small
quartet) play in the gazebo on Sunday afternoons.
-Hoping to provide outside seating.
-Looking to secure specialty tenants who can be responsive to the needs of the
community.
An unidentified resident noted that he had not received a notice of the
meeting. (Staff later verified that notices were mailed to all contiguous
property owners.)
Ms. Carole Swenson, 5947 Kirkwall Ct., was opposed to any increase in retail
space because of the increased traffic during evening and weekend hours adjacent
to the residential area. Ms. 4,fiite responded that the proposed median cut
could alleviate some of the traffic accessing the center closer to the
residential units. Ms. Swenson also opposed the community.center atmosphere,
especially the mention of bands playing in the courtyard area on the weekends.
Ms. Phyllis Rosenfeld, 5956 Kirkwall Ct., stated that the development was
originally represented to her as commercial offices, and she opposed expansion
of any retail uses.
Mr. Richard Alkire, a weatherstone resident, stated that he was involved in
the original negotiations on the approved plan. He felt that several
deviations had already taken place and expressed concern about ongoing
changes_ He was opposed to the outside seating at the restaurant and
questioned what recourse the residents would have if these changes become a
problem. Ms. Clarke stated that a final development plan has to be in general
compliance with the approved preliminary plan. This area was laid out as
zetail commercial, and the developer has the right to request revisions to his
final development plan at any time_
Ms. Linda Stratton, a weatherstone resident, was opposed to the median cut.
She noted that several trees in the Muirfield Drive medi-- '" """ "`~'' `~'°
entrance to the center need to be replaced to provide sc 08-0332/FDP
Reconing/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting, November 9, 1989
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 7
headlights shining into her home. She was opposed to the additional sign.
She expressed concern about the trash associated with the center.
Mr. Berlin asked what changes have taken place since the plan was originally
approved. Mr. Alkire stated that the grocery store was not to be over 10,800
sq_ ft_, and a revision was approved to allow a 15,000 sq. ft. store_ Mr.
Berlin noted that the parcel has always been zoned for commercial use, and the
Commission has not changed it regardless of what was represented to potential
residents when purchasing their homes.
Mr. Terry Haddox of Lusk Architects presented drawings of the proposed revisions.
He explained the need to convert the office use to retail use to provide a
U-shaped shopping pattern. He also demonstrated the proposed courtyard changes_
Mr_ Berlin asked if the applicant would be willing to -.compromise on the office
to retail conversion by lining up the retail boundary in both buildings
thereby reducing the amount of space to be converted. Mr. xaddox.stated that
it would be a possibility.
Mr. Leffler questioned whethex access to the outdoor seating area of the
restaurant would only be through the interior of the restaurant. Mr. Newcomb
replied that it is a requirement. Mr. Newcomb also agreed that the indoor ~
restaurant expansion would be for the purpose of meeting or banquet facilities
or possibly a small deli. Mr. Leffler asked about the hours of operation.
Mr. Newcomb xeplied that the text limits the hours to 1:00 a.m. He also noted
that there will be no outdoor entertainment at the restaurant, and there will
be no outdoor sound system. There is music played through small speakers in
the courtyard areas, but not in the parking lot. In response to Mr. Leffler,
Mr. Newcomb stated that there are no lighting changes proposed other than
lighting the corner sign if approved and possibly around the gazebo and fountain.
Mr. Manus shared concerns about the conversion of office to retail space. He
also noted concern about the restaurant expansion, especially if the tenant
were to change. Mr_ Newcomb stated that this is somewhat controlled by the
text, and it would still have to be a sit-down restaurant.
Mr. Amorose suggested that the Commission address each of the seven
modifications for consensus.
#tl -Shopping Center Identification Signs: Consensus for approval of an
additional sign, 27 square feet in area and S_S feet in height (drawing
submitted), as well as additional landscaping to screen the utility boxes.
Mr. Amorose requested that the plans be reworked to provide landscape
materials that will mature into larger plants to eliminate the view of the
utility boxes.
n2 - Tenant Signs: Commission members supported the sign package with the
exception of the "Moneystation" sign for Huntington Bank.
n3 - Median Break: Not favorable.
~4 - Restaurant Expansion Indoor: Mr. Amorose noted concern about the size of
the meeting or banquet rooms stating his preference for small, individual
rooms because of the parking associated with it. The
seating for approximately 50-80 people. Ms. Rausch nc 0$-0337./F'DP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muiriield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Lhive
Minutes of Meeting, Novembez 9, 1989
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 8
additional parking space required with the expansion. Staff felt there would
be adequate parking for a restaurant of this size.
#S - Restaurant Expansion Outdoor: Favorable of outdoor dining area with
stipulation that there be no outdoor sound system, and noise is to be kept to
a minimum. Mr. Geese requested that the fountain be installed prior to the onset
of outdoor dining. Mr. Campbell noted concern about the existing outdoor sound
system and flags which he did not feel were previously approved. He stated that
there should be no sound in the outdoor dining area. Mr. Newcomb agreed. Mr.
Newcomb also stated that the fountain can be~installed in conjunction with the
outdoor dining expansion. The outdoor dining expansion is to be done on an
experimental basis requiring reagproval by the Commission for further extension.
#6 - Patio Improvements: Courtyard seating to be temporary or bench-type
seating. Kiosk to be similar to the one at the municipal building. Patio
improvements to be done within the next 12 months.
#7 - Office Conversion to Retail Use: Several Commission members agreed that
there "should be no conversion of office to retail use. Mr. Berlin disagreed in
favor of a compromise using only the front half of the pods (line up retail
space on Building :9 with Building #8) allowing a U-shaped retail
configuration. The applicant was agreeable to a compromise, but the residents _ ,
were not favorable of retail expansion because of the impact on evening and
weekend traffic. After further discussion, a straw vote indicated a majority
for disapproval of any office to retail conversion.
Mr. Berlin moved to apgrove the Revised Final Development Plan for Muirfield
Square with the following provisions:
1. Rejection of median break;
2. Shogping Center identification sign at the intersection to be permitted
providing that it be landscaped and that the utility boxes be screened
with proper plantings as approved by Staff;
3. Office to retail conversion on Building #9 to be in line with Building ~8;
(revised below)
4. Indoor restaurant expansion of 1,600 square feet to be permitted;
5. Outdoor restaurant expansion of 600 square feet with no outdoor sound
system to be permitted on a probationary period for the 1990 and 1991
seasons; (revised below)
6. Tenant signage package is permitted with the exception of the "Moneystation"
sign; and
7. Patio improvements are permitted with a 12-month time frame on construction.
Mr. Leffler seconded the motion. Mr. Campbell noted that if the motion is
disapproved because of Condition ~3, the whole plan will be disapproved, and
the applicant will have to start over. The applicant requested that Condition
#3 be voted on separately. Mr. Leffler withdrew his second. Mr. Berlin moved
to change Condition ~3 as follows:
3. Rejection of conversion of office to retail use.
Ms. Clarke noted that the text currently permits the outdoor restaurant
expansion to be open until 1:00 a.m. Mr. Newcomb agreed on an 11:00 p.m.
closing for the outdoor dining area.
Mr. Berlin accepted the revision, and Mr. Geese seconded
was as follows: Mr. Leffler, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr- 0&0337/FDP
Manus, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Ms. Rausch, yes; Mr. Gees.
approved 7-0) . Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary IIospita!
600] Memorial Drive
6665 Coffman Road
Dublin, Ohio 4301 7
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
DUBI.tN PLANNING AND 7.ONING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August 26, 19$b
7:30 Y.H.
Mr. Jezerinac called the Special Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission
to order at 7:45 P.M.
The following members were present: Mr. Amoroso, Mr. Berlin, Mr. Callahan, Mr.
Geese, Mr. Grace, and Mr. Jezerinac.
Mr. Reiner was absent.
Mr. Amoroso moved to approve the minutes of the July 8, 1986 meeting of the Planning
and 'Goring Commission.
Mr. Callahan seconded the motion.
The vote was 6-0 in favor.
Mr. Grace moved to approve the minutes of the July 30, 1986 special meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Berlin seconded Cho motion.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Amoroso, yes; Mr. Ber]_in, yes; Mr. Callahan, abstain;
Mr. Geese, yes; and Mr. Jezerinac, yes.
1. Final Development Plan - Muirfield Square
Mr. Amor.ose moved to take the rival Development Rlan, Muirfield Square off of the
table.
Mr. Grace seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimous in favor.
Ms. Clarke presented the following information:
1. The application has been before the Commission on several previous occasions.
2. It includes 10 acres located at the intersection of. Muirfield Drive and
Memorial Drive.
3. 'Cher.e is an existing bikeway easement along one of the internal property lines;
that. one which runs parali.el with Muirf:ieid Drive.
4. Staff has worked with the applicant for several months on this application.
5. There is a proposal for. final. developmenr_ plan approval. for a shopping center
to be located on the acreage which contains 59,300 square feet. in area.
6. The proposal will be broken down into several land use classifications -
retail - 36,SOU square feet
restaurant - maximum size of 3,260 square feet
bank - 3,850 square feet
office - 15,700 square feet
U8-033Z/)~ DP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 26, 1986
Page Two
7. Building to land area ratio of just under 6,000 square feet per acre at
5930 square feet per acre.
8. Proposal is to put together a set of land uses in a pod-like development.
9. There are about a dozen smaller buildings which contain about 5,000 square
feet. apiece.
1.0. 403 parking spaces are provided which is in line with the code change as
proposed in the Village of Dublin which will give a suburban standard for
retail development parking guidelines.
ll. There have been a number of revisions on the plan which have relocated the
signage, changed some of the building materials.
The applicant had agreed to use stone as an accent material.
12. The most obvious difference between this plan and the plan that was seen
previously ar.e in the area of peripheral treatment and the overall landscape
plan.
13. The applicant has agreed to Lower the site by 1 foot.
14. A11 of the finished floor elevations and the parking lot elevations for this
proposal will be one foot lower than those seen previously/
15. As the Cvmmission had requested, the screening material in this particular
proposal is exclusively of an evergreen variety. The applicant has chosen
materials from a heartiness zone 4. Those materials which were thought to be
non-functional or less desirable at this location were eliminated.
16. Regarding the improvement of the intersection at Memorial and Muirfield Drives
the applicant has agreed to share in the cost of building a left turn
stacking lane Erom Muirfield to Memorial. Drive in a Village initiated action.
17. Staff would like to see incorporated in terms of recommendations the following:
A. That in all. areas where mounding is less than 2z feet above pavement tha~~
a 6' evergreen screening material rather than a 3' shrub be installed.
B. That additional scarlet oak trees be planted to provide a canopy along
the interior. lot lines abutting residential projects.
18. On the exterior of the site along the street frontages the. mounding averages
4', dwindling to notlrg at the driveways for visual- clearance purposes.
There has been an increase on the exteriors of the property.
19. Staff is comfortable with the plan with the two revisions requested and the
applicant has agreed to tlee t.wo amendments to the plan
Mr. Callahan asked on wha[ the mounding height was being based.
Ms. Clarke said r_hat ie is measured from the elevation of the pavement.
Mr. Callahan noted that there is a 2 or 3 foot difference between the parking lot
pavement elevation at t_he exterior (where Che mounding is) and the parking lot
elevat:.ion adjacent to the buildings.
Ms. Clarke said that staff was considering r.his application in light of t:he
mounding requirement in r.he code - that- has to do wine screening parking lots
and it is measured from the elevation of the parking lot surface nearest the
periphery.
08-0331./FDP
Rezoning/hinal Development Plan
Muirfield Village - Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August. 26, 1986
Page Three
Ms. Clarke said that when the Commission recommended a 4' mound height she was
not aware that the Commission meant that that was to be 4' above the finished
floor elevation of the building.
Ms. Clarke said that in staff's opi.niori the 4' mound heighr_ from pavement in
combination with the overall lowering of the site by 1' would adequately screen
the project.
Mr. Geese asked iE the mounding was adequate in order to deflect headlights
from Weatherstone.
Ms. Clarke said Chat generally speaking the landscaping is 4' in height along
Muirfield Drive, and said that she believes that a 32' screen anywhere would be
sufficient to deflect headlights
Mr. Callahan mentioned that on the south side there are same places where the
mounding is virtually non-existent. He asked what would be the density of the
screening on plantings.
Ms. Clarke said that there have been some plants removed from the exterior mounds.
The interior l.ot lines are well screened with vegetation. She also said thar_ there
are a number of places where the mounding is functionally at zero, and the closer
one gets to the internal corner the truer that is.
Ms. Clarke. agreed with Mr. Callahan that the west and the south sides are residential
zoning.
Ms. Clarke, responding to a question Erom Mr. Amor.ose, said that she had seen no
plan that included a fence; just plant materials.
With regard to the plant material Ms. Clarke said that where there. are 6' trees
there are Austrian pine and green spruces (in some spaces in a double row). Where
there is the mounding at least 22' tali there is a Fitzer juniper (all of the
maCerials are evergreen}.
Mr. Amoroso said that it. appeared that the opactiy in the future would probably be
about 100%..
Mr. Callahan pointed out that almost all of the west and south boundary is below
?. 2' mounding, and said that he felt. that these areas should have as much attention
as the stree*_ front.
Mr. Callahan also pointed out that there: are some points on the west. and south sides
that are negative t_o the parking lot elevations.
Additional discussion following on the spacing of the trees and the number of years
before they would reach 100% opacity, and Mr. Amoroso suggested that a 10' spacing
between the trees would be best for the c_rees.
Mr. Eanchefskv sa'_d that the code requirements with regard to opacity are as follows:
50% opacity must be achieved in the winter, 70% in the summer, and musr_ be achieved
within four years.
OS-0337./FDP
Rezoning/1=ina1 Development Plan
Muirfield Village - Veterinary hospital
G001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and 7.oning Commission
August 26, 1986
Page Four
Mr. Darragh said that the perimeter requirements are stated in Section 1187.04
says that "unless otherwise provided landscape mate r.ials shall be installed to
provide a mi.ni.mum of SO% winter opacity and 7010 summer opacity, between one
foot finished grade to the top of the required planting, hedge, fence, wall or
earth mound within four years after installation".
The requirements Eor size of plants and installation is in Section 1187.05 -
l,andscape Materials. He noted that evergreen trees, shrubs and hedges are defined
as well.
Mr. Grace asked Ms. Clarke what is planned on the west and south sides of the site
Ms. Clarke said that there is a residential development which has been built
along the Memorial Drive frontage, and said that it is not as deep as this
proposal. (an Andy Syrki.n project of patio homes). The balance of the perimeter is
bounded by residentially zoned property, none of which staff has seen a final
development plan on.
Mr. Callahan noted that there are places on the west side of the site where the
curb is the highest point of elevation.
Mr. Geese asked why there could not be a continuous 4' mound along the west and
sough side.
Ms. Clarke said that along the internal. property lines the site, once the parking
lot is constructed, is going to be higher L'han its neighbors; it is lower at ttie
internal portion of the site than it is along t:he exterior. She said that r_ was
the opinion of staff that to add a mound would make it look "Like a fortress",
and that evergreen material given a chance to mature would be the best alternative
to be augmented by some deciduous canopy. She said that the Landscape code does
not give a preference for the materials to be used for screening purposes.
Ms. Clarke said that the best way to handle the situation, in her opinion, would
be to Lower the site overall further, and the second best way would be with
evergreen screening.
She noted that the site is being lowered one full foot overall; the cost involved
is considerable.
Mr. Amoroso said that there is 27' from ttie property Iine to the curb and that a
4' mound with plantings would be very attractive.
Mr. Jezerinac summarized by saying that the Commission generally felt that there
was to be inadequate mounding on the south side and that the possibility of a 4'
continuous mounding.
Mr. Newcombe said that since r_hey will be lowering the buildings and parking lot,
consideration must be given to drainage on their property as well as drainage
coming off of Memorial Drive into their lot.
08-033Z/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development flan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting
Uublin Planning and 'toning Commission
August 26, 1986
Page Five
There was considerable discussion amoung Commission members with comments by
the applicant(s) at the dais. The discussion centered primarily on the mounding
and plantings.
Mr. .Iezerinac reported that what the applicant suggested was that if the Commission
felt mounding was a primary consideration, that if some of the parking were cut
out along the interior property lines that the amount of mounding could be
increased and iE in the future more parking is required then the parking could be
replaced.
Mr. Callahan said that he thought that the primary interest should be to protect
the outside residential properties, and that the number of parking spaces planned
appeared to be more than sufficient.
3t was pointed out that if the 32 parking spaces were eliminated the ratio would
be 1 per 161 square feet.
The Commission members felt that the parking spaces should be eliminated, preferring
additional mounding.
Mr. Jezerinac said that it would be his preference to leave the original landscaping
in and increasing the mounding. '
Ms. Clarke asked if there were to be any changes along the bike path side of the
property. Mr. Jezerinac said that he thought that it would be a continuous 32'
mound. Mr. Hale said that they have agreed to inc.r.ease that mound t_o the extent
that it can be increased and keep it at a reasonable ratio - "we will. get it up
to the height that it can be physically be gotten".
1{e also said r_hat the landscaping plan will not be altered.
With regard to lighting, it was pointed out that with the lowering of the parking
lot. that the lights would be 15' with a 22' base, and thus would be 162 in actual
viewing height.
Mr. Callahan asked if the Village could be assured that there would be no direct
luminescence of the property.
Mr. Berlin requested of Ms. McCoy that the orange lights not be used.
Ms. McCoy said that the specifications at present call for high pressure sodium
but thaC they could be changed to metal halite which would be in conformance with
what is on Muirfield Boulevard pr.esentl.y.
Ms. McCoy said that there would be uplights within the center which are illuminating
trees; there are also uplights at the entrance that will be illuminating the entry
walls. She also said that the lighting within the parking lot will be a gold fixture.
Responding to a question from a resident, Mr. Hale said that there is 10 acres
that is zoned. The applicant has bought 10.6 acres from Muirfield - the .6 acre
is basically the bike path and there is nothing in that of a commercial nature.
'fhe center itself will. be on the 10 acres. The_ .6 of an acre is between r_he
center and the residential and is the bike path.
08-033Z/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Eiospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2b, 1986
Page Six
Mr. Ralph Halloran, the owner of a shop on South High Street in Dublin, made the
point that once one t-_akes out parking spaces, it is unlikely that one will be
able to get those parking spaces back. Mr. Halloran mentioned the lack of parking
on South high Street in Dublin.
Mr. and Mrs. Halloran raised an objection to the conversation that took place at
the dais earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Jezerinac asked if there was a commitment that the bike path would be built.
Mr. Rakestraw said that Mr. Scherer had made a commitment to construcr_ the bike path
to the recreation complex.
Mr. Geese said that he wanted to know when those two bikeways will be built to the
pool.
Mr. Hale said that the portion that they are responsible for (the .6 acre) will be
built prior to occupancy, that it will be an integral part of the development.
Mr. Geese pointed out that there are two bikeways - one across the road and one
adjacent, and neither one is built.
Mr. Rakestraw said that he would talk with Mr. Scherer and would get a firm commitment:
and report back to the Commission.
Mr. Mattison of Muirfield Ltd. said that there is access via a bike path r_o the
pool area - there is a apr_hway that goes under Memorial Drive through an underpass
to the bridge and across to the pool.. Ele said that one half of it is paved and r.he
other hal.E is not paved because there is construction going on.
Mr. Jezerinac said that it is dangerous and needs to be improved.
Mr. Rakestraw said that he would write Mr. Ceese a letter within 10 days telling him
the time frame under which that bike path would be completed.
Mr. Berlin moved to approve the final. development plan, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The lighting sr_andard and the lights to be the same as are on Muirfield and
Memorial Drives.
2. Regarding the mounding, to eliminate the 32 parking spaces, and in exchange for
that that the mounding will reach maximum height available on the entire interior
boundary, committing to a three to one slope, and at least as high as on the
grading plan presented this particular evening.
3. That in all areas where mounding i.s less than 22 feet above pavement r.hat a
6' evergreen screening material rather than a 3' shrub be inst.alle<1.
4. That additional scarlet oak trees be planted to provide a canopy along the
interior lot lines abutting residentia3 projects.
5. The mounding engineering will be subject to the approval of the Engineer and
the "landscape people".
Mr. Callahan seconded t_he motion.
The vote was unanimous for approval.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:19 P.M.
Secretary, P a.
0$-033'L/FPP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
July 30, 1986
Page Six
2. Final Development Plan -Muirfield Square
Mr. Jezerinac made a motion to reconsider the Final Uevelopment Plan - Muirfield
Square.
Mr. Berlin seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.
Mr. Bowman presented the following background information:
1. This site was a clearly zoned commercial bubble with the Muirfield preliminary
plans.
2. At one time there was over 34 acres of commercially zoned property at this
location about two years ago. It was reduced to this ten acre site.
3. For many years on the Muirfield Development Plan (obviously it has changed in
• the last 13 years) but this site was clearly the Dublin Center; this was to
be the center of Muirfield, a large area of activity, which staff could see
proof within the documents that were submitted at the time of zoning and
subsequent to that that the uses were not only oEfi.ce uses but were those
generally Listed in the zoning code for neighborhood/commercial as well as
other commercial uses. Through the process we have been in contact with the
__ developers and working with the applicant on the site plan since February.
We believe that in light of the information on the zoning on the bubble that
it was "simply a matter of how", and before it actually became controversial
we said that this is the first Muirfield proposal.; we believe that we should
have; the Commission will expect, as well as staff and the citizens, Chat this
will be one of the best commercially planned areas that would happen in Dublin
or possibly in Franklin County. Staff has negotiated considerably since that
time; there have been two or three informal. meetings with the Gommission, and
staff now has a plan that they believe complies with the provisions of the
preliminary plan.
Ms. Clarke said that the site plan that Commission members had was distributed to
them last Friday is a revised site plan, that it is not exactly the same as the one
that was heard on July 8th of this month. Additionally, staff, she said, has been
working with the applicant and there have been numerous phone calls between attorneys
and architects in order to "fine-tune" this pro,}ect. As late as this afternoon, she
said, an additional landscape plan and a new text has been received by the Village
for consideration. Ms. Clarke passed that plan and next out t.o Commission members.
Mr. Jezerinac mentioned previous discussions about the inappropriateness of providing
a site plan at 5:00 in the afternoon.
Mr. Hale explained that this was an extraordinary situation because of the time
that they had to get it done, etc.
The Commission recessed for approximately 10 minutes in order to give Commission
members an opportunity to study the plans.
08-033'L/)H DP
Rezoning/final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Mernorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commi.ssi.on
.Tuly 30, 19tib
Page Seven
Because of the insufficient time for Commission members and staff to study and
review the latest submitted plans, Mr. Reiner moved to table the request for final
development plan approval.
Mr. Geese seconded the motion.
Ms. Clarke said that staff had received the plan late i.n the afternoon and had done
little else but study same. She also said that she felt that it would be the
preference of staff that they have a longer rime to review the plan.
Mr. Amoroso said that he had spent a considerable amount of time studying the
previous plan, and that he felt that it was not appropriate to ask Commission
members and staff to vote on a plan which had not been adequar_ely studied.
Mr. Amoroso did say, however, thar_ because there were a number of concerned citizens
present that it might be appropriate to discuss the plan informally.
Mr. Geese said that the reasons he seconded the motion to table the application
were the following:
1. The lighting fixtures are not. known.
2. The heights of the mounds noted are not adequate.
3. The late plan submittal.
4. The landscaping plan is inadequate.
The vote on tabling the application was 7-0 in favor.
Mr. hale said that the plans submit.:ted this day were "change plans" to respond to
the recommendations of staff.
Mr. Ralph Setterlin, the president of Sett:erlin Development Company, said that the
changes that were made are those that deal with mounding and/or screening, accommo-
dating the desires of staff to have. mounds along Muirfield Drive. 'That is the only
change that would be seen on the drawings from the ones originally submitted. He
noted-that the tirst_ ones submitted showed shrubs; these show mounds.
Mr. Setterlin said that the reason for the late submission was that they had to go
back to the plans to accommodate suggestions made by staff; then go back to Muirfield
to get their agreement to allow them to remove the trees first, re-grade the
right-of-way to create the mound, and the plan the trees back in the same location(s).
Mr. Geese moved to go to an informal session on the Muirfield commercial.
Mr. Amoroso seconded the motion.
The vote was•rinanimous in favor.
Ms. Clarke continued with the following comments:
1. This is t:o be a shopping center to be located at the corner of Muirfield Drive
and Memorial Drive.
Z. It is proposed to be 59,:500 square. toot in area to be broken down into several
separate land uses.
OS-0332/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
July 3U, 198b
Page Eight
3. The retail component will be 3b,5U0 square feet. There will be a restaurant.
of 3,2b0 square feet. The office component is 5,700 square feet and there is
a bank which will be 3,850 square feet:.
4. The building to land area ratio is 5,930 square feet per acre.
5. The configuration is the same as tha[ that has been reviewed by the Commission
on several occasions.
b. The site is a series of approximately 5,000 square foot pods; the largest
tenant will be using slightly over 10,000 square feet.
7. The pods are convertible to office uses.
8.. there will be one curb cut on Muirfield Drive and two on Memorial. Drive.
9. There is no proposed median break.
10. With regard to parking it was the staff's position that the Dublin Code is not
the best standard and the general iT-dustry standard is not applicable in Dublin.
As a subrban community, with no public transportation, staff feels that a
suburban standard is what should be employed. The applicant has employed the
higher parking ratio. In the retail space that would be one parking space far
every 150 square feet. Previous submissions were orte parking space for every
200 square feet. The applicant has agreed to do that.
11. The restaurant use space will be limited to 3,L60 square feet maximum.
12. The office portion has been redefined to exclude all retail activities.
13. In the latest plan there are two drive-thru facilities and a possibility of five
separate tenants, or five separate land uses that could utilize them. 'Chose.
uses would be low volume, and are not uses which staff feels would be a problem.
14. Staff had considerable problems with the previously submitted landscape plan.
Previously there was no mounding along the Muirfield Drive side of the project.
The recently submitted Landscape plan shows mounding which will be approximately
t+ feet above the grade of the parking lots. It will be considerably less
above the finished floor eLevati.on of the buildings.
15. Ttie previous plan had 58,300 square feet total.. This plan has 59,300 square
feet total, so in terms lot coverage 1,000 feet has been added. It. is in the
office classification and would not be employable for heavier uses.
lb. In terms of design staff feels that this is an admirable plan; that the building
setup as proposed is one which, properly executed, may well win design awards
fomrwhere down the line.
17. The site is surrounded on three sides by very well planned residential property
statE feels that its buffering is critical; its landscape plan is critical..
18. The Lights will. be approximately 172' tall; a 15' fixture on a 22' base.
ly. With regard to building materials, the plan is to be executed in wood and glass
with a shake roof. Staff has urged the applicant to employ stone as it i.s used
in a number of Muirfield projects including all of the contiguous development.
20. The lighting was done to the staff's specifications; the land use and text
changes were done to staff's specifications, and where staff said it is
critical to add mounding, the applicant: has submitted a sit..e plan which show.
mounding.
08-0337./FDP
Kezoning/Final Development Ylan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6UU 1 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
July 30, 19ti6
Page Nine
Mr. Reiner said that he could Eind a 4' mound only in a very limited area on the
site plan, saying t-_hat generally he could see only a 2' mound which would be
inadequate.
Mr. Reiner also said that the applicant had been told that perhaps he should pan
the earth down and use that soil Lor mounding and for filling in the back quadrant.
Mr. Berlin said that he would prefer ground lighting, rather than post lighting.
A resident asked the Village's legal. counsel what the charge of the Commission is
in this case.
Mr. Banchefsky saki that the charge of the Planning and Zoning Commission is to
protect the health, safety and welfare of the Village of Dublin, and at the same
time to act within the parameters of the law.
The resident said that he felt that the Commission had overlooked one major fact -
that the people of the Village do not want a shopping center. in this particular
location.
Mr. Hale had several general comments as Follows:
1. The commercial site was originally at 30 acres, but it is now LO acres.
'L. The. developer, Mr. Ralph Setterlin, has committed himself to a "first class
shopping facility", not a L-type strip shopping center; hence the pod concept.
3. He emphasized that the zoning for this pr.ope_rty ever since the inception of
MuirLield has been commercial..
Ms. Karen Hanzelik, a senior consultant for ASPID International, discussed the
market survey which was done with regard to the appropriate uses of. the site.
She noted that the first was hired by Mr. Setterlin to determine whether or not
there was justification for building a retail center in this location. Ms.
Hanzelik had the Following points of information to presenr_ to members of the
Commission:
1. They looked at the buying patters of residents living in the area, the dollars
that_ they are spending, and specifically what merchandise they are spending
those dollars on.
1. Ms. Elanr.elik listed the types of uses which the survey determined would be
appli.calbe f.or this particular area.
3. In 1985 the retail sales in the area were 15 million dollars; those coming
from the residents.
4. "fhe expenditures coming from households in the at•ea totaled 55 million dollars
($'L0,000.00 per household).
5. ASPID recommended the following:
A. Build the development to satisfy one particular consumer type.
B. A recommendation of 56,000 square feet of retail space, primarily in
specialty foods, personal and processional. services.
C. Office space recommended would be 7900 square Eeet.
6. Muirfield residents currently spend 28% of their retai_1 dollars in the Dublin
area.
08-U33Z/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muiriield Village -Veterinary Hospital
(001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
July 30, 1y86
Page Ten
7. The retail mix is specifically designed for the Muirfield resident life style
and life support needs.
8. They expect only 1% to 2% of alt retail sales in this center to be a result of
people outside of the Dublin area.
A resident referred to a recent article in the Columbus Monthly and the Failure of
the center shopping strip in Bexley.
Ms. Fanzelik noted Bexley and Dublin are two different areas and that the approach
being used would be very different.
Another resident said t=hat he felt that the Village has a legal. right as well as
a moral right to deny the shopping center - the health, safety and Welfare of the
community. He said that he felt that the majority of the residents do not feel
that: the welfare of their community would be served by this shopping center.
Mr. Reiner commented that he emphasized with the residents, but that the law allows
retail on this site, and he suggested that the residents concentrate on doing
something to get the laws changed.
Another resident said that he felt that the application could be denied under para-
graph 3, which states "That the proposed development advances the general welfare
of the Municipality and immediate vici_nity."
Mrs. S. Abbott said that she was aware, when her family moved into Muirfield, that
there was an area platted for a commercial site.
She mentioned the fact that a number of residents irr Muirfield run businesses from
their homes, and also mentioned the transient: natrire of many of the residents
(corporate types).
A resident of Weatherstone, and a professor marketing at The Ohio State University
had the tol.lowing comments:
1. He noted that he had served as a consultant to shopping center developers and
as a retail site consultant.
2. Being aware of the growth in the northwest area of Columbus, that most persons
would agree. that what_ are needed are more and better roads, additional schools,
bur_ additional stores are not needed.
3. if you want to know what people want in terms of shopping, you ask them.
4. If the proposal is approved, it will create more traffic, deteriorate the
quality of life, and possibly deteriorate the investment in the property
itself.
5. If the consumer decides he wants to shop there, it will be a success, and if
r. tie consumer. decides that. they do not want to shop there, it will not be a
success.
Ms. Nanzelik said that there is a yea r.ly telephone survey done which tells about
shopping patterns. She said that that information was used to present their
Lacits (voi.d of opini.on).
0$-0337,/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
July 30, 1y86
Page Eleven
Mayor Close addressed those present with the following comments:
1. Ttre property was zoned commercial in i97:.i.
2. The second step in the process is the submi.ssi.on of the preliminary plat.
3. At the time the preliminary plat is submitted there is a requirement that
there be some specificity about what is going to happen on the site.
4. 'Chore is a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and
ultimately a public hearing before Council. For this project it occurred
about 1y81.
5. At that time both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Village Council
each i.n their separate set of hearings was required to go through, line by .lone,
those 16 to 18 requirements which include the public welfare, how soon the
site will develop, parking, etc.
6. Both Planning and 7.oning and Council approved the original zoning.
7. When the preliminary plat comes in, both the Planning and Zoning Commission
and the Village Council are required to look in detail at what the plat is
going to ultimately allow to be there, and then Planning and Zoning must approve
that to be done.
8. The developer who bought the land has the right to depend on the word he was
given by Council and Planning and Zoning; that that is the way that the site
is going to develop.
y. After the preliminary plat is approved, the developer comes back with the
final plat, and the process changes.
The final plat is reviewed by t:he Planning and Zoning Commission, which is
required to determine the following:
A. Does it comply with the original zoning?
B. Does it meet the standards that were agreed to when it was pre.limi.narily
platted.
It means that, at this point, does the final. plat agree with those things
that were agreed to when the preliminary plat was approved.
10. Whether or not it is popular that the shopping center go in, if Planning and
Zoning determines that the conditions of the preliminary plat, all the Dublin
codes have been met, then the Planning and Zoning Commission, as a matter of
law, has no choice but to approve it.
11. A concern is that it the Village does not apply reasonable standards to the
project. (lighting, landscaping, etc.) that what is going t.o happen is that
a judge downtown will be making a determination that anything that applies to
our. commercial zoning can go in, and our concern should be that we get, at this
point, the best possible commercial on this site.
12. Only "billfolds" ultimately make the determination as to whether or not it
will be a success.
A resident asked if they have any re-dress in a "flawed process" or are they forced
to Live with a process that made mistakes.
08-0337../FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary llospita]
6001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
July 3U, 1y86
Page Twelve
Mayor Close said that he does not know what representation was made to persons
buying land and homes in Muirfield, but the f:act is is that the plat has been
on file with the Village, and persons have had an opportunity to review same.
kle also noted that there are_ notices in the newspapers every week regarding
agendas of Council meetings and Planning and Zoning Commission meetings.
Mayor Close also commented that people usually do not get involved in the process
until. it is too late.
Another resident as4ced the members of the Commission to consider seven and eight
year olds riding their bicycles down the Boulevard to two swimming pools with the
traffic that is going to be created with this particular use.
Mr. Callahan stated that he was at the meeting at which the original zoning took
place, and said that at that time he was opposed to the entire thing. He did
say, however, that he Celt that one of the outstanding things that had been
accomplished wir..h Muirfield is that they have probably one of the better bike-
way networks; certainly in Ohio, and perhaps anywhere. lle said that he felt that
it was not necessary for children to ride down any of the busy streets on any-
thing other than a separate bike trail..
Mr. Jezerinac said that since Che last meeting the applicant had filed an administra-
tive appeal and that the significance of the administrative appeal is that a judge
is going to review the entire record to determine whether what the Commission did
was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. It was the opinion of the Law Director,
Mr. Jezerinac said, that the decision of the Commission was in fact that.
Responding to a question, Mr. ,fezerinac said tt2at it was his understanding that
Council is able to set aside zoning, not on a P.U.D., but on an issue that is up
for first consideration; in other words, they do not have final approval on a
final development plan on a P.U.D.
Ms. Maurer remembered that there was opposition to the rezoning of Muirfield by
residents in Dublin, specifically those in the River Focest area. She went on to
say that there. is a lot of opposition ro change, but that there are ways to change
it under. the law, there ar.e ways to fright it under the Law.
Mr. Geese was told that a text and a mpa ol: the preliminary plat would be provided
to him before the next meeting.
Mr. Keiner noted that the mounding is unsatisfactorily addressed on all the site
plans.
There had been a request made to lower the buildings, i.f possible, to pan the earth
out and use that for the mounding rather than perch the buildings up on the high
ground. There were comments with regard to screening the landscape where there
are existing residences already established at Weatherstone. Comments have been
08-0332/FDP
Rezoning/final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and 7.oni.ng Commission
July 30, 19216
Page Thirteen
made about the curb cuts.
It was also asked if the Village will be assisted in changes - left turn lane,
right turn lane, a widening of Memorial to the entry into the shopping center, etc.
It. was noted that nothing had been said about that.
Mr. Reiner also said that stone on the buildings would be another important factor.
He noted that a reduction in density might be appropriate.
Mr. Reiner said that he would like a response to the above comments in the next site
plan.
Mr. Weisen, a resident of Braeburn, commented regarding the discussions about
screening and mounding as it applies to Weatherstone. He wondered if that
would apply to the west side of: the development as well.
Mr. Reiner said that the Commission has not had a chance to review that. He noted
that they had been requested by staff to increase ttee planting facing the Braeburn
development.
Mr. Reiner said that further study would be required by staff and members of the
Commission.
Mr.. Bowman said that. a sign package has been submitted, and Mr. Jezerinac said
that that information is available for residents to study, if they wish, from staff.
Mr. Weisen said that tee thought that 172 foot lights were a little too high, and
suggested that that be reconsidered and reviewed.
Mr. Hale pointed out that the development across the street has exactly the same
lights.
Mr. Weisen asked iE the sewer. in Muirfield was adequate to handle the additional
commercial. complex.
Mr. Bowman said that the Engineer had found the system to be adequate.
Mr. Bowman also said that the initial sewerlines that go up to Muirfield were
designed to accommodate a residential complex of 6000 dwelling units. There
probably will be, he said, 2`L 00 dwelling units.
Mr. Elmer said that they have considered depressing the floor of the shopping center.
He also said that they considered the idea, but by compressing the floor even a
couple of feet they would end up with such a considerable amount of excavated
material to haul. that the overall. cost of doing it would be somewhere between
$75,000.UO to $100,000.00.
Mr. Elmer said that they are underdeveloped, trying to do the nicest kind of build-
ing, site development, landscaping, mourrdi.ng, etc., but are having a difficult time,
professionally, saying that they can do all these things.
He asked for Commission's assistance in priori.ti.zing their requests.
Mr. hale said that he thought that they had responded to the issues, for example,
the mounding, but that they would review the drawings to see it they showed that
those responses had been adequate.
OS-033Z/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
July 30, 1y86
Page Fourteen
Mr. Elmer commented that the higher the mounding, the less visibility there is for
runners, joggers, bikes, cars, etc.
Mr. Hale said that it was his impression that the mound was 4 feet from grade
(parking Lot).
Mr. Amorose had the following comments:
1. Pursuant to Section 1187.06(a)(1) of the Codified Ordinances that the "plot
plan drawn to an easily readable scale no smaller than one inch equals
twenty feet;" This plot plan, he noted, was drawn to a scale of one inch
to fifty feet.
2. Quoted Section 21ti7.U5(b). "Earth Mounds. Earth mounds shall be physical
barriers which block or screen the view similar to a hedge, fence or wall.
Mounds sha.ti be constructed with proper and adequate plant material to prevent
erosion. A ditfer.ence in elevation between areas requiring screening does not.
constitute an existing earth mound and shall no[ be considered as fulfilling
any screening requirement."
3. Expressed a concern with regard to the choice of plant mater.iai according to
what the Commission wants the developer. to achieve, using 90% deciduous plant
materia which will be defoliated much of the year. He said that he would
like to see the use of more evergreen material to meet the requirements.
Mr. Amorose also said that he would like to see a heartiness of 4 be followed
instead of S as regards the plant material.
Mr. Callahan mentioned that the plan does show that the parking lot elevations on
the west side are 41.40, and the mound elevations adjacent are 42'.
He also noted that. there are some mound elevations indicated at 46', but in those
instances there is a parking tot. elevation of G0.80, and a building elevation of
43.50.
Ms. Karen Mct;oy, the landscape architect, told Mr. Callahan that in the areas where
there is not mounding, vegetation has been provided.
Mr.. Callahan noted that according to the plan, 90% of the plantings are deciduous
and that that does not provide the required screening. He commented that the
requirement is 50% opacity.
With regard to lighting, Ms. McCoy said that there will. not be direct•illuminati.on
of the surrounding areas off of the site.
Mr. Amorose noted that pi.n oaks will not do well in this area and said that he would
like to see the pin oaks eliminated from the plan.
Mr. Callahan said that he did not feel that the Village's landscaping code had been
met.
Mr. Amorose said that as far as he was concerned it dies not meet rode but that
it. can be brought up to code.
Mr. stale said that they will meet the code.
OS-033Z/FI)F
Kczoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
July 30, 1.486
Page Fifteen
Mr. Jezerinac asked if there was a possibility that something could be done to
alleviate some of the potential traffic problems - could there be a widening
of the right turn Lane on Memorial Drive - could something be done on Muirfieid
Boulevard to provide a stacking Lane for left turn lane for traffic into
Memorial Drive - or perhaps something else.
Mr. Hale said that they will study the issue and will have a response when they
come back.
Mr. Jezerinac asked where they planned to put the truck traffic, and mentioned a
concern with regard to the possible deterioration of the road with the truck
traffic (Memorial Drive).
Mr. Hale said that he thought that the roads are adequate enough to take the kind
of traffic that this center will generate.
Mr. Reiner said that if the shops were going to be stocked by semi-trucks that
when t:he revision of Memorial Drive is done, that it would be a good idea if
perhaps curbing could be installed on those areas.
Mr. Elmer said that the screen wall shown on the current drawings would match the.
siding on the buildings.
With regard to stone on the buildings, Mr. t{ale said that they will work with
Ms. Clarke, but that they will. commit to stone accents on the buildings.
There was discussion regarding completion of r_he bike path from Braeburn to the
pool area.
Mr. Berlin said that he would like to see ground lighting instead of pole Lighting
if it is a possibility.
Ms. McCoy said that she did not see this as a possibility.
Mr. E{ale said that they will study the issue further.
Ms. Maurer said that she thought that there is a "negative" in lowering the shopping
center too far., just so that one can get screening (from a satiety standpoint),
referring specilically to the Kroger shopping center where access in and out of
the shopping center poses a safety hazard.
Mr. Scherer said that with regard to the bike path that they wi21. certainly do it
if they can.
Ms. McCoy asked for clarification regarding the requested 50% opacity. Mr. Amoroso
said that with regard to Muirfield Drive, the use of dogwood would not provide that
opacity. Ete also said that there were several voids in the hedge along Muirfieid
Drive where a scarlet oak was shown. lie noted that the scale shown was one to
fifty. lie aiso said that deciduous plant material was more like 10% effective
while i_t is defoliated, rather than 50%.
08-033E/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Juiy 30, 1986
Page Sixteen
Mr. Setterlin asked about the purpose of the mounding (to screen buildings or to
screen parking).
Mr. Reiner said that he thought that the purpose of the mounding is twofold -
1. Screen headlights as a safety factor to incorporate the automobiles actually
into the site.
2. Utilize the mounding by dropping the elevation of the parking Lot.
Mr. Bowman said that deleting plant material is an option if the mounds are
increased.
It was decided that the next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for the
purpose of discussing this proposal would be on Tuesday, August 26, 1986, at
7:30 P.M.
The meeting was adjourned by tl~e Chairman at 11:00 P.M.
c
Secretary, P1 nnin and 7.oning Commission
08-0337/l~ DP
Rexoning/l~inal Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial I?rive
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1986
Page Twenty hour '
7. Final Development Plan - Muirfield Square Shopping Center
Ms. Clarke presented comments as follows: ,_
1. This is a final development plan for a shopping center to-be located at
the corner of Muirfield and Memorial Drives.
2. The subject site contains 10 acres. '
3. The proposal is for 58,300 square feet of building.
4_ It is to be divided into an office component, a bank, a restaurant and a
retail component.
5. The retail component is 36,500 square feet.
Ms. Clarke showed slides of the site as she continued with the following comments:
6. This is an area that is zoned Eor commercial purposes. Beyond chat the PUD
for Muirfield Village does not spell out uses, does not spell out development
standards.
7. What we are looking for is a final development plan which indicates that this
property meshes well with the rest of Muirfield Village.
8. The center has evolved. It has changed from what initially was before the
Commission which was a strip center.
9. This is a pod type of development.
10. Each of the pods is approximately 5,000 square feet.
11_ They are in a group formation around landscaped pedestrian plazas.
12. There are three landscaped patios which are pedestrian walkways.
13. The parking provided is 356 parking spaces which is not to Dublin Code but
the Dublin Code is need of revision because its requirement is extra-
ordinary in terms of retail sales.
14. Tliey have asked for the uses contained in 1161 of the Zoning Code which is
the Neighborhood Commercial Distric[ plus a number of other uses such as
art galleries, savings and loans, and accounting services_ They also want
to permit retail sales of clothes, furs, shoes, books, sporting goods,
jewelry, cameras and optical goods.
15_ Convenient stores are not included in the definition of grocery in this
proposal_
16_ Hours of operation Eor restaurants and grocers will exclude those houc-s
between 1:00 A.M_ and 7:00 A.t•!.
17. 1'tiere is a stipulation that those sections that ace specified for retail
purposes could be refurbished for office purposes.
18. The drawing before the Commission indicates the highest retail use possibi.c.
19. There are some provisions in [hc landscape code whict~ were not met by the
landscape plan, buL they can probably be resolved.
20. The signage is consistent.
21. The two ground signs located on the plan need to be set back from the property
line.
22_ information on lighting was not submitted to staff.
23. The drive-chru uses and restaurant need to be better defined in the texc_
08-0332/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village - Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Hinutes of Heeling
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Heeling
July $, 1985
Page Twenty Five
24. Six tenths of an acre has been used for the requited landscape buffer
area. StaEE feels it is a ten acre site, not a 10.5 acre site, thus
the buffering for the shopping center`~ought to be Located upon the same
ten acres as the rest of the center.
25. Staff could l ike to see a residential lighting standard adopted for the center.
26. The applicant will probably agree to eliminate the median break. -
27. The parking ratios should be amended.
28. Would like to see the out parcel lines removed Erom the drawings except Where
they actually establish new property lines.
29. The only such out parcel in this proposal is the bank.
30. Mould like to see a landscape plan prepared in complete compliance with the
Code.
Mr. Harrison Smith, was present to represent the applicant, and proceeded to
give to Commission members a revised plan.
Mr. Smith said that they had agreed to staff's requests except Eor the parking
ratio situation. Mr. Smith said that they would consider 5~, but not 6. tie
also said that they don't quite meet the 5~.
lir. Smith brie Ely discussed the new concept - a module concept.
Hr. Elmer noted that the difference in the two plans was that the ground signs
had been relocated, additional landscaping, and the elimination of the marking
of the out parcels.
There was discussion about whether or not the median cut would be eliminated
as it was shown on the plan again.
Mr. Eimer made the Following descriptive comments on the project:
1. The total retail area being proposed is 43,593.
2. The pods are 4900 square foot each_
3. The total office space is 14,700.
4. The total square footage is 58,293 square feet on a ten acre parcel_
5_ This is approximately 50% of the normal space that is usually built on a
10 acre parcel.
6. Materials being used would be wood, cedar shake roof, and glass, being
compatible with the surrounding area.
7. The height from the ground t.o the ed of the shingles at the retail office
pieces is 12'; ground to roof is 14'; the maximum height over the pod would
be 28'.
8. There is no back to the project.
Ms. Karen McCoy, the landscape architect on the project presented comments on
the project as well as answered questions from members of r_he Commission.
08-033Z/FDP
Re~oning/l~inal Development Plan
Nluirtield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial llrive
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
July 8. 1986
Page Twenty Six
Ns. McCoy said that Chere is a rim around the perimeter of the property, and
they have tried to provide the screening that is desired in Muirfield, the screening
that is desired against the residential properties. Inside the shopping center
area there is a Loop road that secvices the center and the tandscaping there is
of a lighter texture allowing visibility in the interior of the center. She
said that they are not looking Eor high visibility to the center Erom Memorial .
Drive or Muirfield Drive. In the courtyard acea the landscaping has been
reduced to pedestrian scale level (potted flowers and shrubs, etc.)
With regard to the planned lighting, Ms. McCoy said that they are talking about
pedestrian scale lighting, up-scale lighting and lighting associated with parking
lots. She also said that they would have traditional parking LaC lighting located
in the islands; in the courtyards would be pedestrian scale lighting at about
12' levels; there would be out lights at the entrances.
Responding to a question from Mr. Jezerinac, Ms. McCoy said that the lighting
in the parking lot would probably be 20 to 30 feet.
She also said, responding to a suggestion from Mr. Jezerinac, that it could be
cut down to 15 feet.
Hs. McCoy said [hat it was her preference to use an ornamental as opposed co a
shade tree in the plaza area_
Mr. Reiner mentioned that the plan showed a top of curb elevation of 4i and then
the highest part of a mound at 44.
A summary of comments by a representaCive of ASPID International follows:
1. Conducted a study and concluded that there definitely is opportunity for
retail on this project.
2_ As of 1985 82x of the retail expenditures from Muirfield and the immediate
area are spent outside the trade area_
3. By 1990 it is projected that retail expenditures for these residents will
increase by SIB.
4. The opportunity would actually be Eor a 60,600 square foot facility.
5. Estimating that a vecy small percentage of the sales would be to outside
the area.
6. About 12,000 square Eeet is the largest store that Dublin would want an the
project. .
There was additional discussion about the types of retail uses that would be on
the project.
Mr. Vince Rakestraw was present, representing the new owners of Mui.rfictd. Mr.
Rakestraw submitted a letr_er stating that they endorsed the concept and
recommended that the Commission approve it_
08-033'1,/FllP
Rezoning/Final .Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Camrnission
July 8, 1986 '
Page Twenty Seven
Hr. James Organ, a resident of Muirfield for eight years, said that he moved
to Muirfield to escape commercial zoning and said that he felt that we did
not need additional commercial development in this area. Ne said that there
are adequate shopping opportunities in Dublin already.
Hr. Organ said that he had distributed a petition to the residents of Muirfield.
Me said that 340 petitions were returned with 615 signatures; as a result he
said that he felt that the residents of Muirfield are opposed to the development
of this site in this tnanner_
Mr. Organ said that if there is an appeal procedure for zoning that he felt that
it would be something that would be worthwhile.
Mr. Sutphen also a resident of Muirfield ssaid that from his conversations with
residents in Muirfield that they did not approve of the project. Ile said
that he felt that the center will not be used only by Muirfield residents,
and as a result would increase traffic into the area. Mr. Sutphen also said
that if such a center would go in, he felt that expensive signalization would
be required in the area.
Mr_ Sutphen also commented that he felt that it was not fair and highly ii~-
appropriate for Commission to receive revisions to a plan just prior to
discussion of that particular case at the meeting without having an opportunity
to study it thoroughly.
Mr. Tony Stich, a resident of Braeburn in Mi,irfietd, also expressed concern
regarding the possibility of a great increase in traffic. He also noted that
there would be no bike path access to the swimming pool from that area. Ne
said that he would not object to office use, but was objecting to potential
retail use in ttie project.
Mr. Dick Alkire, a resident of Weatherstone said that he felt. that when people
moved into Muirfield they moved there in order to live in an area with green
space, bike paths, and all the other amenities, moving to get away Erom
shopping centers. He also said that•he thought that the people who moved
into Muirfield were under the impression that this site would be office, not
retail.
Another resident mentioned the support systems that would be required Eor a
retail facility, creating a safety hazard for joggers, children on bicycles, etc.
47ith regard to provision for trash containers, Mr. Elmer said that they would
be totally screened.
Another residenr_ of Muirfield (Lochstea) said that he was always aware of what.
this particular site was to be used Eor. He also said chat it was difficult
to sell a home that was already built because there is so much space left to
build on. tie also said that he did not think that it would decline property
values. He also discussed the exceltetit reputation of Mr. Settcrlin.
08-033Z/FDP
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village -Veterinary Hospital
6001 Memorial Drive
Minutes of Meetfng
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
July 8, 1986
Page Twenty Eight
A resident wondered how a person or a group of concerned citizens go about
changing the zoning of a particular piece of property.
Mr. Banchefsky said that the procedure would be an initiative referendum wheceby
persons would petition to have it put on the ballot.
Mr. Elmer said that the center would not be large enough Co attract people into
Muirfield Erom outside the community.
Mr. Smith said that the drive-thru would be for a bank, another might be a
drive-thru for a cleaners. Mr. Smith also said that he could not conceive of
any traffic analysis that would suggest that there would be a need for signaliza-
tion as a result of this facility at that location.
Mr. Bowman agreed with Mr. Smith, saying that obviously the shopping center
would generate more traffic but that it is very doubtful that it would warrant
a signal at muirfield and Memorial Drives.
Responding to a question from Mr. Grace, Mr. Bowman said that the lighting plan
has not been submitted to staff.
Mr. Grace said that the site is zoned commercial and that the time to raise the
concerns being .raised by the residents was at the time of the rezoning; when it
was zoned commercial. He also said that the use as submitted is proper under
the rezoning, and said that he thought that the design subject, with the
changes that staff recommended is compatible with the surrounding area.
ltr. Smith said that they are buying 10.6 acres. The six tenths of an acre is
in the bike path.
Mr. Jezerinac said that it is an easement that was se[ aside and it is no re-
zoned anything - it's not rezoned commercial_
Mr. Smith said that when they "figured" intensity that they "figure" the !0 acres.
Mr. Bowman said that the bike path was originally included in the 10 acres
originally - one solution, he said, that was offered was to pull the packing
away from the bike path.
Mr_ Smith said that the bike path was never in the 10 acres. Staff had i0 acres.
The survey shows 10.6. There is 10.6 acres left there that is owned by
Muirfield and they are buying that 10.6 acres, but the zoning is lU acres.
Mr. Elmer expressed concern with the fact that "here we've got a whole set of
emerging requests for a shopping facility that have never been written down in
the ordinance".
Mr. Jezerinac that Muirfield is a PUD that was primarily developed for residential,
and that the residents of primary importance _
08-033Z/~ llP
Rezoning/~~inal llevelopment Plan
Muirfield Village - Veterinary Hospital
0001 Memorial L?rive
Minutes of Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 8, 1986
Page Twenty Nine
Mr. Berlin said that he felt that the design was outstanding. but he did say
that the people in Muirfield never expected a commercial outlet, and that
commercial in Muirfield is office.
Mr. Jezerinac commented on the fact that the applicant realty didn't tell the
Commission what the drive-thru would be specifically or what the restaurant
situation will really be, etc. etc. lie also said that some of the uses listed`
should be striker completely from the neighborhood commercial use as far as
this particular PUD is concerned, and that there should be no conditional uses.
Mr. Smith said that their intent was to return only with permitted uses in the
neighborhood commercial, and said that he agreed with Mr. Jezerinac - no
conditional uses at all.
Mr. Callahan said that he was of the opinion that this is a commercially zoned
piece of property and has been for 12 years. He said that he thougl-t that it
was probably impossible to change the situation, and therefore should attempt to
find the best solution to the project - make it the best project possible.
Mr. Geese talked about similar colors of bubbles and placement on the maps -
de'noting office. Mr. Geese also expressed concerns with the lighting, the
mounding, provision for trash, etc.
Mr.• Geese said that he was angry about a personal attack during the last recess.
Mr. Geese said that he will not accept any personal attacks to his personal
property or anyone with regard to how he would vote. or how he had voted. From
that individual he said that he would like a written apology.
Mr. Geese moved to disapprove.
Mr. Berlin seconded the motion.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Callahan, no; Mr. Grace, no; Mr. Reiner, yes;
Mr. Geese, yes; Mr. Jezerinac, yes; Mr_ Berlin, yes; Mc. Amorose, yes.
8. Final Development Plan - Earliagton Village Section 3
Mr. Bowman presented the following comments with regard to the plan:
1. The site is a 24.46 acre portion of the Earliagton Village Subdivision.
2. The proposed plat consists of 65 single family lots.
3. It includes a collector street of 60 Eeet.
The staff recommended approval with the following conditions:
1. The building lines on Sells Mill Drive and Earlington Parkway be increased co
~0'.
08-0337,/Flll'
Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Muirfield Village - Veteruiary tsospital
6001 Memorial Drive
F:\2008\A08-041\A08-041xsite.dwg, 7/22/2008 1:21:26 PM, Jeff Schumaker
~~ `~
~.\ ~~
\ ~ T \ ~F~~
~ ~ ~R/ql pR ~ ~ ~
~_
i ~
a / ~ ~. ~ \
0r ~ 2x335 e, E
F ~ \
q Bui ~>
~ ~
~~~ ~ ~ ~ i
~_ ~ /
i / ~~
m A ~ /
O
1
O / // ~,
O ~ ~ /
/ / ~
/ ~
/ ~
// /
% ~~
T
V '
/ ~`o , \
/ /~ ~ ~ \
=~ /
?/ ~ yF$$q
Y // / Y~6 / =C~ADb
r
~ (//// `r v ~ ' ~
/ O ~~ ~~
` ~ ~O ,~ i
'.
\ ~ ~~
/ ~ ,
~ /
/ ~' ~ ~~.
i ,'
~ i
~ ,
~ ~ ~
~ / i
~ ~ ~ i i
r ~
\ ~~ i i
~ / ~ i ~~ /
i ~
y
,' ~ ,'
~ ,, ~,
c~ au ca r
c
a _.
~ ~
< a. ~ ~
~ ~
cQ Sk `f
`
fl7
1 ~ 1
m <u v. o
m
1
ui a ro ro
L1 rJ. -
d~ ~ '~
~,
ro
~
f;
~
-
j
~ ~
m w w ~ ~
.
,, rn -
~-,
0 0 o D ro ~,V - .
~
J rn ~
OO (J1
CO V W
N (D
~ -
~. .
r~-r'
~ z -t
rn o~ o ~ 1'aa O
~ N ~ ~
._ .G ~
J ~ ~ __ •t _
O O t.Q G ~N1 (~
~l " ''~
~ V _
I
+ t I~ `b ~ f
O
-r 9
z ~
ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE ~ o
~ ~~D~D9 0~0•~
~ NOAH'S ARK VET HOSPITAL
~
Q ~g~
Q
D
155 NORTN FIFTH STREET
CC;.UMt3uS OHIC 43215 sG
~ ( I
~
~
~ ~
MUIRFIELD VILLAGE SQUARE
~6 ~
~ 6I..4G9.I SD0 FN(F. 4.<60.0500
E.x,A~~ ~~~4«~~m ~
i~T ®®®D®
I I ~ I l~ m
6
M
4
E
H
N q DUBL N
i0 4
3017
0