Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
57-08 Ordinance
RECORD OF ORDINANCES D:n~tun t.~eal E31ank, Inc. - - - - Form.lo. =UU=~i_ 57-OS O~~di~aunce No. Passed . 20 AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 2.1 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VENTURE DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY S00 FEET SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH PERIMETER DRIVE FROM PCD, PLANNED COMMERCE DISTRICT (PERIMETER CENTER, SUBAREA D) TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PERIMETER CENTER, SUBAREA J-1 -CASE NO. 03-112Z). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, ~ of the elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit "A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby 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 Q~h (day of , 2008. n /~ /l ~ ~, 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 Manager C~ A W ~'' X53 DATE: August 18, 2008 INITIATED BY: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning RE: Ordinance 57-08, MAG Parking Lot -Rezoning (Case No. 03-1122) Memo Request This is a request for review and approval of a rezoning (preliminary development plan) from PCD, Planned Commerce District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. The rezoning is for a stand-alone parking lot to serve the existing Midwestern Auto Group (MAG) car dealership within Perimeter Center as an employee parking and inventory storage lot. The applicant is proposing to rezone 2.21 acres of a 10.1-acre parcel, located on the south side of Venture Drive, approximately 800 feet southeast of the intersection with Perimeter Drive, to amend the approved development text to add vehicle parking as a primary use to the permitted uses of the existing PCD zoning. First Reading City Council Comments This ordinance was introduced at the August 18, 2008 City Council meeting and Council members had questions regarding the landscape requirements for the proposed parking lot. The development text requires that the landscape requirements of the Code be met. Code requires that the perimeter of the parking lot be buffered with materials that achieve 100 percent, year-round opacity with one tree per every 40 feet of boundary of vehicular use area plus a 3.5-foot average height continuous fence, wall, planting, hedge or mound. The details of the buffering will be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the final development plan. Council members also requested information regarding landscaping for existing car dealerships on Sawmill Road, and that information is provided in a separate memo. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission at their 7uly 17, 2008 meeting recommended approval to City Council of the request to create a new subarea (Subarea J-1) and add astand-alone parking lot as a conditional use to the permitted uses. The approval does not permit the construction of the lot; a conditional use application and final development plan must still be approved. The Commission recommended approval of this request to City Council with one condition: 1) That the applicant provide a stormwater management report for the site that complies with the City's stormwater management and stream corridor protection Code, subject to approval by the City Engineer. Memo to Council re Ordinance 57-08 -Rezoning - MAG Parking Lot August 28, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Site History This rezoning application was initially filed in 2003 to allow for an expansion of the MAG operation onto this parcel. The applicant subsequently made modifications to their other dealerships within the City and did not carry forward with this application. Pending approval of proposed modifications to the adjacent MAG dealership (currently being reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission), the applicant has indicated a need for additional parking and vehicle storage area (excluding display) and has revised this application accordingly. The Planning and Zoning Commission informally reviewed this proposal at the June 19, 2008 work session and provided feedback regarding the proposed use, location and site details for the proposal. Some Commissioners questioned the need for the lot once the proposed modifications to the MAG dealership are completed, and thus preferred requiring a conditional use approval to allow a review of the proposed use. Proposed Rezoning Proposed Use The proposed parking lot is intended to complement and supplement the operations of the existing MAG car dealership during an anticipated building expansion. After the expansion, the applicant anticipates a continued need for inventory vehicle storage on the stand-alone lot. The lot would only be permitted to be used in conjunction with the car dealership on the adjacent parcel to. the west. However, the site would not be used for additional vehicle display area for sales purposes. The proposed development text amends the existing Perimeter Center text for Subarea D and creates a new Subarea J-1. In addition to the uses currently permitted in Subarea D (SO, Suburban Office and Institutional uses and OLR, Office, Laboratory and Research uses), the proposed text permits astand-alone 191-space parking lot for employee parking and vehicle storage to serve the dealership located in Subarea J as a conditional use. Site Layout The preliminary development plan proposes to create a new 2.21-acre, rectangular parcel fronting Venture Drive. The plan indicates 191 parking and storage spaces. Access to the lot is limited to two internal drives from the MAG dealership to the west; no direct access to Venture Drive is shown. The preliminary development plan provides a 30-foot setback along the southern property line, a 10-foot setback along the eastern property line and a 25-foot setback along Venture Drive to the north. No setback between the western property line and the MAG dealership site is indicated. The proposed plan and text limits the use of the parking lot to employee parking and vehicle inventory storage. The development text does not permit the sale of vehicles from the lot. Recommendation Planning recommends Council approval of Ordinance 57-08 at the second reading/public hearing on September 2, 2008. Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 CITY OF DUBLIN,. Memo TO: Members of City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager j~ ,~ e~ t c :~ 'J ~ ~ _, DATE: August 14, 2008 I1vITIATED SY: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning RE: Ordinance 57-08, MAG Parking Lot -Rezoning (Case No. 03-1122) Request This is a request for review and approval of a rezoning (preliminary development plan) from PCD, Planned Commerce District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for astand-alone parking lot to serve the existing Midwestern Auto Group (MAG) car dealership within Perimeter Center. The applicant is proposing to rezone 2.21 acres of a 10.1-acre parcel, located on the south side of Venture Drive, approximately 800 feet southeast of the intersection with Perimeter Drive, to amend the approved development text to add vehicle parking as a primary use to the permitted uses of the existing PCD zoning. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission On July 17, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval to City Council of the request to create a new subarea (Subarea J-1) and add astand-alone parking lot as a conditional use to the permitted uses. The approval does not permit the construction of the lot; a conditional use application and final development plan must still be approved. The Commission recommended approval of this request to City Council with one condition: 1) That the applicant provide a stormwater management report for the site that complies with the City's stormwater management and stream corridor protection Code, subject to approval by the City Engineer. Site History This rezoning application was initially filed in 2003 to allow for an expansion of the MAG operation onto this parcel. The applicant subsequently made modifications to their other dealerships within the City and did not carry forward with this application. Pending approval of proposed modifications to the adjacent MAG dealership (currently being reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission), the applicant has indicated a need for additional parking and vehicle storage area (excluding display) and has revised this application accordingly. The Planning and Zoning Commission informally reviewed this proposal at the June 19, 2008 work session and provided feedback regarding the proposed use, location and site details for the proposal. Some Commissioners questioned the need for the lot once the proposed modifications to the MAG dealership are completed and thus preferred requiring a conditional use approval to allow a review of the proposed use. Memo to Council re Ordinance 57-08 Rezoning -MAG Parking Lot August 14, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Proposed Rezoning Proposed Use The proposed parking lot is intended to complement and supplement the operations of the existing MAG car dealership during an anticipated building expansion. After the expansion, the applicant anticipates a continued need for inventory vehicle storage on the stand-alone lot. The lot would only be permitted to be used in conjunction with the car dealership on the adjacent parcel to the west. However, the site would not be used for additional vehicle display area for sales purposes. The proposed development text amends the existing Perimeter Center text for Subarea D and creates a new Subarea J-1. In addition to the uses currently permitted in Subarea D (SO, Suburban Office and Institutional uses and OLR, Office, Laboratory and Research uses), the proposed text permits astand-alone 191-space parking lot for employee parking and vehicle storage to serve the dealership located in Subarea J as a conditional use. Site Layout The preliminary development plan proposes to create a new 2.21-acre, rectangular parcel fronting Venture Drive. The plan indicates 191 parking and storage spaces. Access to the lot is limited to two internal drives from the MAG dealership to the west; no direct access to Venture Drive is shown. The preliminary development plan provides a 30-foot setback along the southern property line, a 10-foot setback along the eastern property line and a 25-foot setback along Venture Drive to the north. No setback between the western property line and the MAG dealership site is indicated. The proposed plan and text limits the use of the parking lot to employee parking and vehicle inventory storage. The development text does not permit the sale of vehicles from the lot. Recommendation Planning recommends Council approval of Ordinance 57-08 at the second reading/public hearing on September 2, 2008. ~o ,~ R-12 '', N , 1 ~ '~ ~p ~ PCD '~ PUD ;'~ ~= "i~LR ~ ~ ~~ ~ PCD ~, cD ., .._~ PCD PCD .III' .~ ~O PL R ~ __ ~+ ~ ~~ „~ ~ PCD PCD 1'~~ `'f' ;'C ;cp '. 'PCD ~~ , LR ~ fl- ~ ,meter=D r-we /,- ~ 6r~ PCD ~ L ~al~ ~~p c~ I~ , BCD ;' PCD PCD ~ PCD PCD -~ ~ RI ~'~ RI RI RI RI i RI ~- SO RI '~ SO RI RI - -- , . -'j RI ~ SO i PCD ,PCD PCD ~! PCD ;;~VentUre=Drive SIDE%%;'. ,,,,;,: -P,~p i ~~ ~ PCD ~ i PCD PCD ~ ~~ jii i -S R=161'!33 -- l ` ~ ~, I~ I 1 I RI I RI ~, RI . RI ~ RI , RI '~, RI RI ~ RI ~, I ~ ~I _, RI ~~ RI R-1 RI RI RI City of Dublin 03-1122 " Land Use and Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan A Long Range Planning Perimeter Center, Subarea D - MAG Parking Lot Feet Venture Drive 0 250 500 PROPOSED SITE PLAN a"r ~ i ~.: ~;2 ! ~ U .- ~8 ry ~~ V g`G I r ~~ M ry ~ ~~ ;,~ I ;'~ ,3 I I 1 I I I I -t I I I I I I I I ~ / I I ~~ i !_. ' - 1 _- ~,~ ~ -- ~ --=i:~ `- . - - -_ _..!_ :" i '` .. il--. ;r ~~ 'n ~ 1 `t~ .•-_~ri" ~---~_ Iil' ~ I•~~~, - ~i~~~iilll w'Y ~r 1 J -~ __. - ------- ____-___- I N January 2007 EXHIBIT "B" REZONIN G APPLICATION (Code Section 153.234) TO EXPIRE ORDINANCE NUMBER ~-'I - 08 land Use and Long Range Planning f300 Shier-kin : s Rooti CITY COUNCIL (FIRST READING) 8 - IS -~ OS y ~ GuA_n, Ghi^~3pil.1236 CITY COUNCIL (PUBLIC HEARING) ~ - 2 - 08 PhonellDD:61a-414abW CITY COUNCIL ACTION Fox: b l a-A 10.x747 Wr-b Sife: www.dubkn.oh.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 appointment for apre-submittal review prior to sublriitting a formal application. 1. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: ~] Preliminary Development Plan (Section 153.053) ^ Other (Please Describe) II PRr~PFRTY INF()RMATI(7tJ' Thin nArrinn m~~xt ha rmm~lat~ri. Property Address: 0 Venture Drive Tax IDIParcei Number(s): part of 273-011297 Parcel Size (Acres): ~_~ 10. I Existing Land Use/Development: V3Cant Proposed Land Use/Development: Parking LOt Existing Zoning District: ~~ Rotauestnd Zoning Distrir.t: ~„s~. Total Acres to he Re~onc?c1: III. REZONING STATEMENT: Please attach separate sheets (8.5 X 11) to the back of this application wkh your responses to the following sections. A. Please briefly explain the proposed rezoning and development: Please see attached statement B. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the existing and potential future land use character of the vicinity: C. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan and, if applicable, how the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for Planned Districts [Section 163.052(6)]: D. Briefly address how the proposed rezoning and development moat iho review criteria for Preliminary Devr~~ ~~o the Planning and 2onfng Commission as stated in [Section 163.055(A)] (SEE ATTACHMENT A): ;~~, Page 1 of 6 J', ~1~ . ~ ~ I {, ~~ UI UU!iLi.rV~ IANU t]3E & I.3NG RdiaUr P( ANNINO Has a previous application to rezone the propeAy been denied by City Council within the last twelve months? ^ Yes ®No If yes, list when and state the basis for reconsideration as noted by Section 163.234(A)(3): IV. PLEASE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FOR INITIAL STAFF REVIEW: Please submit large (z4X3s) and small (11x17) sets of plans. Please make sure all plans are stapled and collated. Large plans should also be folded. Staff may later request plans that incorporate review comments. Fourteen (14) additional copies of revised submittals are required for the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. ^ TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS AND THIRTEEN (13{ COPIES Piease notarize agent authorization, if necessary. ^ FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ^ FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A TAX PARCEL ID MAP indicating property owners and parcel numbers for all parcels within 560 FEET of the site (Maximum Size 11X17). Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planningrfyou need assistance. ^ FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LIST OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET of the perimeter of the property based on the County Auditor's current tax list, including parcel number, owner name (not Mortgage Company or Tax Service), and address (Maximum Size 11X17). it is the policy of the City of Dublin to nottfy 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 SfTEISTAKiNG PLANS SHOWING a. North arrow and bar scale. b. Location, size and dimensions of atl existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping, structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking}, c. Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, number of dwellings, building/unit types, square footages, parking, open space, etc.). d. Size of the site in acres/square feet. e. All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights-of-way, easements, and other information related to the site. f. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries, g. Use of land and Location of structures on adjacent properties. IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) end FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X38) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING SCALED PLANS: a. Grading Plan. b. Landscaping Plan. c. Lighting Plan. d. Utility andlor Stormwater Plan. e. Tree Survey, Tree Preservation and Tree Replacement Plans ^ 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 (24X36) COPIES OF SCALED DRAWINGS SHOWING: a. Location of signs and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window). b. Sign dimensions, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grade. c. Copy layout and lettering styles (fonts) of signage. d. Materials and manufacturer to be used in fabrication. e. Total area of sign face (including frame) f. Type of illumination ^ MATERIAUCOLOR SAMPLES (swatches, photos, plans, or product speciftcations). InGude manufacturer name and product number. Page 2 of 3 e~. r,rn~rv i•,~~n~eoiei. •ra.:_ _,...a......,,.~• ao nnn,ntntwd Plaace attach addit'sonal sheets if needed. V. IrUKKC1V 1 rRVrGR 1 r v~rr~cn v - ••r•----• ---- Name(IndividualorOrganization): Brent linger Real Estate Co., LLC Mailing Address: c/o Midwestern (street, city, state, zip code) 6335 Perimeter Auto Group Loo Road Dublin Ohio 43017 Daytime Telephone: (614)889-2571 Fax: (614)793-7963 Emaii or Alternate Contact information: VI. APPLICANT: Please complete if applicable. Tbls is the person(s) who is requesting the zone change if different than the property owner(s). Name: Tim Galli, Executive Vice President organization (owner, Developer, Contractor: etc.): Midwestern Auto Group MaiiingAadress: 6335 Perimter Loop Road (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Dublin Ohio 43017 Daytime Telephone: (614)889-2571 Fax: (614)793-7963 Emaii or Alternate Contact Information: tgalli@magCaYS . Com VII. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF OWNER/APPLICANT: Please complete it applicable. This is the primary contact person who will _ ...:_ __..::....,o..., w ..oo.~o.~ affarh ari.litinnai sheets for mukiple representatives. reCelYe COITBSponaenc~ raya:u,ny u::a oY ............... ........_-_, ------ _----- - - Name: Ben W. Hale, 3r and Aaron L. Underhill, attorneys Organization: Smith & Aale LLC Mailing Address: 37 W. Broad St. , Suite 725 (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Columbus , Ohio 43215 DaytimeTetephone: (614)221-4255 Fax` (614)221-4409 I Email orAkernate Contactlnformation: aunderhill@smithandhale . com ` Page 3 of 5 VIII. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANTIREPRESENTATIVE(S): If the applicant is not the property owner, this section must be completed and notarized. Brentlinger Real Estate Co . , LLC ,the owner. hereby authorize the attorneys with the law firm of Smith & Hale LLC toectasmyapplicant/representative(s) ~~..e.~ .,e.r~i,.~.,~ -~ rna nr~racelnn anri annrnval of this apnlication, including modifying the project: I agree to be bound by all _~~ Signature of Current Property Owner: Date: Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~_ day of ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ' ~•~~ ,~~~ FARIDA SHARIFF State of ~ ,° - -- ~~ C~ ~, - _ -~_,~~- Notary PubiiC County of ~ bra nkl t ~ Notary Publi i . ,f~..=•'^ 't { ~~ State of Ohio sr~~ o;~' ,~„„„,„,~ My Commission Expires : ~7/01/20~'k~ IX. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City representatives are essential to process this application. The OwnerlAppllcant, as notarized below, hereby authorizes City repreaentatlves to visit, photograph and. post a notice on the property described in this application. X. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The City of The OwnerlApplicant acknowledges the approval of this request for rezoning by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Comrnlssion andlor Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said OwnerlApplicant. XI. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: This section must be completed and notarized. I Aaron L. Underhill, attorney ,the owner or authorized representative, have read and understand the contents of this application. The Information contained in this application, attached exhibits and other information submitted Is complete and In all respects true and correct~to the best of my knowledge and belief. p Signature of applicant or authorized representative: By ; /~~G"~~ '"_. ~ ~ Date: s/Zo ~~ L / Subscribed an s ern to before me this ~ day,of , ~ ,(r ~% State of w ~ ~ l i - / uyjri'...~~ County of ~~ Notary Public ~ ~ ~ Lr-~~- .~ ~ .~°_~ wunav ~ NOTE: THE 01NNER, OR NOTED REPRESENTATIVE IF APPLICABLE, n FOR OFFICE USE ONLY nh „~„" Amount Received: Ov Application No: a3-! t2 P&Z Dats(s): - - o P8Z Action: rnv Receipt No:Zsf~ IAi31'EtfN~o: rt ~w.r Date Received: 9 -Z - 03 Received By: G'~H' Type of Repuest: ~GZon~'n ~j~Gl~m. ~ ev. ~/~L N,©E, W (Circle) Side of: ~ ~1"G ~ ~ Nearest Intersection: ~~(, ; ~ ~~ ~~ i V'G Distance from Nearest Intersection: ~ ` O ~~ Page 4 of 5 ATTACHMENT A: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA § 153.0$5 PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA, (A) Preliminary development plan. In the review of proposed planned developments, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall determine whether or not the preliminary development plan compllos with the following criteria. In the ovent the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed preliminary development plan does not comply with a preponderance of these criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall disapprove the application: (1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Zoning Code; (2) the proposed development is in conformity with Community Plan, Thoroughfare Pian, 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 weHare of the city and Immediate vicinity and wiH 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 nalurai features and protects the nature) resources of the site; (7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; (8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide Ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on the sur- rounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non-conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedes- (9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of this development within the PD and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; (10) The density, building gross floor area, bulidiny heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and structures, yard space, design and layout of opon spaco systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overall accept- ability of the development plans contribute to the orderly development of land within the city; (11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas; (12) The doslgn, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard devel- opment regulations included In the Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the Intent of the Planned Development District regulations; (13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the city; (14) The proposed phasing of development la 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 Brea; (16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are suff(cient to service the new development. Page 6 of 6 Rezoning Statement Midwestern Auto Group Perimeter Center PUD Subarea J-1 A. Please briefly explain the proposed development: The subject site consists of 2.21+/- acres of real property located south of Venture Drive, north of U.S. Route 33/State Route 161, and east of Perimeter Loop Road. This proposal seeks to rezone the property to permit the same uses and same development standards as are currently applicable to the property, and also serves to clarify the right to improve the property with astand-alone parking lot that will accommodate employee parking and vehicle storage for the Midwestern Auto Group (MAG) automobile dealership, which is found adjacent to this site. The MAG dealership is to be redesigned in accordance with a final development plan that is pending with the city to facilitate the relocation of an additional product line to that site. The stand along parking lot will acconunodate the automobile dealership's parking needs following the redesign of that facility as proposed in an amended final development plan that is on file with the city. The intent is to integrate the parking lot into the redesigned site so as to provide a seamless transition across the properties. B. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the existing and future land use character of the vicinity: The proposed use fits the existing character of the area, which is home to a number of automobile dealerships. The parking lot is an extension of a permitted use and will serve to accommodate the expansion of a successful business. C. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan and, if applicable, how the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for Planned Districts (Section 153.052(B)]. The use of the site is not changing with this application. However, the Community Plan designates this area as "General Commercial." The uses that are present in such a district include as automobile sales and service and accessory uses. D. Briefly address how the proposed rezoning and development meet the review criteria for Preliminary Development Plan approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission as set forth in Section 153.055(A). Each of the review criteria of Section 153.055 of the City of Dublin Code addressed below. The proposed development meets the review criteria and therefore should be approved. 1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent, and applicable standards of the zoning code. The proposed development meets the purpose, intent, and applicable standards of the zoning code. It also meets all of the standards that are applicable to the property under its current zoning. 2) The proposed development is in conformity with the Community PIan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan, and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing street network. The development conforms to the recommendations of relevant plans. The development of the property as a stand alone parking lot will not provide a direct connection to the public transportation network. Rather, access to this site will be from the existing MAG automobile dealership to the west. 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. The proposed development advances the general welfare of the city by helping to accommodate the redesign of the existing MAG dealership to the west, which will bring additional jobs to that site. 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. The proposed uses will have a positive impact on this area of the city. The use of the property is consistent with the area's existing character. 5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan. Not applicable. ~ The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site. There are no unique natural features or natural resources on this site. 7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. All utilities are available to serve the site. Drainage and retention shall be provided in accordance with the approved final development plan for the project. 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. The development is designed to ensure that impacts to the surrounding public transportation network are minimized. No direct access to the stand alone parking lot will be provided to public rights-of--way. Instead, access to and from the lot will occur through the MAG dealership to the west. 9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of this development within the PUD and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community. Not applicable. 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 plans contribute to the orderly development of land within the city. Not applicable. 11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swafes, watercourses, and drainage areas. The storm drainage will be handled in accordance with an approved finakl development plan for the site. 12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations. The development meets or exceeds the applicable requirements of the Zoning Code and other relevant documents. 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. Not applicable. 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. The construction of the parking lot will occur prior to or in conjunction with the redesign of the MAG dealership site to the west in order to accommodate the impacts of that redesign on parking for that use. 1S) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements and not impair the existing public service system for the area. The proposed development will be served by existing and future road and utility improvements from the surrounding area. 16} The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. No public infrastructure improvements are necessary. MA(3 Parking Lot Rezoning Stml (alu) (5/29/08) June 26,2008 DESCRIPTION OF A 2.21b ACRE TRACT FOR REZONING ALONG VENTURE DRIVE, SOL~'H OF PERIMETER DRIVE, CITY OF DUBI.iN, FRANKLIN CO., OHIO Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, in Virginia Military Survey No. 2999 and being a portion of a 5.500 acre tract of land conveyed to Brentlinger Real Estate Company, LLC by deed of record in Instrurntnt 20040315005tr068, all references to Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio, and bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point in the curved southwesterly right-of--way line of Venture Drive (60 feet in width) as spawn upon the plat entitled "Dedication Of Venture Drive, Easements and Vacation of Existing Sanitary Sewer Easements" of record in Plat Book 89, Pages 43, 44 and 45, at the northwesterly comer of said 5.500 acre tract and at an easterly comet of a 14.780 acre tract of land conveyed to Car MAG L.L.C. by deed of record in Instrument 2002050!0109350; thence southeasterly along the curved southwesterly right-of-way line of Venture Drive, along the curved northeasterly line of said 5.500 acre tract and with a curve to the left, data of which is: radius = 330.00 feet, and delta = 38° 57' 17", arc length = 224.36 feet, a chord distance of 220.07 feet a bearing of S 69° 47' S6" E to the paint of tangency; thence S 89° 16' 34" E along the south right-of-way line of Venture Drive and along the north line of said 5.500 acre tract a distance of 234.44 feet to a point at the northeast comer of said 5.500 acre tract and at the northwest comer of a 4.600 acre tract of land conveyed to Brentlinger Real Estate Company, LLC by deed of record in Instrument 200411020252709; thence S 00° 43' 26" W along a portion of the east line of said 5.500 acre tract and along a portion of the west line of said 4.600 acre tract a distance of 179.00 feet to a point; thence N 89° 16' 34" W crossing a portion of said 5.500 acre tract and parallel with the south right- of-way line of Venture Drive a distance of SOD.17 feet to a point in the west line of said 5.500 acre tract and in an east line of said 14.780 acre tract; thence N 00° 43' 26" E along a portion of the west Line of said S.SW acre tract and along a portion of an east line of said 14.?80 acre tract a distance of 180.31 feet to a point at a comer of said 5.500 acre tract and at a comer of said 14.780 acre tract; thence N 39° 40' 44" E along the northwest line of said 5.500 acre tract and along the southeast line of said 14.780 acre tract a distance of 92.67 feet to the place of beginning; containing 2.216 acres of land more or less and being subject to all easements and restrictions of record. The above description was prepared by Kevin L. Baxter, Ohio Surveyor No. ?697, of C.F. Bird & R.J. Bull, Inc., Consulting Engineers & Surveyors, Columbus, Ohia, from best available Court House record in June, 2008. Basis of bearings was transferred from a GPS Survey of Franklin County Monuments N7-94 and AT8-94 performed by the Franklin Caunty Engineer's Office in 1995, and is based on the NAD83, Ohia State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone (1986 Adj.) and determines the centerline of Venture Drive as being S 89° 16' 34" E. An exhibit of is description is attached hereto an Kevin L. Baxter Ohio Surveyor 117697 ~C~~~~~~ . • , !~ ~' 2 6 200 ~~_~- CIT1' OF U~l(DCIp~ LOIIG fiAWff NEf&~tJIWG Page 1 of 1 08-017/Re~oning R = 33QO0' The basis of bearings was transferred from a GPS ~ ~ = 3857'17" survey of Fronklfn County Monuments N7-94 and \ L = 224.36' N8-94 performed by the Franklin County Engineer's Ch = 220.07' Office in 1995, and is based on the NAD83, Ohio State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone (1986 ~ S 69 47'56" E AdjJ and determines the canteriine of Venture Drive \ os being S 89' 16' 34" E. ~ ~ b c°a~~ ~ ''~ _ VENTURE DR. ~ 60' ~~9 ~ry• "'---t - - - - - S 89'16 34 " E 234.44' PLACf OF BEGIN. FORA 2.216 AC. W REZONING TRACT 3 A (p ._ R ',N~ "~ 2.21 ti AC. N o 0°0 ~~ o " o ~ o N 89'16:34" W ~ 500.17' ~ z o v nn ~~o ~ w BRENILINt'ER REAL ESTA7F COMPANY, LLC h ` ~ ~N 5.500 AC. ~g`Fn V N INST. 200403150056068 ~ .F $ N ,J, ti ~ $ P.N. 273-011197 ~ N 2 ~~ ~a 2~pNp~ ~ ti tt~c~yN V ~a a m N U. S. ROUTE 33 & S. R. 161 (VARIABLE WIDTH) FRA. 33-0.39 ~~C~~ff~~~ SCALE: r' = ao' o so 1so zoo U(~~' 2 6 2UC~~ ~fT~1' Ur uu ~+~ LAWD USE ~ GRAPHIC SCAtf LDWG RANGE PLANNING EXHIBIT FORA 2.216 ACRE TRACT FOR REZONING ALONG VENTURE DRIVE, SOUTH OF PERIMETER DRIVE, CITY OF DUBLIN,.,,.. ,FRANKLIN CD. , OHIO SCALE.• 1" : 80' - ~:.!=Ut~~+ ? JuNf ?6, 2008 t ~`~ ~ ~,rt>i~cr-i •` ,,,,,_ ,. C.F. Bird & R.J. Bull, `'.'.'. . •. ovr,;.,. ®2875 W. Dublin-Gronw Ro4.~;:::r[.~'''/By ,.~,, Columbus, Ohio 43235 .•, ~'~; ""J,;_° J~evin L. Baxter N Ohio Surveyor No. 7697 Exhibits Tem _Ponkln .d '-~.... PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT ATTORNEY Brentlinger Real Estate Co., LLC c/o Midwestern Auto Group 6335 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Midwestern Auto Group 6335 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin, OH 43017 Aaron L. Underhill Smith & Hale LLC 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725 Columbus, UH 43215 Ruscilli Construction Co. c/o Olde Poste Properties 2041 Arlington Lane Columbus, OH 43228-4113 MAG-parkingrezone.lb] (ncp) 6/26108 F:Docs/s&hlabels/2008 StiRROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS Mount Carmel Health Chief Financial Officer 6150 East Broad Street, 3rd Floor Columbus, OH 43213-1574 RECI~~~~~ l JUN 2 6 20U~ -~ U -/~J~ CffY~r u.,:,....: LAND USE ~. LONG RANGE PLP.~~~~;!Pl;; BOR Associates LLC 5850 Venture Drive, Ste. A Dublin, OH 43017 -" ; _•~f°• JOSI~Pii W. TESTA _•~ , . ' s~ FRANKLIN CO UI~TTY AUDITOR ,V. ••~ ~~ MAP Ih: d DATE: 5/28/08 I, 1 • ~ ra9KU+c ~ 42R K1 1.vc. r- I ~'+.1 ~ rlUU.fl 91) 3,911.7,t~f~, ;_S 1 i, '~ 9ali~ 1 17~ 915.2 • c.6r ~~ ~91l.~18.n ~ ~ 899.]' ,7 ,~7.n I .,.,. 9~4.h •~I}A.S -912.7 ti ~ ~ ~' Tr`>K'1:•S' - 000 ~~~~ ~07.1~ =-- -- '_-ia0'~.4-:'. _. .89':0 1..: 7ns1~;B 1~h~ . ~ ~ .919.5 30.:2 (y, ~; i '~° 'N 913.5 ~~ __r.rnn 1:':• ~ .. ~14~1 JS 5l PAtIKING w"'- ^ • ~Q0,8 90Li J110^1 5 'o:.' 13.5 ~ 'i 18.1 913.3 •~~ ~ 91bU ~ ,''~w-'~T r i'-~~ _ ~~Tt ~. -`J00/J~l~. 1^" 89 /.' i ~~% k .. ti y1~V:cn?n ,..w 9u,a -~_ Ir ° !t, 9ol.D ] ~~ j710.9 ?i ,11 OlU 3 ' ,•..-. - ' 9U7 1 ~.~. C .~,(~q.; _D99.b ;91 17A 91:? X932.0 91:.1 17it.3' - 1•P r'~ .901.II ~_ ^.•fv7 ~ :yi. 1 9154 ~ li____ - M~ .1:119.6 ' 05.5 .x/8,5 ~ -1YU! I~\~ 5_~ 1~.~ 1 ~•~ 970.9 _ - 91[y~ ..f ~~1 .8 ~ Y ~~ •~:'.. •l 90).3 I .9 .8 901.4 .901. ,~M I'~'rl`o .. "~}> 7aia a ..rK .,. _ _~ • ~ : ••~nl~-` • g .907.1 „l.`~p,7.s htie ; ~ ~ ' , a ~ ^ 917.) '715.6 93Y i • 2JV.: ~ .903A ..nvn,~~ t „6 H{ '" ~ G.1' ~ ~ 91es '1 ! r .9ci 2 ~ .1 1 JDa.o ~59'Jt$A••^ 51b.!' S:l,ll. .I iRY3r ~., ~ ~ 1.,--. ; 9D2.~.~ g ~ 2 ~ 5 7a 1 .. ~ :) ^ln:..r PT4.5 ~'S C~ ~ ~h. .f4IG: t E~lr' !S 9t1.~ a 5~:i 1: i.-~~ 07.0 ~ .84d.6' ] (%l1FY! 11 `/ '.'•. ,1RJ~ PkRKIN6 X10.9' . f -__ '-_ • ~~- p ~"_ ~ ^' - )Ot 1 \~'.t ~ : 1~ANj(BIE,1y!.IJ'; ~ f1i.U ., `il, ' M ~ 'd• .r~ ..l^ ii 70,.7 j. ~t.''~~ tr-~_ tNN: ~ • dA ;.ll .9u U d717-5~' ~~ i+'~waf_~R++s^"~ HN ' .{~~} ~. v17.6 .,.1 01.: ~ 1, a 913.0 9tls .. F._ ..___ •• - -7 ~ nn3.1 ~ '9 1 +;..A;. ll ~ •I -914. ~ ~)ll'.~ .~~.7917.3 l ~ 907s ., ~ .. ~, q0. .n I i.~,-,::•r9f9. )' ( (T.11 %.d~lA '/. ~` 91?.3 ~~ 913.1 911.9 910.7 ~ ~ .. '~~~!~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1.913.7' .912.3 ^ .9D41 ; <ip].f ,_ I y 9:2.8 • ~~ I MH-9 lDl.b c /! t ~/ l 3 n - t i:S ~.. '911.: ^~IID-1[.~fL~7. ^ > ~. .. 11 s~,0 _ ~ ~ ; .i J90f.7 , ~., 0122 ~- ~. O .9:70 / 7 ^~15'1 • ~~~?9l?5_ r 9:7~ ^, X9:0.8 - 9D9.190`i f•,,"403-1 •917." 911-] .912 2 91: ~ \ ___~ -_as__ w, _ i _9075...-506.7 ~ - ~. 't..~ 02.0 .9179 211.65. ."i---~.-_-.-_- _-_ iT'__ ~ ~ ~ 1? ! • ^2b.5' 9?2.7 - ' nti ~ - .Gla.9- a--v . _ a _ __ - ~~.~•, ~ 9167 ~ - I •~ 9lso -r :.:•-- "'~II~'f"__"-- I~0.~ 7:6 I'. I :-~~4?b 9135 ~ '911:3 IF{~ ~~•.uc + i ~ 91].0' l ~. R~4~ I, i , .! 9 4.~U5 i I~ARK(11(. ~~t~i t 92U, ,91K.6 ..913.7 A10.5' :a I ~ y01 ! Mania ~~ 917.1 I '~t5.% 900.9 'O ~~ ~~ ,9081 ``~~ ^907.G r .711.9 I .911.1 ! ~ %,~os9bo .9121, f 9141: ,. i 910.7 .909A r - >1L4~•'".-. •1;...~ 916,3 ~, 'vAaauu, ~ .h1Yi 3:o #13.s ~'$+.~, ~:.-: t .I ~,~ ~ ~~ "- <..^ f,`}J,y 9fd.2 - f 9119 {, oV,, r,,a-,•r 1 _(llllf%Itfhi IIR7 „91R 7 ^ •1 ~ ~A.7 1.11E/d 1R $JRVI( 'v~UAI= ~.q ~.U _. - 91b.1 _. ~_ .911.8 ~ .,906.e ~ ~{F7u$t.tr~: t/JLL 4t"/ : e. ~: n .917.11 l of <. 1~9n~-9.O.d~, I~S~'.97a•2D27.7Y M71.3 91911.F-"'9-4'!'-__.___1:.L.~_.'--_..___`__.-_...~__.. I G __ ~-.a-__. IL 90/•:- '~bJ ~D1 '~~I __ ----~ ---_ - _-_ -._-__ -_-.-___ - .. .. ____ _._ __ --._ -_ -__.--_ _ - _ 1 • ____. - _-. __917J._ -. -_~-_~91d.6.__-____~~:p;BUS~NRRyLyllyg~q[f_L__~. ~n:LU .J09.1. 97U - _ __ ~9J0 t O • i • _ f:-_ 9lU_ 90F ~0U~ - _ _ -----+YiJ.3-~- -. -_ 015+.-____-~rJNbtJS-/tNIYLVb1LYlL1.1_..__.A1t..U .900.7 . 9tU51~~~1?a1l2b--- Yr -7ZT.5'-_~11~r9)l.lP_~71.Y.2._-~erc___ ._._.-_- ._ _ ..910'.'9' 10'.--93Aa..,~i .706A}t111D2._= ~ - I ~416J ~2 - :92•~ l7l - R ~JI 1.`_` .911.5 ~~~- IJ,U 016.9 r ~> r 0~11R~- 921 ~` ~' .914:n .917.7 1 9I b.~ n ~ x.91 x917-1 I !..910.9 I i' 1 ~ -1 9n.3 II ` • ,! 'I ~ 9tls o .9oR.2 f7l ~, 91t,9~;, sl y. c ~1 A16.0 ~' I •17::.1 ` II ' 019.1 I. ~ 'f Pl~:'~I~ ~.NU S 1 ,915,7 .975.1 .915A 1 .911.7 ~F 14:7 97U 1419.IhILU fi~'_T'_' ~ 1 1 1 . _ I ~-90R.1 ~ 919.2 o ~ l I ^ • •ll 92Ja 'r ~ ~~~~~E i",' 9J, 0.5 ~I i.I ~nU9 i' .. _ ~ ~ _ ... ~O2U.a a 1 '' AtS. i~.' f~~'1 • /~ •.919.1 6204 ~-91~.• 'J20.3~1~3 9~NY. 1~~1 91').U~~ ... _ 1i ~3j I y 91A 't,t ,9[:.1 _ 971.U _ C 91_tllt .4t h.7. ~~i918 ~'t 7i (w rA~llµ1 ~,(/' fJ'1 u1 ~~ •O: ..U 91a~_ R•A3s-Z- ~ _•• Z ~/-11 ^TJ 'V L~V•V 9122 9 191,9:0 .915 ] .9!S.h - .r ,~ .917.; .x.15.5 II PARKIN~i(' ` ~~{,,~ 9L0.7 C "~•~{i~ .919.71 ~ {' .911.6 915.s a,`' ~ .917•' "'' Y;, r UU~SLII`i 90r.3 - r , ~,~ ~ .~ L~ACS USE & ~, 91a ral0~~~J~-', 1 .717.0 ,915.8 9f A.4 911.4 917:^^. t ~"~ LONG RAtdGE PLAtJtJING P" - 1 Z9. yldiYd.9 .915.7 ,16.1 i> :, I u.,: ~~ ~ .909. .919.! lA~."9' ti 7 -__. _ .• I .91'7.3 .915.7 911J .91n.1 .:911 '~ 91J. I~i ~ • `~'i'~' .902.8 g - _ '~1'.~_ ~ .:y9 r. ! <1, 9t s.'/ --- ~91 s.R .91s_S ~.._-f"'---_" -- - p~ 1 - -~T •'1~l sY-141+° I _ ~).1 .L..•, ~; 90{~~ I'l ~'Y a.crxrtinr.?1~~~. •. ~Cillt.' ~-i71~ ~~i Disclaimer 'Grid ~ Nprth I This map is prepared for the real propcrt}' inventory within this county. It is compiled from recordcd ~~ehds. survey plats, and other public records and data. Users ofthis reap are notified that the public primary information sources should be consulted for verification ofthe iMbrmation containcd on this map. The county and the mapping companies assume no legal responsibilities liar the information contained on this map. Please notify the Franklin County GIS Division of any discrepancies. ; ' Real F.,state /GIS Depzrtment i ... s s% 4 e + PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT -July 17, 2007 PERIMETER CENTER PUD SUBAREA J-1 June 26, 2008 Summary The subject site consists of 2.21E acres of real property located south of and adjacent to Venture Drive, north of U.S. Route 33/State Route 161, and east of Perimeter Loop Road. This proposal seeks to rezone the property to permit the same uses and same development standards as are currently applicable to the property, and also serves to clarify the right to improve the property with astand-alone parking lot that will accommodate employee parking and vehicle storage for the Midwestern Auto Group (MAG) automobile dealership, which is found adjacent to this site. The stand along parking lot will accommodate the automobile dealership's parking needs following the redesign of that facility as proposed in an amended f5nal development plan that is on file with the city. The intent is to integrate the parking lot into the redesigned site so as to provide a seamless transition across the properties. II. Development Standards Unless otherwise set forth in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply to this PUD. III. Permitted Uses A. The following uses shall be permitted in Subarea J-1: 1 }Those uses listed in Section 153.026 (Suburban Office and Institutional District) and 153.034 (Office, Laboratory and Research District) of the Dublin City Code, and such other general office uses not specified in those districts or in other sections of the standard zoning district regulations, but which are of similar intensity and impact. 2} Corporate offices 3) Hotel and motel 4) Institutional uses 5) Ancillary commercial uses within a structure primarily devoted to office uses 03-1122 Rezoning/Ptelirninary Develol~rrent Plan Perimcta-Cent~x, Subaru D, MAG Pvldng Lot Ventura Ihive PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT -July 17, 2007 6) A stand-alone parking lot for employee parking and/or vehicle storage serving an automobile dealership located in Subarea J of the Perimeter Center PUD or a successor zoning district that is applicable to the same property ("Stand Alone Parking I,ot") shall be allowed as a conditional use, provided that it is approved in accordance with Section 153.236. IV. Development Standards A. Stand Alone Parking Lot Development Standards. A Stand Alone Parking Lot (as defined above) shall be limited to a maximum of 191 spaces. The Stand Alone Parking Lot shall be used for the purposes of employee parking and/or vehicle storage and. shall not be used for the sale of automobiles. B. Yard and Setback Requirements. 1) The minimum setback along Venture Drive shall be 25 feet for all pavement and buildings. 2) The minimum setback from the southern boundary of this PUD shall be 30 feet for all pavement areas and buildings. 3) Side yards along the western boundary of this subarea shall be 25 feet for pavement and buildings. If this subarea is used solely as a parking lot to serve the automobile dealership found in Subarea J of the Perimeter Center PUD then there shall be no minimum setback for pavement between that subarea and this Subarea J-1. 4) There shall be a minimum side yard of 10 feet along the eastern boundary of this subarea. 5) Total ground covered by all buildings shall not exceed 25% of total lot area. If this subarea is used solely as a parking lot, then there shall be a maximum lot coverage requirement of 65%. C. Height Requirements. The maximum height for structures in Subarea J-1 shall be 65 feet as measured per the Dublin Zoning Code. The maximum height may be extended if the structure is set back from both the Perimeter Drive and State Route 161 right-of- way an additional 2 feet beyond the required setback for every 1 foot of height above the 65 foot maximum. A minimum height of two stories shall be required for all primary structures fronting on State Route 161. 03-1127, RewningJl'relimirrary DevclopmentPlan Perimeter Center, Subarea D, MAG Parking l.,ot Venture Drive PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT -July 17, 2007 D. Waste and Refuse. All waste and refuse shall be containerized and fully screened from view by a solid wall or fence. E. Storage and Equipment. No materials, supplies, equipment or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of the parcel outside the perntted strictures. F. Landscaping 1) All landscaping shall be in accordance with to the Dublin Landscape Code unless a deviation is specifically approved as part of the Final Development Plan. G. Circulation. The vehicular access points for the site shall be approved on the Final Development Plan for this subarea. In the event that this subarea is used solely as a parking lot to serve the automobile dealership in Subarea J of the Perimeter Center PUD, then the parking lot shall be accessed only through Subarea J and shall not be pernitted any curbcuts on Venture Drive. The owner of Subarea J-1 shall be required to provide evidence to the City of across-access agreement with the owner of Subarea J which reflects this access arrangement prior to the issuance of the necessary permits for operation and use of the parking lot. V. Development Standards for Other Permitted Uses For uses other than automobile dealerships the development standards shall be those contained in Subarea D of the Perimeter Center PUD as they exist on the date this rezoning is approved. MAG parking.ixt (alu) 6/2(,/08 U3-112Z Rezonin~Prelunir~vyDevelopma~t Plan Perimeter Centa-, Subarea D, MAG Parking Lot Venture Drive EXISTING TEXT Pt:RIMt:-tEtF C£•.I~TfF.R DEVELOPMEN~sTY:XT Subarea ll -State Route 16i Related Uses Permitted Uses: The following uses shalt be permitted within Subarea D: a) Those uses listed in Section 1159.01 and t 17S_01 of the 7.oning Code. b) Corporate ofrces_ c) hotel and motel_ d) Institutional uses_ e) Drive-in facilities developed in association with a permitted use. f) Ancillary commercial uses within a structure primarily devoted to ofbice uses. Yard and Setback Requirements: ! _ Setback on Perimeter Drive shall be 35' for all pavement areas and 7S' for buildings. 2. Setback along State Route 161 shall be 60' for all pavement areas and buildings_ 3_ Side yards shall be 2S' for pavement and buildings_ 4. Rear yards shall be 2S' for pavement and buildings. S. All other publicly dedicated local struts shall have a 2S' pavement setback and SO' building setback. 6. "Cola( ground covered by all buildings shall not exceed 2S% of the total lot area_ liowcver, parking garagcx and buildings shalt cover no more than 7S% of the total lot area_ Height Requirements: ~Che maximum height for structures in Area D shalt be measurc~ci per the Dublin Zoning Code and leave a rnaximum height limitation of 6S'_ qhc maximum height may be extended if the structure is setback from both Perimeter Drive and State Route 161 rilfit-of--way an additional 2' feet beyond the required setback for every 1 foot of height above the 6S' maximum_ A minimum height of two stories shall be required for alt primary structures_ Parking and loading: 03-1121 28 Rezonin~limu~y DeveIc~m~et~t Platt Petim~Ca~ta-, Suban:aD, MAG Padang lit Valt~u~ Ihive EXISTING TEXT PER7ML-~CER CENTEtt DEVELOPMENT TEXT Sizes, ratio, and type of parking and loading and other facilitios shat) be regulated by Dublin Code Chapter ! i93_ 2. Bank drive-thus requirements as per the Columbus Zoning, Code. Circulation: l_ Perimeter Drive shah have a 8U' right-of--way and a 36' pavement width. All other local public access streets shall have a 60' right-of--way and a 32' pavement width. 2. Venhira Boulevard shall have a 60' right-of--way. 3. _ The hoop Road shall have a 60' right-ot=way, and a 3(i' pavement width. 4. Curb cuts on Perimeter Drive shall be spaced a minimum of 200` (as measured from the driveway's centerline) with opposing cuts offset no less than I00' or directly aligned wherever possible consistent with prudent traffic engineering principles and practice. , Waste and Refuse: 1. A!1 waste and refuse shall be containerized and fully screened from viec~r by a solid wail or fence. Storage and Equipment: No materials, supplies, equipment. or pr<xlucis shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of [he parcel outside tare permitted structure. Mechanical t~uipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground, or buildings shall be screened 6rorn public view with rnateriats harmonious with the building. Landscaping: All landscaping shall be according to the Dublin Landscape Code Chapter i 187_ 2. In addition and within the requircxl building sfxback, a 3' - 4' earthen landscaped mound shall be provided along Perimeter Drive with street trees planted 50' on center ar~d Located +t' from R_O_W_ line with R.O_W_ 3_ Along S_R_ ltil, a 6' landscalred mound shall be provided with trc~s planicci a minirtium of 1 tree Ix:r 30` O_F.T'.O_ (trc~:s may be grouped). 03-1121 Rn~oninP~liminary Develc~ptna~t Plan 7.9 Pairnetfx Ceuta-, Subat~ D, MAG Park7ng I.;~t VentureDrive PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION i_ -' i r ~:.; , ~ ~ ~ ; JULY 17, 2008 Land Use and Lonp Ranpe Nannlnp 5800 Sre~•R-ngs Rood Cub+in, Ohio d3016 i 236 Phone/i0D:614-410-4600 Fox: 614-41C-4747 web Slt©: www.dubGn.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Perimeter Center, Subarea D - MAG Parking Lot Venture Drive 03-1122 Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Proposal: A stand-alone parking lot to serve an existing car dealership within Subarea D of the Perimeter Center Planned Commerce District, located on the south side of Venture Drive, approximately 800 feet southeast of the intersection with Perimeter Drive. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Brentlinger Real Estate Co.; represented by Smith and Hale. Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (6l4) 410-4675; chusak@dublin.oh.us MOTION: To recommend to City Council approval of this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan because the proposal is compatible with the development pattern in this area and complies with the preliminary development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area with one conditions: ]) That the applicant provide a stormwater management report for the site that complies with the City's stormwater management and stream protection Code, subject to approval by the City Engineer. *Ben Hale; Jr., Smith and Hale, representing the applicant, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 6 - 0. RESULT: This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation of approval. STAFF CER"1'IFICATION ~~~• ~ ~ C audia D. Husak, AICP Planner II Dublin Planning and Coning Conunission .Iuly 17, 2008 -Meeting Mimites Page 6 of 26 Ms. morose Groome seconded them ion and the vo was as follow Mr. Saneholt yes; M .Waller, yes; Freimann, yes' r. Taylor, ye , Ms. Amorose roomes, yes; d Mr. Immernlan, yes. Approved 6 - 0. 2. Perimeter Center, Subarea D -MAG Parking Lot Venture Drive 03-1122 Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Claudia Husak presented this rezoning application. She said the plan is for a parking iot to serve the existing Midwestern Auto Group car dealership within Subarea U of the Perimeter Center Planned Commerce District. She reminded the Commissioners of their previous informal comments on the application during the JLUIe 19, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, namely requesting that an alternate location be chosen for the parking lot which would place it further away from the US 33 frontage. Ms. Husak pointed out -~tF~t...the new proposal locates the parking lot along Venture Drive at an easiest orientation. _._-- Ms. Husak described the surrounding uses and explained that the property is locat-ed in Subarea D, while the MAG dealership is located in Subarea J. She said the applicant was proposing to rezone the subject property in Subareaa_to a new Suhar~o be called J-1. Subarea J-1 would permit the same uses as Subarea D, but also allow for a stand-alone parking lot for employees and vehicle inventory. Ms. Husak explained that plans I:or an expansion of the MAG dealership would create a need for this parking lot. Ms. Husak also said that the development text indicates that a conditional use would be required for the parking lot to exist- Ms. Husak displayed the proposed preliminary development plan and explained that Subarea J-1 would be approximately 2.21 acres with a majority of frontage on Venture Drive. She said the plan and text show a I11ax1mUn1 of 191 pill'king and storage spaces. She said that access is limited through the MAG site and that the deve~Qlir~ient text does not allow for vehicle display. Ms. Husak spoke about the Conunission's previous discussions regarding environmentally- friendly pavement options, but said that the applicant had not addressed this issue in their application. She explained that Planning had created a condition which would require the applicant to utilize pervious pavement in their final development plan. Ms. Husak'~~ad_that in reviewing the criteria for a preliminary development plan, Planning found that all were ti~~excluding~~I1e criterion for traffic utilities and storm water management. She explained that tliis.criterioncould be met with two proposed conditions. She said the Planning is recommending approval with the conditions that a stormwater management report be submitted and the development tc~tt be revised to require pervious pavement for the site. Ben Hale Jr., representative for the applicant, explained that the MAG dealership would begin work on their building and that they would require temporary additional parking. He said that the applicant's intent was not to create a larger lot for car sales, but to have an area for parking for approximately 145 employees and some vehicle storage overflow during MAG construction. Mr. Hale said the conditional use would allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to place a time limit on the parking lot and that it was intended to be temporary in nature. He explained that the applicant did not feel they would have any issues screening the lot from US 33 now that it was Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 26 oriented along Venture Drive. Mr. Hale also explained that access was internal and that there would be no curb cuts onto Venture Drive. Mr. Freimann expressed confusion regarding the temporary nature of the parking lot. He discussed MAG's intentions to expand northward, and questioned whether or not the dealership would be in need of parking spaces after this construction. Mr. Hale Jr. said that the site would meet Code for parking afte~the expansion. He also discussed the need for MAG to relocate its BMW dealership due to future Frantz Road improvements. Mr. Hale said MAG would potentially like to move. BMW to this site. Mr. Walter wanted to clarify that the applicant would vacate=~_he propvs~d.lot when an occupancy permit was issued for the future MAG construction. _Ms. Husak said that it was Planning's impression that parking spaces would still be needed aRer the future construction was complete. Ms. Amoroso Groomes felt that in the future the proposed lot would still be necessary for MAG to meet their parking requirements. She had difficultly labeling the lot as temporary and did not feel it would be logical to construct the lot as a temporary one. Mr. Hale Jr. said that the lot was being proposed as temporary, but that tho-_owner would like~t"o have a permanent lot. Mr. John Oney, of Architectural Alliaric.:~ confirmed that in the end MAG would lose parking spaces. He said that with the proposed future MAG construction and the temporary lot, the site would have 698 spaces. 1~'I.c:~S.~.~~.y predictecl~that this parking not may be sufficient during the business' busiest timcs._,He said that in the long-t~,t~~ge sense~t~ applicant would like this lot to be permanent. Mr. Saneholtz felt that~he applicants were contradicting themselves and at the last meeting had said the lot would be purely temporary in_ nature. lie said that he was now hearing that the applicant might need this lot to be permanent."He=was concerned that if future MAG construction were not to take place, the lot~~~~AUId remain for an extended period of time. Ms. Husak said that this ~~~Id depend on conditions placed on the conditional use concerning future evaluation of the lot. 1VIr. Saneholtz coniirnied that this preliminary plan did not give the applicant permission to construct the lot. Ms. Husak agreed and said that the applicant would need to receive conditional use and final development plan approval from the Commission before the lot could be constructed. Mr. Hale Jr. said the only intention was to give the applicant the right to have the parking lot, and that the temporary or permanent nature of the lot was not as important at this juncture. Mr. Freimarul said he saw a need for additional parking as opposed to a desire for it, and that the lot should possibly be permanent. Dublin Planning and 7_oning Commission July 17, 2008 - Meeting ?vlinutes Page 8 of 26 Ms. Ainorose Groomes felt that it was not environmentally or civically responsible to pave this area and then demolish it in the future. Mr. Walter asked how long the construction would last. Mr. Oney replied that the construction would be a maximum of 18 months. Mr. Hale Jr. explained that the lot was being requested first because it would need to be there before construction on the dealership began. Ms. Amoroso Groomes noted that the Commission wanted to hept~%IAG in their expansion and business, but that their decision needed to be weighed agaitlst the good of the community. She expressed that she would like to see the parking lot constru~t~in a permanent fashion so that it was built right the first time. - .-_ Mr. Walter was disappointed that the leading edge of the business was a parking lot and agreed with Ms. Amoroso Groomes. He said that the lot should be ,pgrmanent and constructed with architectural integrity and well integrated into the res~of the sif;e Mr. Tim Galli of Midwestern Auto -coup reiterated -t~fhe dealership needs extra parking during their future construction. He said~fhat~fter constructi~TT; the parking lot would be tight but that they would not need as many spacers the proposed lo~o,~ild provide. He explained that they would be willing to put a time frame on the lot. He said M'A~°s hope was that they would be permitted to move the BMW dealership to this site. He explained that if the Commission disapproved moving BMW/Mini to the site, they would be forced to disperse their employees and offices. He explained that if this were the- end result, MAG would return the site to its original state. Mr. _~alli said that even if BMW~NIini were to move to the site, they would most likely be forced to rc`rnoue at least f IZy percent of=th~.lot. Mr. Taylor said that there seemed to be agreenr~nt, and that if BMW/Mini were not to move to this site the parking lot could. be used. 1-Ie said if this were the case it should be designed con•ectly now. Nir. Taylor said the current proposal seemed like it could be nothing more than temporary because the remaining frontage in front of US 33 would not be large enough for a Mr. Hale Jr. said they were attcrmpting to respond to the Commission's concern that the lot was too close to US 3'~-~.:~ .= Mr. Taylor said that ifTB1VIW/Mini were to move to this site and the applicant were to request demolition of the parking lot, he would rather this proposal be implemented as opposed to the previous submission. Mr. Walter confirmed that the landscaping details would be presented at the final development plan. Ms. Husak said this was correct. Mr. Walter asked if the applicant owned the property to the east of the site. Mr. Hale Jr. said a MAG dealership entity owned the site under consideration and approximately ten acres around it. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 26 Ivts. Husak explained which lots were owned by MAG. Mr. Galli confirmed that MAG owned all the land between the existing dealership and l~jationwide Children's Hospital through a company called Brentlinger Real Estate. Mr. Walter said that there was more room for MAG to expand and reiterated that they would like to see the site designed as something more pern~anent. Mr. Oney said that this was difficult due to uncertainty of BWM/Mini's relocation. He explained that there was a good likelihood that BMW/Mini would arrive and use the sites which front on US 33..:He said that much of the changes to the site plan were in response to Commission's continents regarding US 33 frontage. He also discussed the possible architectural style of future buildings and their willingness to screen the parking lot from the highway. Mr. Walter asked how much of the parking lot development. Mr. Oney said fifty percent would nee. this was fifty percent of the proposed lot. Mr. Oney c to be removed and said it in the best scenario theoi Mr. Zimmerman said that if this lot was going to be built fashion. I-le asked which layout scena~io_ was better fa% current plan which oriented the lot east to west along V building placement. Mr. Freimann expressed c~~c~~that there were competi was intended to be permanent or temporary. He said that permanent lot, he would~like to seeahe lot don~Qn•ectly. Mr. Taylor said he we built in the future. llc would be altered rear Id need to be removed for future e removed. Mr. Zimmerman asked if red parts of the lot which would need ;ep it.all. t should be done once in a permanent ievelopment. Mr. Oney said that the ;nture was the best option for future sts and asked again if the lot was potential for this to be a with trees and screening in case nothing is on were to take place along US 33, the lot Steve Langworthy said that it appeared that a conceptual master plan was needed for the rest of the property so that Planning and the Continission could have a better grasp on MAG's vision. Ms. Arn~o~e Groomes expressed conceal that this would be time consuming and delay MAG's business. ngworthy clarified that this plan was only allowing the possibility of parking lot construction a,~is would=~~=ye them time to submit a master plan. Mr. Walter questioned whether or not this parcel was large enough to have adequate screening. Ms. Husak conFrnzed=tliat there was approximately thirty feet and that it there was adequate space. Mr. Hale Jr. said that he felt the best option for a permanent lot was the design presented tonight. Mr. Walter said he was not inclined to support a conditional use and he would prefer the text be changed to allow for a permanent parking lot. Dublin Planning andI.oning Commission July 17, 2008 -Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 26 Mr. I,angworthy explained that the applicant would need to come back later with plans for the lot, and that they were approving the use and not the lot itself. Mr. Freimann expressed that, like Mr. Walter, he would like to approve the lot and not have the applicant come back for a conditional use. M . Husak explained that the conditional use would not necessarily have to tie the use of the lot to a time limit and that the use could simply be approved without a time limit. Mr. Langworthy said that this rezoning would give the applicant the option for a parking lot use. The applicant would then apply for a conditional use and final development plan for the approval of a parking lot. Ms. Amorose Groomes reiterated that when the applicant applies for the conditional use the Commissioners would like to see a plan that is more permanent in nature. _ Mr. Hale Jr. requested that the permeable pavem~itt=~equircmcnt:not be in the rezQ~g due to the significantly higher cost of that type of material and the uncertainty of the permanency of the lot. Mr. Walter questioned whether this issttc should be in a rezoning and suggested it should be in a Final development plan. Mr. Langwor~confirmed tha~fhi"s issue could be addressed in either the conditional use or the final development plan. Motion and Vote Mr. Zimmerman made the~:motion to~econuliend to .City Council approval of this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan because it complies-~with the preliminary development plan criteria and tl~e existing developm~~ standards within the area. approve this Rezoning/Preliminar}%-_.~Development Plan bcca~sc the proposal is compatible with the development patternn_this area and complics with~.he criteria with one condition: I) City Mr. Zimmerman asked Mr. Mr. Walter seconded the tr Taylor, yes; Mr.imann, (Approved 6 - 0.) ` '~-_? management report for the site that complies and stream protection Code, subject to approval Jr. i~fie agreed to the one condition. Mr. Hale Jr., agreed. and the vote was as follows: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Waller, yes; and Mr. Zimmerman, yes. PLANNING REPORT u ~ r ar Duer.irv. ~~~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION laq R~ N~ SS00 ShNr~Rhgti head o~,oMa+soic~iau JULY 17, 2008 nom: du~iacaoo -.0.; eu•~~acrcr ~M~6 uM; w+m,drbpn.oh,w SECTION I -CASE INFORMATION: 2. Perimeter Center, Subarea D -MAG Parking Lot Venture Drive 03-1122 Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Proposal: A stand-alone parking lot to serve an existing car dealership within Subarea D of the Perimeter Center Planned Commerce District, located on the south side of Venture Drive, approximately 800 feet southeast of the intersection with Perimeter Drive. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Iirentlinger Real Estate Co.; represented by Smith and. Hale. Planning Contact: Claudia D. Ilusak, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614} 410-4675; chusak@dublin.oh.us Case Summary This is a request for review and approval of a rezoning (preliminary development plan) for a stand-alone parking lot to serve an existing Midwestern Auto Group (MAG) car dealership within the Perimeter Center Planned Commerce District. The site is located on the south side of Venture Drive, approximately 800 feet southeast of the intersection with Perimeter Drive. "I'he applicant is proposing to rezone 2.21 acres of a 10.1-acre parcel to add vehicle parking as a primary use to the permitted uses of the existing PCD zoning. In Planning's opinion the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area and approval of this request with two conditions is recommended. Site History 'T'his rezoning application was initially filed in 2003 to allow for an expansion of the MAG operation onto this parcel. The applicant subsequently made modifications to their other dealerships within the City and did not carry forward with this application. Pending approval of proposed modifications to the adjacent MAG dealership, the applicant has indicated a need for additional parking and has revised this application accordingly. Work Session Update The Planning and Toning Commission informally reviewed this proposal at the June 19, 2008 work session and provided feedback regarding the proposed use, location and site details for the proposal. Some Commissioners questioned the need for the Iot after the proposed modifications to the MAG dealership are completed. Other Commissioners urged the applicant to find an alternate location away from the prominent highway frontage. The Commission also discussed Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission .tiny 17, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 03-1122 -Page 2 of 8 the need for a more environmentally sensitive solution than the proposed pavement. The Commission preferred requiring a conditional use to permit the parking lot tv allow a review of the proposed association with the existing dealership. The applicant has revised the proposed development text, which will require a conditional use for the stand-alone parking lot for employee parking and/or vehicle storage serving the automobile dealership in Subarea J of the Perimeter Center PCD. The preliminary development plan was also revised and the proposed parking lot relocated away from US 33 and along Venture Drive. No alternative pavement material is proposed as part of this application; however, Planning has continued to request that the applicant consider pervious pavement. Site DeSCriptiOn Project Site The site is part of a larger parcel, located south of Venture Drive, immediately east of the existing MAG dealership. The site has approximately 440 feet of frontage along Venture Drive. The land is undeveloped and contains nv significant natural features. Surrounding Sites The site is currently zoned PCD, PIanned Commerce District, as part of the Perimeter Center plan. Lmmediatcly to the west is the existing MAU dealership, which is in Subarea J of the Perimeter Center PCD and to the west is vacant land within Subarea D. Ta the north is the Perimeter Office Centre, also zoned PCD and located within Subarea D. To the south, across US 33 is a medical laboratory zoned, RI, Kestricted Industrial District. Plan Description Ch~erview The proposed rezoning would create a new subarea J-1 to permit astand-alone parking lot and/or vehi~lc storage as a conditional use. The lot would only be permitted to be used in conjunction with the car dealership on the adjacent parcel to the west. Proposed Use The proposed parking lot is intended to complement and supplement the operations of the existing MA(J car dealership during an anticipated building expansion. After the expansion, the applicant anticipates a continued need for inventory vehicle storage on the stand-alone lot. The proposed development text amends the existing Perimeter Center text for Subarea D and creates a new Subarea J-1. In addition to the uses currently permitted in Subarea D (SO, Suburban Office and Institutional uses and OLR, Office, Laboratory and Research uses), the proposed text permits astand-alone 191-space parking lot for employee parking and vehicle storage tv serve the dealership located in Subarea J as a conditional use. Site Luyout The preliminary development plan proposes to create a new 2.21-acre, rectangular parcel with a majority of its frontage along Venture Drive. The plan indicates 19l parking and storage spaces, Dublin Planning and Toning Commission Juty 17, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 03- I l2L -Page 3 of 8 3G fewer spaces than previously proposed. Access to the lot is limited to two internal drives from the MAG dealership to the west. 7~e preliminary development plan indicates a 30-foot setback along the southern property line, a l0-foat setback along the eastern property line and a 25-foot setback along Venture llrive to the north. No setback between the western property line and the MAG dealership site is indicated. The proposed plan and text limits the use of the parking lot to employee parking and vehicle inventory storage. No vehicular display for sales purposes is permitted. Utilities/Stormwater Management Utility service is not needed for the parking lot. An eight-inch sanitary line on the south side of Venture Drive and a 12-inch waterline on the north side of Venture Drive are available for any future buildings. The applicant will be responsible for complying with the City's Stormwater Management and Stream Protection Ordinance. Since they are disturbing an area greater than one acre, they will also need to comply with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's (OEPA) National Pollutant Discharge F,limination System Permit -Authorization for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. Therefore, the applicant will need to provide a post construction Best Management Practice (BMP) for the increase in impervious area. OEPA does not currently recognize pervious pavements as apost-construction BMP, but Engineering is confident that the applicant can utilize pervious pavement in conjunction with an acceptable BMP that will satisfy OEI'A, Engineering and Planning. Landscaping The plan appears to accommodate vehicular use area screeiung and interior landscaping for the parking and storage lot and the final details will have to be provided at the final development plan stage. SECTION [I -REVIEW STANDARDS: Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan "I'he 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 plaruiing, landscape architecture, and engineering principles. The PUD process can consist of up to three stages: 1) Concept Plan (Staff, Commission, and/or City Council review and comment); 2) Zoning Amendment Request (Preliminary Development Plan; Commission recommends and City Council approves/denies); and 3} Final Development Plan (Commission approves/denies}. The general intent of the preliminary development plan (rezoning) stage is to determine the general layout and specific zoning standards that will guide development. The Planning and Zoning Commission must review and make a recommendation on this preliminary development plan (rezoning} request. The application will then be returned to City Council for a public Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Juiy 17, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. U3-112L -Page 4 of 8 hearing and 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 Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Criteria Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identities criteria far the review and approval for a Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan. ~ These criteria are summarized in the following categories and may be in a different order than listed in the Code: Adopted Policies and Plans (Criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4): The proposed development is consistent with the Dublin toning Code; is in conformity with the Community Plan; advances the general welfare of the Ciry; and the proposed uses are appropriately located in the City so that the use and value ofproperry within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded. Criteria are met: The Future I;and Use Plan of the Community Plan identities the land use for this site as "Premium Office," which promotes high visibility offices, and is intended to serve as major employers. It is Planning's opinion that the proposed use in its current configuration will allow further development to meet the "Premium Ot~ice" designation of the Community Plan. Parks and Open Space (Criteria 5 and 6): The proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the ~;ommuniry Plan,- and the proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site. Criteria are met: These criteria are not applicable to commercial development and no unique natural features arc present on this site. "Che preliminary development plan indicates 56 percent lot coverage. Traffic, Utilities and Stormwater Management (Criteria 7, 8, and 11): Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention andlor necessary .fac•ilities have been yr are being provided; and adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development provides.for a safe, convenient and non- cvnflrcting C[YCUlatton system fUY rnotoriSCS, bicyclists and pedestrians; and adequate provision is made,for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as fur as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainuge areas. Criteria may he met with conditions: The proposed use of this parking and/or vehicle storage area will have no significant impact on anticipated generated traffic and does not alter any previously planned or existing points of access to the public street system. The applicant will need to provide a stormwater management report that complies with the City's storlnwater management and stream protection code (Condition #1). Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 Planning Keport Application No. 03-I 12Z -Page 5 of 8 The applicant has not indicated any alternative pavement or stormwater management techniques for the proposed parking area. Planning and Engineering recommend that that development text be revised to include a requirement for pervious pavement on this site (Condition #2). The details of alternative pavement will be reviewed at the final development plan stage. Development Standards (Criteria 9, and 10) The relationship of buildings and structures provides for the coordination and integration of this development to the community and maintains the image of~Dublin as a quality community; and the development standards, and the design and layout of the open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements contribute to the orderly development of7und within the City. Criteria met: "I'he proposed layout of the parking lot along Venture Drive provides for an increased setback and adequate space for screening along US 33, which addressed concerns the Commission expressed at the work session. `the proposed parking lot will have. no impact on the approved development standards and building locations can be accommodated to the south and earl of the lot.. Design .Standards (12, and 13) The design, .rite arrangement, and anticipated benefrts of the proposed develvpment justify any deviation.from the standard development regulations included in the Code or the Subdivision Regulativns; are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; and the proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the City. Criteria met: The development text outlines all applicable development standards for this proposal and is consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District. Infrastructure (Criteria 14, 15 and 16) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and prvpo.red infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; the proposed develvpment can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements; and the applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. Criteria met: "1'he proposal is to be constructed in a single phase and this parking lot and/or vehicle storage area will have no significant impact on the proposed infrastructure serving Perimeter Center. SEC'T'ION III -PLANNING OPINION ANU ItECOMMF.NDATTON: Approval with two Conditions It is Planning's opinion that this proposal is compatible with the development pattern in this area. Rased on the evaluation of this proposal according to the criteria set forth in Code Section Dublin Planning and toning Commission July l 7, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 03-1121. -Page 6 of 8 1S3.OS0, approval of this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan with two conditions is recommended: Conditions: 1) That the applicant provide a stormwater management report for the site that complies with the City's stormwater management and stream protection Code, subject to approval by the City Engineer; and 2) That the development text be revised to require pervious pavement for this site. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 --Planning Report Application No. 03-1 12Z - Pagc 7 of 8 RezoninglPreliminary Development Plan Review Criteria: Section 153.050 of the Toning 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) "I'he 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 Ciry 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 (:ommunity Plan; 6) 1`he 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 arc 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 community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; 10) ~~he density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and structures, yard space, design and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overall acceptability of the development plan's contribution to the orderly development of land within the City; 11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas; 12} The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Dublin Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; 13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the City; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 03- 1122 -Page 8 of 8 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 axe sufficient to service the new development. ~,~ City of Dublin N '-' Land Use and N Long Range (Tanning Feet 0 250 500 PERIMETER CENTER SUBAREA MAP ~~ , ~ B1 Q aus' t~ ~a G -~ ~ ~ ~ e-s .\~ B " III ~ I ~ ll ~ oe~~,~ F 1 ~\\ "II I Il~~/i ~L I I pIL I\ r ~ ~)) ~ ~----yam ~; ~1J!' (~S1kl /r~ Current MAG location, subarea J Proposed MAG expansion, to be rezoned from subarea D to subarea J-1 03-1127 Re7:oning/Prelunu~yDeveloptnent Plan Pe~uneter Ccxrt~-, Stzbatra D, MAG Parking N >~ Venhut Drive PROPOSED SITE PLAN t, ~; ~~~ __~~. --- 03-1122 Rezonin~limu~ary Devek~xnc~t Plm Pe~imdex Center, Sulkuea D, MAG Paricin€ N L.~t Venture Drive CITY OF DUBLIN_ a,. ~.. 5800 Sher-R"xigs Road p~bfin, Oftio 43016.1236 Phone/ IDD: b14410-4600 ku: 6i P410-4747 Web Site: www.dubfn.oh.as Creating a Legacy PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION JUNE 19, 2UU8 S. Perimeter Center, Subarea ll -MAG Parking Lot Venture Drive 03-1122 Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Proposal: A stand-alone parking lot to serve an existing car dealership within Subarea D of the Perimeter Center Planned Commerce District, located between US 33 and Venture Drive, approximately S00 feet southeast of the intersection with Perimeter Drive. Request: Review of a rezoning/preliminary development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.OS0. Applicant: Brentlinger Real Estate Co.; represented by Smith and Hale LLC. Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410-4675, chusak@dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Commission informally commented on this request for a rezoning/preliminary development plan for a parking lot to serve the existing Midwestern Auto Group (MAG) car dealership to add vehicle parking as a primary use to the permitted uses of the existing PCD zoning. Some Commissioners questioned the need For the lot after the proposed modifications to the MAG dealership are completed. Other Commissioners urged the applicant to find an alternate location away from the prominent highway frontage. The Commission also discussed the need for a more environmentally sensitive solution than the proposed pavement. The Commission preferred requiring a conditional use to permit the parking lot to allow a review of the proposed association with the existing dealership. STAFF CERTIFICATIOI~I ~~~~~ of ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~.,d Claudia D. Ilusak, AICP Planner II 03-1127_, RewningJPreliirunary Develc~nent Plan I'c~imeter Center, Subarea. D, MAG Parlang Lot Vulture Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 -Minutes Page 5 of 10 5. Perimeter Center, Subarea D -MAG Parking Lot Venture Drive d3-1122 Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Claudia Husak presented this request for an informal review of a pending rezoning/preliminary development plan for astand-alone parking lot to serve the existing Midwestern Auto Group (MAG) campus. She explained that the application had been submitted in 2003, and then the applicant's development priorities shifted and the case had been placed on hold until recently. She said the site has frontage on U.S. 33 and it is currently undeveloped and has no significant natural features. Ms. Husak said the Perimeter Center Planned Commerce District, stretches from Avery- Muirfield Drive on the west past Emerald Parkway on the east. She said the applicant is proposing to amend part of Subarea D, which is the office portion of this development. Ms. Husak said the applicant is proposing to roll Subarea D into the MAG campus and create a new subarea, Subarea J-l. She said the existing MAG campus has two buildings and an application has been filed for ati expansion of the use on that site which has prompted the applicant to move forward on this parking lot to provide employee parking and to allow for continued vehicle storage. Ms. Husak said that the vehicle storage is necessary while the MAG site is under construction and later on because they intend to add another building which would take out some parking spaces and require additional space for inventory storage. Ms. Husak pointed out that the Commission is really looking at the stand-alone parking lot being a permitted use within the subarea. She said that landscaping and other details will be worked out when the applicant returns to the Commission for a final development plan. Ms. Husak said that the current permitted uses are those listed under the SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District, acid the OLR, Office, Laboratory, and Research District, in the Zoning Code. Ms. Husak highlighted the design. details of the proposed preliminary development plan. She said that the development text proposes that There wilt be no display spaces on this site and no vehicle sates, reserving this lot for inventory and employee parking only. Ms. Husak said PIanning has provided two points for discussion. Each point is italicized below and Commission comments fallow.] Ben Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, representing the applicant, said the existing zoning would allow this parcel to be used as a conditional use because it states that afree-standing parking lot is permitted in association with a permitted use. He said Planning did not agree on this point, so they are proposing to add this use to the underlying zoning. Ile said they were leaving the zoning exactly the same, except they would like to allow the stand-alone parking lot as a permitted use. Mr. Hale said an amended f nal development plan had been approved for the adjacent site, but MAG has not gone forward with it. He said they have filed a second amended final development plan which they think is a substantial upgrade from the previously approved plan. He said that because they are now in a position where they have to rezone to add this use, they want to have the lot built when construction on the MAG site begins. Mr. Hale said that in order to maintain their development schedule, they need the informal review tonight and when the rezoning application returns to the Commission for a decision, the Commission will have also seen the amended final development plan to consider before a vote is taken on the rezoning. ~3-112I Rerorvn~I'a;limu~ary Development Plan Perilnda-Centar,Subarea D,MAG Parking r ~t Dublin Planning and 'Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 -Minutes Page 6 of 10 Elite Freimann said that if and when the other proposal for the MAG site is approved, he would have no problem supporting an off-site parking lot for inventory and employees. Mr. Freimann said he could not support paving 2.8 acres of grass until it is confirmed that they are going to go ahead with the expansion. Mr. Hale said that if MAG does not do the expansion, they will not need the parking lot. He said they were in total agreement with Mr. Freimann, but because they had to do an informal review of the proposed parking lot first, the development timeline was stretched out. Mr. Zimmerman invited those present who wished to discuss this case to come forward. [No one came forward.] Ms. Amorose Groomes asked how many parking spaces were presently on the MAG site and how many spaces will be removed when the proposed construction is complete. John Oney, Architectural Alliance, said there are now 650 parking spaces, and after the construction, there will be 200 Icss_ He said they needed alternative parking in place prior to removing the existing spaces. He explained that they will end up with 512 parking spaces on the MAG site when the proposed construction is complete. Mr. Saneholtz confirned that 138 spaces will be lost in the final formation. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if this property is currently owned by the dealership, and if there are other properties in this general vicinity owned by the dealership. Mr. Hale said that the when the dealership was built, the property was owned by the dealership, but it has since been sold and the dealership is now leasing it. The dealership does, however, own the land where the parking lot is proposed. Mr. llale said they also lease and control the property on Post Road where the BMW dealership is located. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was any intention of building future dealerships in Subarea D, adjacent to U.S. 33. Mr. Hale said the current BMW dealership location on Post Road is inadequate according to BMW standards and it will eventually need to move. He said that they would like to relocate to this site some day, and the parking lot would no longer be needed at that point. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she would prefer to see car storage for all of the dealerships on the vacant property between Venture Drive and Perimeter Drive instead, which would not be as highly visible from U.S. 33. She said that if a lot is going to be built for vehicle storage, she thought it needed to be environmentally sensitive and include a permanent pen~ious surface which would help with lot coverage and storm water issues. She suggested that the applicants figure out what they are going to do and then build something that would be more environmentally friendly than three acres of asphalt. She indicated that this site should be saved for something that might be more aesthetically pleasing than a parking lot. Mr. Saneholtz asked. if there was a reason why this parcel has not been combined with the existing dealership parcel to the west. Mr. Hale answered that the two parcels had different owners, so they can not be combined at this time. Does the Comtnission support permitting an off-site, stand-alone parking and storage lot developed in association with a permitted use us described in the proposed development text? 03-1127, RezoningJPnelimn~tiy Development P)<v~ PaitmderCenter, Subatra D, MAG Paticing [,~t Dublin Planning and 7.oning Commission June l9, 200A -Minutes Page 7 of 10 Would the Commission prefer requiring a co~:ditional use approval for astand-alone parking lot to allow for time restrictions? Ivlr. Saneholtz said this proposal seemed to be at best an anticipated and temporary use, and therefore, if it was temporary in nature, he preferred a conditional use. He said that a conditional use would give the City an equal aniount of flexibility as the applicant in reacting to what ultimately happens to the MAG campus, rather than making a permanent zoning change. Mr. Saneholtz said that he wanted the City to be abte to retain the ability to discontinue the parking lot after a certain period of time to allow something to develop that might more appropriate for the location. Ms. Husak pointed out that the applicant would he able to combine a conditional use application with the final development plan application due to the sensitive timing of the project. Mr. Zimmerman asked for clarification why a rezoning was necessary. Ms. Husak said that a text revision is being proposed. She said that the Zoning Code states that all auto-oriented uses, including stand-alone parking lots, are conditional uses. She said that the caveat is that they must be in association with a permitted use, and on this site, there would not be a permitted use. Ms. Husak said that dealerships are not one of the permitted uses in the current zoning for Subarea D in which the parking lot is currently proposed. Mr. Hale said that because the Code said that they could have astand-alone parking lot in association with a permitted use like which the MAG dealership, they have the ability to ask the Commission for a conditional use, but Planning did not agree with him. He said that the applicant would rather not rezone this pazecl, but their only solution is to add this use to the underlying zoning in order to complete the development in a timely fashion. Mr. Hale said that everything else in the zoning classification remains the same. Mr. Langworthy said that Mr. Saneholtz had identified the relevant point -the fact that this is a separate parcel and is not owned by the same property owner. He said that this is what made the case to rezone this property to allow astand-alone parking lot a conditional use. Ms. Amoroso Groomes said that even if a parking lot was a permitted use, she did not know that what she saw on the plan reflects what has been demanded of development along the U.S. 33 Corridor for every other tenant regarding setbacks, screetung, and parking behind the building. She said that she felt astand-along parking lot is not visually acceptable- Mr. Saneholtz said that he agreed with Ms. Amoroso Groomes' comments. He said he preferred the conditional use because it would allow some sort of time limitation on the usage. Ms. Amoroso Groomes said that having a place to store; cars is always an issue with dealerships. She said that although there may be a time limit placed on the parking lot, the need for vehicle storage will remain. Ms. Amarosc Groomes predicted that there may be a need for another parking lot in the future, and she did not know if developing a temporary parking lot in the meantime was terribly responsible. Mr. Hale said the BMW dealership will need to relocate, and that the applicants will work with the Commission to propose an acceptable dealership with adequate parking. IIc said that they will mound and landscape this proposed tot so that the vehicles are not visible from U.S. 33. He 0:;-1122 Rcronin~liminaty Devclolxnent Plain PctimeterCcnter, Stibat~D, MAG 1'atlang Lot T~,.,fi ...~, T~.:. ,~ Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 -Minutes Page 8 of !0 said the parking lot will eventually no longer be needed and the land will be integrated into the overall plan. John Oney, Architectural Alliance, said BMW may be ready to submit an informal application within a few months. Mr. SanehoItz asked if he were inclined to allow the parking lot on a conditional use basis, and based on the temporary nature of the conditional use, how many yeazs were needed. Mr. Hale reiterated that BMW's lease expires in 2011. Mr. Saneholtz confirmed that athree-year limitation on the conditional use may fulfill the business needs. Mr. Freimann said that he was uncomfortable discussing these things with so many moving parts. He said that he did not want to tie the Commission's decision to the idea that BMW is definitely going to end up relocating there. Mr. Hale said that that was fine with them and that they would make the parking lot invisible from the freeway. He pointed out that many Dublin dealerships do not have their cars on the lots where they do business. He said They are often stored off-premise, which is not a very efficient way to run a business. Ms. Amoroso Groomes said she would not be supportive of the proposed parking lot location. However, she said that she realized the need for remote parking and car storage and she was empathetic to that need. She said that there are better long term and more environmenlally responsible ways to achieve that end without locating the parking lot as proposed. She reiterated she wanted to keep pace with the work that has been done to preserve that U.S. 33 corridor and work with the applicant to provide alternatives that would be more suitable and beneficial to both the City and the business owner. Warren Fishman noted that this site was zoned SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District, and recalled that when the development originally came before the Commission and City Council, they were apprehensive about changing the zoning to allow a car dealership. He pointed out that it may be assumed that a BMW dealership will be located here, but the zoning for that subarea is SO and OLR, Office, Laboratory, and Research District, and therefore intended for development that would generate revenue for the City of Dublin. He recalled that one of the concerns was that this corridor could tum into a giant auto mall on Dublin's very attractive revenue-generating U.S. 33 corridor. Mr. Fishman said he, like Ms. Amoroso Groomes, was apprehensive about going down that road, and at This point, he did not want to make the decision to allow another car dealership here. Mr. Hale said that this was exactly the same use and zoning text, but they are asking for a conditional use for this parking lot. He said that they were not asking to put a dealership here. Richard Taylor said that if the stand-alone parking lot were permitted as a conditional use with a time limit on it, he would be apprehensive about making the time linked to a future dealership Three years away_ He said he thought it should be linked to the need for the temporary parking lot. Mr. Fishman said that he was not enthused about paving the 2.8 acres of undeveloped land. He said that it would be a challenge to completely screen the lot. Mr. Litnmerman agreed that if a conditional use was requested, there should be a tune limitation o~->iizz Rezptvn~linnittary Developmea~t Pla~~ PEritneter Cattc~, Subarea D, MAG Parking Lot Venture Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 -Minutes Page 9 of 10 Mr. Freimann said that he was against a specific three-year limitation because he wondered what would happen in three years when the applicant returns. He asked if the applicant will be made to jack-hammer it up. Several Commissioners agreed. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that it is a hardship that would be placed on a corporate citizen. Mr. Saneholtz pointed out that the applicant would have the right to agree or disagree with the time limitation, and it is a business decision that will need to be made now. He said that the minutes of that meeting are going to have to reflect that in no uncertain terms, so that the next Commissioners can hold them to that decision. He said that he could not believe that the financial hardship of tearing up the parking lot would be more than building it. Mr. Hale said that it would be nowhere near the hardship it would be to not have the lot while the MAG site is undergoing construction. Mr. Freimann questioned how removing the parking lot in three years would benefit anyone if an office building were built at that point. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that the temporary parking lot would not meet the green principles they say the City is trying to promote. Mr. Langworthy concluded by saying that Planning had a sense of the points that needed to be discussed and asked to meet with the applicant to develop some additional contingencies and options to provide something more concrete to choose from when the applicant returns to the Commission for a decision. He said that there may be ways of satisfying many of their concerns. Mr. Zimmerman closed this Work Session by thanking everyone for their discussion. 03-112L Rezonin~l'reliminary Develapn~ent Plan Perimeter Center, Subarea D, MAG Parking l:ot Venture Ihive PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JUNE 16, 20(15 ..C1TY OF U11liLiN The Planning and 7.oning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 6. Amended Finai Development Plan - 04-145FDP -Perimeter Center PCD, Subarea D - Midwestern Auto Group (MAG) - 6355 Perimeter hoop Road Location: 14.83 acres located on the south side of Perimeter Drive, at the southeast intersection of Perimeter Loop Road. Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter Center Plan, Subarea D). Request: Review and approval of an Amended Final Development Plan under the PUD provisions of Section 153.053(G). Proposed Use: A 18,081-square-foot building expansion and skywalk addition to an existing auto sales facility. Applicant: Brentlinger Enterprises, D.B.A. Midwestern Auto Group, 6355 Perimeter Loop Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017, represented by Christopher Cline, Blaugrund, Herbert, and Martin Inc., 5455 Rings Koad, Suite 500, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Jamie E. Adkins, Planner_ Contact Information: (614) 410-4644/Email: jadkins@dublin_oh.us. MOTION: To approve this Amended Final Development Plan because the proposed addition generally meets the text and PUD requirements, the applicant has worked with staff to address issues related to the addition and, the proposal will allow for the expansion of a successful business with the addition of high quality architecture and site design, with eight conditions: 1) That additional information be submitted regarding proposed lighting for the skywalk to ensure compliance with the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines, subject to staff approval; 2) That the proposed Jaguar statue and MAG wail sign he eliminated from the plans and elevations; 3) That no colored lenses be used for any exterior lighting on site; 4) That all utility connections and/or extensions meet or exceed the requirements and standards of the Engineering Division; 5) That the applicant indicate text compliance for parking should staff deternline there is a parking problem on site, subject to staff approval; 0.3-1127, Rvouu>~eliminary Developmcx~t Plan Perim Ceni~, Sul~alea D, MAG Packing Page 1 of 2 IAt Va>~e Ihive PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JU1~tE 1b, 2005 6. Amended Final Development Plan - 04-145FDP -Perimeter Center PCD, Subarea D - Midwestern Auto Group (MAG) - 6355 Perimeter Loop Road (Continued) 6) That existing landscape plans be brought into compliance with the approved plan; 7) The site stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and 8) That overhead doors utilize either partially opaque or dark tinted glass to fiu-ther screen the interior service uses_ * Christopher Cline, Blaugrund, Herbert, and Martin,lnc_ agreed to the above conditions_ VOTE: 5 - 0 RESUI T: This Amended Final Development Plan application was approved_ STAFF CF.RTIF}CATION Ytamie ~ Adkins, anner tray Use and Ilong Range Planning 01127., Rezorung/Prcfinvr~ary Development Platt Page 2 o f 2 Perimeter C,er~a', Subarea D, MAG PailRng Lot VenttaeDrive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -June 15, 2005 Page 10 Mr. Hale greed. Ms eiss inquired that i e tenant wall signs ould change to ext riot lighting, should is 'gn be the same type. Ms. Boring stat that she thought ab t that, but when she ooked at Perimeter, a believes the main anc r store does have a filar sign, and that t others have the nic village style. Mr. H agreed it was the s le thing across the s eet at the Kroger Ce er. Those signs aze sim' ,and the other sm er shops, the tenant ops, arc externally t' . Mr. Gerber reiter that staff is re mmending Option ,and asked whet rt was conditioned. Ms. Ad ' stated that he could ord the motion to be 'n support of staff's ommendation. Ms. oring asked that it a noted the signag package in the con 'ions utilizes the si c ors approved by the fanning and Zonin ommission; that w proved a two film yet m'~dY- Mr. Gerber st ed we will add that the second conditi He asked 1VIr_ Ha if he was in agreement rlh both conditions. Mr. le agreed. . Gerber moved t approve Option B o ' fie Amended Final velopment Plan bcc se the proposed signagc ' consistent with the rctutecture and char ter of the area, the s' ns comply with t text and Code requ' menu, and will ma~ air the high quality andard of the develo ent, with two condi ' ns: 1) hat the signage pa age utilizes the sign fors approved by tl Planning and Zoning Commiss' n; and 2) That the Mark place sign be interi tit and the burgun color utilize two the color film 1 crs. Mr. Zimmernia seconded the motio ,and the vote was • follows: Ms. Rei ,yes; Ms. Jones, yes; .Boring, yes; Mr_ Zi merman, yes; Mr. bet, yes. (Approve 5-0.) 6. Amended Final Development Plan - 04-14SFDP -Perimeter Center PCD, Subarea D - Midwestern Auto Group (MAG) - 6355 Perimeter Loop Road Mr. Gerber swore in all those who intended to speak on this case. Ms. Adkins presented the case. The site is located north of 33/161 and east of Avery/Muirfield. The site is south of Peruneter Drive, consisting of 14 acres, zoned PCD, as part of the Perimeter Center plan, Subarea J, zoned for an auto dealership. Surrounding zonings are PCD, RI and PI.R. 03-1122 l~~in~Prz:lirtm~ary Development Plan PeruneterCenter,SubarraD,MAG Paridng l.Lot VentureDrive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -June 16, 2005 Page 1l Ms. Boring asked for a clarification on the requirement from the rezoning that the remaining ?7 acres would not be auto dealerships, as a deed restriction. She stated that Council wanted to ensure that the remaining acreage wasn't all auto dealerships. Ms. Adkins responded that this site, Subarea J, was rezoned specifically for auto dealerships. She did not have a copy of the deed restrictions. Ms. Boring thanked Ms. Adkins, and wanted to clarify for the record, what land the requirement spoke to. Mr_ Gerber agreed to clarify the requirement about the deed restriction. Christopher Cline, Attorney, responded that this requirement was in the original conditions. To his knowledge that landowner never pul any additional deed restrictions on the land. MAG does own an additional 10 acres along State Route lbl/(1_S_ 33. Ms. Boring asked if Mr. Cline knew what the acreage included Mr. Cline answered no. The land was not originally zoned for auto dealerships. If we rezone more land, Council and the Commission will have to approve the change. Ms. Boring stated she did know there was considerable concern about Route 33 appearing like an automall. Mr. Cline explained that MAG owns an additional l0 acres east of the site. Eventually we may ask for this to be expanded with another pod, so it will be addressed at that time. Mr. Gerber stated that this was not an issue tonight. Mr. Cline clarified that there is not a deed restriction that prohibits it. Ms. Boring repeated that there are no decd restrictions, as was required by City Council. Ms. Adkins described the proposed site plan for the expansion. 1)The existing Land Rover Building is just over 7,000 square feet and with the addition is 18,000 square feet. The rear of the building will enclose the service bays and the southwest portion of the building will have additional interior display, and the proposed sky bridge, the elevations which you have in your packet. 'T'here are minor modifications to the front along the main drive, and to the storage parking in the rear. The Land Rover sign will remain unchanged. The overhead service entrance will be enclosed with art overhead door. There is another central entrance proposed and a western entrance with a Jaguar sign. Materials and colors will be to match the existing building, including the dark tinted glass, and stucco. 2)The proposed sky walk will be elevated above the ground and extend out over the take, beginning at the first floor elevation of the proposed addition, and finishing at the second 03-1122 Rezonin~Ptcliminary Devel~nent Plan Perimeter Center, SubareaD, MAG Parking I.:nt Ventlu~eIhive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -June 16, 2t?OS Page 12 floor elevation of the existing buildng. The applicant is proposing similar materials to the addition, and dark tinted glass. 3)The existing Land Rover sign wilt be resurfaced with the addition. There is a proposed sign for the center entrance with MAG lettering over the doors. Staff has conditioned that this sign be removed_ The third proposed sign is for the Jaguar entrance. Staff' has also conditioned that the proposed statue be removed. Renderings of the proposed addition were shown. Staff is recommending approval of this application, with the conditions noted in the Staff Report. There are Amended Conditions. Condition 3 was amended to include the word "exterior" in terms of color, lenses, and the lighting, and Condition 6 was stricken. Mr. Gerber clarified Condition 6 was stricken because it is a Code issue. Ms. Adkins agreed and stated that it is a Code Enforcement issue. Mr. Gerber asked Steven Smith i f this was correct_ Mr. Smith confirmed this was correct. He indicated they had reviewed the project related to what was originally built. The current proposal may comply with Code. There is a landscape height issue, but it is a Code Enforcement issue that will be addressed. Mr. Gerber restated that the Commission does not have to concern itself with that particular landscape issue. Mr_ Smith agreed. Ms. Boring asked why that vas. Mr. Smith, replied that this site has interesting conditions placed on it by the Planning and Zoning Commission originally. It was clear that because of the unique design, the Landscaping requirements of the Code would not apply. City Council, at the rezoning, dictated the landscape plan. The applicant has met all of the requirements. Ms. Boring disagreed with that assessment. Mr. Smith stated that the landscape plan was submitted to Council as part of the text and has the plants labeled. Ms. Boring replied that it says we would not see all the cars on those fingers, that we would only see the cars at the top of the fingers. Mr. Smith said when you listen to the minutes, 1 don't know that it's that clear. The plant material was specifically named and written in and that is the plant material that they have out there. 03-1122 Rewnin~clintinary Development Plan Peiinteter Cerrter, Subarea D, MAG Packing Lot Venture Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -June 16, 2005 Pagc 13 Mr. Gerber clarified that new landscaping will be reviewed tonight. With respect to existing landscaping, that's a Code issue. This situation is no different from other applications. Maybe Dann [Bird can report back to us at a subsequent meeting as to the progress. Mr. Smith added that the site is between 85% and 90% in compliance, and 10% of the plant material has been trimmed down. That is a Code Enforcement matter that we wit! address. Mr. Gerber agreed. Ms. Boring asked again, about the expansion rule in the Landscape Code. Mr. Smith said the Code does provide requirements if the expansion is more than 25%, however, the site adheres to the text of the Planned District. Ms. Adkins responded that staff had discussed this matter and determined that if there is an expansion of 25% or more, the entire site must be brought into compliance with Code. However, this site had a specifically approved landscape plan at the rezoning that they have followed, and we wanted to bring them back into compliance with that plan, and that has become a Code Enforcement issue. Ms. Boring said the Commissioners had not reviewed the minutes and the history. She was interested in seeing the original landscaping plan presented to the Commission to compaze it with what was planted. She said it was a problem if it did not meet Code. Mr. Smith responded that the landscaping will be brought into compliance. Mr. Gerber asked Mr_ Smith why Condition G should not be a part of this application Mr. Smith replied that Condition 6 requires a revised landscaping plan to be submitted. He said the landscaping is already in compliance with what Council specifically directed them to use. l ie suggested the condition state: That the existing landscaping material meet Code. Mr. Gerber agreed with Mr. Hate's suggested Condition 6. That existing landscape plans be brought into compliance with approved plan, subject to staff approval. Ms. Boring asked for clarification about the difference between the Landscaping section of the report and this condition. She wanted to ensure that the requirements of the Code were being met. Mr. Gerber said he believed the new condition discussed will address all that. Ms. Boring asked if that included the uplighting to comply with the intent of Code and to improve the appearance. 03-1127, Re~r_oning~Preliminary Development Plan Perurx~- Cent, Subaru D, MAG Pang Lot Ventu~ Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -June 16, 2005 Page 14 Ms. Adkins responded yes. With the display lighting, the issue is that it is still visible. That would be part of the Code compliance staff would remedy at a later date, to make sure that the lighting is screened_ Ms_ Boring asked what the language should reflect. Mr. Gerber responded that the existing landscape plans should be brbught into compliance. Mr. Smith stated that the existing landscape, at the direction of staff, be brought into compliance with the original-text. Ms. Boring inquired about the plant height within the approved vehicular display area_ Mr. Gerber wanted the language to be broad enough to cover all. Mr. Smith stated that the plants that Council directed them to plant, are never going to grow to the desired height. Ms. Boring added that it would help if they weren't trimmed. Mr. Smith noted that that is a Code Enforcement matter. It's only in certain areas that they are not tall enough. It does match what was directed as part of their text. Mr. Gerber repeated that if they let the plants grow it will be in compliance. Ms. Boring asked Mr. Smith what was the problem with leaving the condition in for plant height. Mr. Smith explained that the plants are not going to meet tl-e 1-1/2-foot tall height required by Code. They aze though, the plants approved by City Council as a part of the text. Ms_ Jones noted that the report talks about replacing missing trees. She wanted to know where those trees are going to be replaced on the site. Mr_ Bird said the existing landacape pretty broadly complies with the approved plan. Mr. Gerber suggested the lanuguage "The existing landscape, at staff's direction, be brought into compliance with the original text." We'll just make that Condition 6. Ms. Boring added that she was part of prior Council and knows what the idea was that was presented, and. what we thought we were getting. Mr. Gerber asked Ms. Boring if the language that Dann Bird just read was acceptable. 03-1127, R~conin~Preliminary Ikvelopnx~i Plan Perimetc~-Center, Subarea D, MAG Pariang Lot Venture Ihive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -June 16, 2405 Page 1 S Mr. Bird restated, "That the existing landscaping be brought into compliance with the approved plan." Ms. Boring agreed. Mr. Christopher Cline asked if the Commission would like a complete presentation, or questions only. Mr. Gerber polled the Commission and they decided to ask questions in the azeas of concern and interest and through that process the presentation will be made. Mr. Cline represented the applicant, with Dick Pryor and Tim Graliey, from MAG; also, John Oney and Ed Parish from Architectural Alliance. Mr. Cline noted that when this campus was zoned in 1997, it was after changes took place in Perimeter Center. That was going to be an enclosed mall, and it fumed into a different vision. The Council's direction was that the Commission considered the rezoning, developed the rezoning text and approved it. It also considered all parts of the development plan, including the landscaping plan, the architecture, and the grading. Only after fhe Planning and Zoning Commission had approved both the rezoning and the development plan did it go to Council for action on the rezoning. It went before Council twice and issues were added to the text. Council. got involved in specifying particular cultivars of some of the plants, and having a landscape drawing that they incorporated into the revised text. The original text included a requirement that we would create "A striking, noteworthy and innovative architecture and site design." Mr. Oney, architect, asked the Commission if they had any questions. He could describe the total project, including the review of our reasons and the design, and the specifics of the plan. The booklets and a powerpoint presentation encompass some specific detail, along with overviews of the model, and renderings. Mr. Gerber indicated they would go to specific questions. lie suggested that they start with the overall layout and design, and address those issues and questions. The other issues, like the signs, staff has addressed. I understand that the applicant has agreed to those changes. Ms. Reiss had a question regarding the bridge connection between the two sections of the campus and why it needed to be elevated at the existing building. Mr. Oney responded that the main building second floor elevation is at 12 feet, and the showroom pods that are existing are at 12 feet, which is the main corridor level. When we go to the Land Rover building, that showroom elevation is at grade. The only way to connect this from the main showroom level on the concourse, is at the 12-foot level. tt is the same height as the existing showrooms. Ms. Reiss asked if the reason for the sky bridge was to connect showroom to showroom 03-1122 Rr~;onin~Preliminary DeveloprnExlt Plan Perimder Center, Subama D, MAG Packing Int VenturE Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes --June 15, 2005 Page 16 Mr. Oney agreed. The lower level in the main building is a Rolls-Royce showroom. The main emphasis and what MAG is trying to achieve is to sell you something you don't need. They're expensive products and in a very unusual setting, and to do that, they've created an environment that really is unmatched in the auto industry and pretty unique. The intent is, when you get to these showrooms and go through this concourse, you can embark and be encouraged through, this connectivity to go from that retail environment to all 15 marquis. Ms. Reiss confirmed that because the showrooms in the existing facility are on the second floor, the elevation of the bridge changes. Mr. Oney agreed. Ms. Reiss replied that was fine, and it explained why there's an elevation change, and what she needed to know. She had one other question for staff. The Staff Report states that the applicant is going to sufficiently screen the overhead service doors. However, staff would also like to see partially opaque, or dazk tinted glass. She believed this should be conditioned. Ms. Adkins responded that it should be a condition. Ms. Reiss said she felt it should be a condition. The overhead doors in the service area either use partially opaque or dark tinted glass to further screen the interior surface uses. Mr. Oney stated they were in agreement with that and plan to use the dark tinted glass, which is existing in the Land Rover facility. We've reduced the service doors from nine to five, and used the dark tinted glass. We have some visual contact to a customer out in the reception doors. The service doors are screened to Code. There are currently seven doors that view directly into the heavy-duty lifts that service the heavy-duty vehicles, and we have eliminated those seven doors. Now we have two entrance points that go to an aisleway and tinted the glass. We've done additional screening as well. Ms. Reiss asked if that's what staff wanted to see done. Ms. Adkins agreed. Mr. Gerber stated that they needed a condition. Mr. Cline said that when the Land Rover building was done it was the second part of the project and the design was largely dictated by Land Rover. band Rover has been acquired by Ford Motor Company, which also owns Astin-Martin and Jaguar, and they arc integrating that building into the overall look of the complex. Mr_ 7.immerman said he really liked the plan. It's unique in the marketing of a lot of different brands. It's a beautiful layout, and they've done a really nice job. O;i-l 12Z Rer_oning~limu~myDevelopment Plan Perimeter C.a~ter, Subarea D, MAG Packing Lot Venhac; Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -June 16, 2005 Page 17 Mr. Oney responded that they had 250 feet from building-to-building, plus a corridor behind the administrative wing to begin the swooping curving path with three visual cues. Mr. Zimmerman stated that each brand would have a space. He seated the internaVexternal setup is nice. Mr. Gerber asked about the landscaping. Ire this model there are a tot of trees. In time there would be a nice canopy all though there, so I know what Cathy's talking about because in part you do see an awful lot right now. Thal's in some respects unfortunate, but over time that's going to cure itself with these trees as they grow. I would image that's the whole intent of the Landscaping package that's before us. Ms. Adkins stated that the landscaping for the site was installed in 1997-98. Over time it will mature. Mr. Oney added they will be relocating pine trees and will be adding 52 evergreens as screening. We'll also be adding six shade trees, 10 evergreen trees and 10 replacement trees. Ms. Boring asked about the replacement of 23 inches of trees on the site. These trees screen the storage parking area and the applicant has added a row of evergreen shrubs to meet this requirement. This may be a problem of replacing trees with shrubs. Ms. Adkins responded that the Code requires 3-1/3 feel in height of screening. The original Development Plan included the larger trees. When they are removed, to comply with Code, they added shrubs. Mr. Oney added that the replacement trees are located in the interior and are designated on the plan. Ms. Boring asked if the trees that they are planting in the parking area are required. Ms. Adkins replied those are required as replacement trees. Ms. Boring noted that the plan is removing parking places. She thought there are a lot of filled parking places. I assume the applicants and staff are comfortable with the removing of those parking places. Mr. Oney stated that approximately 98 parking spaces would be removed, but that parking would not be a problem. Mr. Gerber inquired about staff s solutions if a parking problem exists in the future. Ms. Adkins indicated that this situation would be a Cade F.,nforcement issue and if staff noted a parking problem, the applicant would be requested to add parking in the future. 03-112"L IZ~roning/13raunir~vyDevelopment Plan Perimeter- C,enier, Subarea D, MAG Parking Lot Vea~uu Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -June 1 G, 2005 Page 1 g Mr. Cline noted that the parking spaces aze typically used for storage, not customers Ms. Boring asked about the location of the evergreen shrubs screening the storage parking azea. Ms. Adkins indicated that additional evergreens wilt be planted underneath the skywalk to screen the pazking area. Ms. Boring asked about the changes to the pond. Mr. Oney indicated that the pond will stay intact, but that some of the caissons will extend into the pond requiring minor pond adjustments. Ms. Boring said the landscaping on site looks gorgeous and has matured well in the short time it has been there. Mr. Gerber reiterated that the applicant had agreed to removing the proposed Jaguaz statue and MAG wall sign. He asked i f there were other signage questions. Ms. Boring inquired if the Land Rover sign would be modified. Mr. Cline replied that this sign would undergo a refacing, but that the color, size and height would remain the same. He stated chat if Land Rover was no longer the tenant of that structure, that green color would be removed from the sign. Mr. Oney also noted that the Land Rover sign would undergo a refacing. Mr. Gerber asked if the applicant agrees to the conditions including the elimination of the Jaguar statue. Mr. Oney agreed, saying that they will remove the MAG sign, and the "Leaper," the chrome ornament. Ms. Jones commented that the sky walk really unifies the campus, and it seems to be consistent with the look. She had no further questions. Mr. Gerber determined there were no other questions from the Commissioners. lIe stated that the text required this development to be "something noteworthy, striking and innovative," and the proposal meets those requirements. Ms. Boring asked for a recap of the actual approval. Ms. Adkins explained that the proposed MAG sign and the Jaguar statue sign will be removed, leaving only the JAGUAR copy on the building. So what will remain is the glass- 03-112L RezAlnllg/Pt>r}nnlitiuy Develc>lxxnent P1:~1 PaimderCenter,Subat~aD,MAG Parlang I~clt Venture Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -June 16, 2005 Page 19 enclosed entrance. This is the middle entrance - no sign. The second part of our condition asks that the statue above the Jaguar sign be removed so that all there will be is the Jaguar lettering above the door. Ms_ Boring inquired about the size of this sign_ Ms. Adkins replied that the sign measures 22 square feet. Ms. Boring requested the removal of the phrase "subject to staff approval" from Condition 2. Mr. Gerber agreed_ He asked if any of the Commissioners had additional questions. Hearing none, he asked if the applicant agreed with the eight condtions. Mr. Cline asked for a recap of the additional conditions. Mr. Gerber replied with respect to condition 2, it was modified to eliminate the phrase "subject to staff approval." Condition 6 was amended to read "That existing landscape plans be brought into compliance with approved plan;" and that Condition 7 remains the same. Ms. Reiss stated Condition 8 should read "Service doors need to be partially opaque or dark tinted glass to further screen interior service uses." Mr. Gerber thanked Ms. Reiss and asked Mr. Cline ifthe conditions were acceptable. Mr_ Cline responded yes, we agree to them. Mr. Gerber made a motion To approve this Amended Final Development Plan because the proposed addition generally meets the text and PUD requirements, the applicant has worked with staff to address issues related to the addition and, the proposal will allow for the expansion of a successful business with the addition of high quality architecture and site design, with eight conditions: 1} That additional information be submitted regarding proposed lighting for the skywaik to ensure compliance with the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines, subject to staff approval; 2) That the proposed Jaguar statue and MAG wall sign be eliminated from the plans and elevations; 3) That no colored lenses be used for any exterior lightuig on site; 4) That atl utility connections and/or extensions meet or exceed the requirements and standards of the Engineering Division; 5) That the applicant indicate text compliance far parking should staff determine there is a parking problem on site, subject to staff approval; fi) That existing landscape plans be brought into compliance with the approved plan; 7) The site stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and Q3-1127, Reronin~Prelirrur~aryDevelopTnent Plan Paiinc~' Casa-, S~ilku~ea D, MAG Pariong Lot Venture Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -June i 6, 2005 Page 20 8) That overhead doors utilize either partially opaque or dark tinted glass to further screen the interior service uses. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: N1s. Reiss, yes; Ms. Jones, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 5-0.) Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p_rrL Respectfully submitted, ~ l~~,~:~~a~~ C~ Lois Willard Clerical Specialist II Land Use and Long Range Planning U3-1127, Rezonit~a/Pc~liminaryDcvelol~rnait Plm1 Perimc~x Center, Subama D, MAG Parlang Lot Ventuu; Drive PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF AC1`ION MARCH 4, 2004 CITY OE UUBt.t~_ tom. ~ Pt4w.y 5soo sty-w~ ~d o~br~,, ot~ a~tb-t2~e PhoneJID0:614~{la-4b00 Fax: b 14.410-4747 Web Site: wrrw_d+~.ab.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Revised Development Plan 04-029RDP - MAtr Rolls Royce Auto Dealership - 6335 Perimeter Loop Road Location: 14.79 acres located on the southeast corner of Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road. Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter Center plan). Request: Review and approval of a revised development plan under the PCD provisions of Section 153.058. Proposed Use: Exterior architectural and site modificatiort~s to an existing dealership for a Rolls Royce sales area. Applicant: Midwestern Auto Group, c/o Brentlinger Enterprises, 6355 Perimeter Loop Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented by John Oney, Architectural Alliance, 165 North Fifth Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Jamie E. Adkins, Planner. MOTION: 'ho approve this revised development plan because it conforms to the existing Subarea J text and complies with the PCD provisions of Section i 53.458, providing for the expansion and update of a successful Dublin business with seven conditions: l) That vehicular display be prohibited on the proposed path and be noted as such on al( plans, subject to staff approval; 2) "That no colored tenses be used for any lighting on site; 3) 'k"hat the proposed modifications comply with applicable Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City l~ngineer; 4) That revised plans be submitted if a second door is required, subject to staff approval; 5) "That proposed new signage be submitted that is directional in nature, subject to staff approval; 6) 't'hat relocated trees be replaced on an inch-per-inch basis i f they die within five years, subject to staff approval; and a3-i><zz Page l of t Rvonin~lunina-yDevelopmentPlan Petscnc~er G~ter, Subarea D, MAG Parking ' Lot Venture Drive PLANNING ANll ZONING COMMISSION RECORD O>Ei ACTION MARCH 4, 2004 3. Revised Development Ptan U4-029RDP -MAG Rolls Royce Auto Dealership - 6335 Perimeter-Loop Road (Continued) 7) That the applicant utilize a rock that is more aesthetically suitable, subject to staff approval. * holm Oney agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT : This development plan was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION Frank A. Ciarochi Acting Planning Director Page 2 of 2 R3-1127. R~Zin~l im inary Devek~}xnart Plan Perimdrx Carter, S~bar~a D, MAG Paridng Lot Vartr.rr~ Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -March 4, 2004 Page Z 1 The vote as as follows: Mr_ M 'neo, yes; Mr. Sanehol ,yes; Ms. Boring, yes; s. Reiss, yes; P 3. Revised Development Plan 04-029RDP - MAG Rotis Royce Auto Dealership - 6335 Perimeter Loop Road Mr..Gerber swore-in those who intended to speak before the Commission in regards to this administrative case. s. Boring referred to onion of the text discu g noise, smoke, and o rs. She asked if that would not pertain t ors from these rests ts. , Ms. Readl said the odor would ha to reach the level of a rsance, which is some g that would end a reasonable erso . Jamie Adkins said this site is located in west-central Dublin, just north of SR 161 and east of Avery-Muirfield Drive. She showed slides of the site. The site has frontage on four public rights-of--way: Perimeter Loop, Venture Drive, Perimeter Drive, and SR;161. Perimeter Center 'is located to the west. The site is zoned PCD, Planned Commerce District in Subarea J of the Perimeter Center plan. All adjaceat properties are zoned PCD. The area to be modified is at the main entrance of the site on Perimeter Loop Road_ Proposed changes are minor and include a pedestrian pathway and modifications to the doors and windows on the north eIevation_ A small retaining wail will also be added to the existing pond, and a couple of trees will be relocated because of the pathway. The replacement door will be closed except when vehicles aze driven inside the building. Ms. Adkins said the applicant would Iike to have the ability to switch out a second window with the same type of door if maneuvering problems arise. The north side of the building will be modified. Ms_ Adkins said staff is reconunending approval of this development plan with six conditions as listed in the staffreport, adding a seventh condition: 1} That vehicular display be prohibited on the proposed path and be noted as such on all plans, subject to staff approval; 2) That no colored tenses be used for any lighting on site; 3) That the proposed modifications comply with applicable Storrnwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 4) That revised plans be submitted if a second door is required, subject to staff approval; 5) That proposed new signage be submitted that is directional in nature, subject to staff approval; 6) That relocated trees be replaced on an inch-per-inch basis if they die within five years, subject to staff approval; and 7) That the applicant utilize a rock that is more aesthetically suitable, subject to staffapproval. Mr. Gerber said this is a request to revise a previously approved development plan in the PCD. Because the type of uses and other general development are not proposed to change, the previously approved composite plan remains valid. The previously approved development plan U3-112L Rcnpninlf Prelimiz~ryDevelopmc~t PI<ui Perimdc~- Center, Subarea D, MAG Farling LAt Venture iaive . Gerber, yes; and Mr. erman, yes. (Approv G-0_) Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -March 4, 2004 Page 22 is being revised to address exterior architectural and site modifications to an existing car dealership sates azea. The Commission is to base approval on conformity to the approved composite plan. Christopher T. Cline, Jr., representing the applicant, said he wanted the Commission to be aware of the contribution that MAG makes to Dublin's economy. Through City income taxes, personal property taxes, and real property taxes in 2003, MAG contributed approximately $741,000 to the community. They are a significant corporate citizen of Dublin. He said when this campus was built, it was the sponsor of a ten-year TIF that made area improvements such as Venture Drive. He said the original improvements were paid off in six years- The TIF is not being reused to provide improvements outside the initial area. Mr. Cline said this would be the only Rolls Royce dealership in Ohio. It is now owned by BMW, and the Phantom model retails for approximately $325,000. The clientele is very exclusive and expects to have a high quality environment when purchasing a car. The showroom must be exclusive for Rolls Royce. John Oney, Architectural Alliance, architect for this project, briefly described the modifications. He said there wilt be only one or two vehicles on site at any time. One will be in the showroom and the other in the shop area for test drives. Interior alterations will be made to make an exclusive showroom. Intr. Oney showed drawings of the proposed modifications. He said a pedestrian walkway in front would follow the natural slope of the pond. The grade change is approximately 30 inches. They wilt use stamped concrete in a scalloped fashion as was used at the BMW showroom. There are three balusters to provide an accent feature. A conforming directional sign will identify the Rolls Royce showroom entrance- He said the Phantom model is 19%2 feet tong. They have also provided vehicle access to the showroom from the rear inventory lot using enough room to maneuver the large vehicle. Two existing pines and two deciduous trees wilt be relocated in front. The only proposed modification to the exterior elevation is to change the eight-foot door to a ten-foot opening to allow the large vehicle to be placed in the showroom. The glazing and mullions will match the glass. They propose to introduce horizontal mullions to match- Mr. Oney said it might be necessary to come back to the Commission if modifications need to be made to provide access for a second vehicle. He agreed with the seven conditions listed above. Ms. Boring said a Code revision was necessary to avoid having to go through this process for such a minor modification. Mr. Gerber asked why the Commission had to hear this application instead of it being handled administratively. Ms. Adkins said the reason staff thought it should be brought to the Commission is because the modification will he made at the rnain entrance of the site where it will be visible from the public right-of--way, and it is a PCD. 03-112.7. Rezonu~g~I'rolimu~ryDevelopzna~t Plan Perimeter Center-, Subaru D, MAG Parlang Lot Variure Drive Dublin Planning and Toning Commission Minutes -March 4, 2004 Page 23 Mr. Gerber agreed, but said only because of the visibility the Commission should review it. Gary Gunderman clarified that if changes to the Code had been adopted to consolidate the PCD with the PUD, this would not be before the Commission. Mr. Gerber understood. Mr. Saneholtz made a motion to approve this revised development plan because it conforms to the existing Subarea J text and complies with the PCD provisions of Section 153.058, providing for the expansion and update of a successful Dublin business with seven conditions: 1) That vehicular display be prohibited on the proposed path and be noted as such on all plans, subject to staff approval; 2) That no colored lenses be used for any lighting on site; 3) That the proposed modifrcarions comply with applicable Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 4) That revised plans be submitted if a second door is required, subject to staff approval; 5) That proposed new signage be submitted that is directional in nature, subject to staff approval; 6) That relocated trees be replaced on an inch-per-inch basis if they die within five years, subject to staff approval; and 7) That the applicant utilize a rock that is more aesthetically suitable, subject to staff approval. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Mr. Cline agreed to the conditions as listed above. The vote was as follows: Mr. Messineo, yes; Ms. Reiss, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 6-0.) 4. Rezo 'ng/Revised Prelimin Development Plan -0452 - NE Quad U Retail, S areas SA and 513 - K ger Center -Sawmill oad . Gerber noted this w a very large applic~ n. He said a Corn 'ssion meeting was scheduled for March ,but there are no ap cations currently rea to review. Instead o carlceting the meet' g, it made sense to he pis case then. Ben W. I{ , Jr., representing the pplicant, agreed to re est a tabling in order hear this applica ~ n in its entirety at th ext meeting. He said ey were ready to go fight and that the ould not change anyt 'gin the next two wee Mr. Gerber made a lion to table this case made a motion. Ms. lss seconded the moti , and the vote wa, follows: Mr. Messi ,yes; Mr. Saneholtz, ; Mr. Zimmerman, ye , s. Reiss, yes; a r. Gerber, yes. (Ms. oring had left the roan mporarily.] (Tabled 5 5. Informal 03-1391 vondale Woods of Mr. Gerber said t • • is an informal revie objectives oft recently enacted Co erv. limited tot y minutes. ~lin - 5215 Avery of develo .ion Desig pv said the applic• has filed fora r Planned L,ow ensity Residential pment opti sin order to address fie n Reso ron. The discussion 111 be iplicatlOn t0 IF-~iintit chanUC~ in ~nninv but wanted 03-1122 Rewnin~liminaty Development Plan Perimeter Center-, Subarea D, MAG Pariong Lot Ventr,ue Dm~e DUBLIN PLA-hINING AND ZONING COM1VViISSION RECORD OF ACTION January 15, 1998 rrri- ul•' nuai.m Oirlsioo d Plaovia 5800 Shia-Rings load la6iq, Ohio 13016-1236 ooe/tDo- 614761 X550 Fmc i14161~i66 a6 Sile: ww..d~as The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Development Plan 97-1S3DP - Permeter Center, Subarea J -Land Rover Center - 6029 Perimeter Drive Location: L87 acres located at the extreme north end of an overall 14.78 acre site located on the south side of Perimeter Drive between Perimeter Loop Road and Venture Drive, also abutting LTS33/SR 161. Existing 7.oning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter Center Plan). Request: Review and approval of a development plan for a new automobile dealership building under the provisions of Section 153.058. Proposed Use: Anew 7,335 square foot retail building to be added to an approved plan fora 71,000 square foot dealership (site under development). Applicant: Midwestern Auto Group, c/o Mark Arentlinger, 5016 Post Road; Dublin, Ohio 4301?'; represented by Christopher T. Cline, attorney, 37 West Broad Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017. MOTION: To approve this development plan because the use is compafible with the surrounding area and meets the intent of the Perimeter Center text with three conditions: 1) That the building match the original MAG building in terms of colors and materials; 2) That if Land Rover is no longer the tenant of the building, that the green architectural element on the front elevation and the wall sign be removed; and 3) That the overall site landscape plan be revised to show all. changes caused by the development of Land Rover. *Chris Cline, representing the applicant, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This development plan was approved. STAFF Suzann E. Winger ~03-112Z Planner Re7:onui~f Prelirnul~~uy Deveic~ment Plus Perimeter Cel~ter, Subarea D, MAG P~ulan~ - L;ot Venture Drive MEETING M[1vLJ1T.S DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMNIISSION JANUARY 15, 1998 f.ITI- OF Dt:Ki.l\ Divisioa of Platoing 5800 S~-Rings Road DubSa, 0l~iio 43016-1236 M~aax/IDO: bl4-1b1J~550 fas 614-761-65bb Mhh Safe: ww~.duh~a,ah.vs 1. Develop t Plan 97-153 -Perimeter ter, Subarea J - d Rover ter -6029 Perimeter D 've (Approved -0) 2. ezon'u>tg Appli lion 296-014 - iminary De lopment Plan - A ecy Village C ons - very Road an Rings Road bled 7-0) 3. Re ing Applicati 97-1402 - S er Stadium - 5 Post Road ( roved 6-1) e meeting called to order b:30 p.m. by arilee Chinnici- uercher. Other mmission me hers present Tom McCas Jim Sprague, rge Peplow, Lecklider, John errara, and Harlan. Sta members pr t were Bobbie larke, Mary comb, Chris He , Suzann Wingenfield, 'm Littleton, hn Talentino, ~sa Fierce, Fr Hahn, Bridget le, Mitch Ban efsky, Chad ibson, Balbir dra, Randy man, Rick He ig, Mary Bearde d Libby ley. Ms. innici-Zu her welcom Tom McCash the new City uncil liaison. . I=er made a m lion to accept a documents i o the record, Mr. Harlan nded. vote was follows: r. Sprague, ; Mr. Lecklide yes; Mr. Mc h, yes; Mr. P low, yes; s. Chin ; i-Zuerche yes; Mr. H ,yes; and M Ferrara, yes. pproved 7-0.) 1. Development Plan 97-LS3UP -Perimeter Center, Subarea J -Land Rover Center -6029 Perimeter llrive Suzanne Wingenfield presented this development plan for a new automobile dealership building on a 15 acre site located on the south side of Perimeter Drive. The rezoning that created Subarea J was approved in 1997. The large automobile dealership building (50,000 squaze feet) was approved in May 1997 and is now under construction. This proposal is fora 7,000 square foot automobile dealership at the northern two acres of the same site. 03-1127.. Rf:.~oim~gf Prelunu>iuy Develolnnait Plan Pe~ui~ Center, Subarea D, MAG Parlang L.ot Vent~Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -January 15, 1998 Page 2 Ms. Wingenfield said this building must comply with the development text standards in terms of parking, layout, landscaping, and signs. Wall signs are generally not permitted in Perimeter Center, but the development text does permit a wall sign bn this building. The 20 foot high sign faces Perimeter Drive. It is mounted on a green architectural panel that is 31 feet tall. The Land Rover building is a one story structure primarily constructed of concrete masonry units, glass, and stucco. The ootors will be shades of gray with some white. The rezoning requires that this building have architecture and materials that are compatible with the larger MAG building. This proposal meets this requirement. The front of the building will face Perimeter Drive. The showroom is to be constructed with tinted gray glass. Ms. Wingenfield said staff recommends approval of this development plan with three conditions: 1) That the building match the original MAG building in terms of colors and materials; 2) That if Land Rover is no longer the tenant of the building, that the green architectural element on the front elevation and the wall sign be removed; and 3) That the overall site landscape plan be revised to show all changes caused by the development of Land Rover. Mr. Lecklider asked if the sign proposed is a wall sign. Ms. Wingenfield said yes. The green architectural structure is connected to the building, and the sign is mounted on it. Mr. McCash asked what the 11 parking spaces which were removed, were for originally. Ms. Wingenfield said they were primarily customer and service parking spaces_ The display parking remains the same. Spaces in the rear of the building for holding cars were also removed. Mr. McCash asked about Condition 2 and how the green element could be removed without destroying the building. Ms. Wingenfield believed the structure resembled a chimney but did not provide structural support. Ms. Clarke said the green vertical element was used as an identifier for this specific dealership everywhere. If the building is occupied by any other dealership, the new dealer will probably want to remove it. Ms. Clarke said that Land Rover uses alodge- looking building nationally which did not integrate well with the very modern and sleek architecture of the MAG building. Currently, Land Rover has agreed to build a smaller version of the MAG building, which is warmly welcomed. At the time of rezoning, it was stated that this vertical sign space was a necessary element of the deal and it is cited in the PCD text. Mr. Peplow said a wall sign, not exceeding 32 square feet not including the word "Dublin" was approved at the time of rezoning. He asked what size the Land Rover sign was exclusive of the word "Dublin". Ms. Wingenfield said it was approximately 31 square feet. Ms. Wingenfield said the sign is consistent with the text. Mr_ Sprague said when MAG applied for rezoning, they expected problems with Land Rover unless the wall sign was permitted. The Commission understood and included a wall sign. He views the entire green panel as the sign, and was concerned that it exceeds the Code. Ms. Wingenfield said the green architectural element is part of the exterior wall The oval and lettering constitute the sign. Mr. Sprague disagreed. 03-1127 Recorring~Preliminary Deveiopmenf Plan Perimeter Cez~tEx, Sut~ama D, MAG Parking Lot Ventucc Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Muiutes -January 15, 1998 Page 3 Mr. Sprague asked about the vehicle demonstration track. Ms. Wingenfield said it was for test drives and had landscaping, eic. Christopher Cline, attorney, agreed with the above three conditions vn behalf of the applicant. Mr. Cline said the green vertical design element was specifically mentioned in the text and will be designed to be removed without changing the building. He said Dublin has been easier to work with than Land Rover in this process. He showed Land Rover`s original and final building designs. The building will not be intrusive. He showed the Commission the building materials which will match the MAG building except for the green file element, 1fie gray metal shown is the material of the standing seam roof. The three masonry materials will be identical to those at MAG. Mr. McCash said the Ind Rover green color (GM-1) of the vertical design element was not mentioned in the text. He was comfortable with the color shown. Mr. McCash asked about the white spnice trees screening the vehicle display azea. Mark Brentlinger said it is ashort-needled tree that has a greater density, such as the Austrian pine. Mr. Cline said during the rezoning process at City Council on June 2, various Council members were concerned that the sign was largely undefined. As a result, there was a text modification as a response to Council. It also prohibited wall signs on SR 33. Mr. Lecklider agreed with Mr. Sprague's interpretation that the entire structure constituted a sign. Mr. Sprague asked if the display rock stand was standard for band Rover dealerships. Mr. Cline said yes. It is behind the fingers and display cars and will not make an impact from the street. Mr. Sprague asked about the vehicle demonstration track. Mr. Brentlinger said it was constructed of large pieces of flagstone placed in a way that only a Land Rover can drive over it. It would damage any other type of vehicle. Mr. Cline said it was not a race track; the average speed would be less than 5 MPH. Mr. Brentlinger said the track was not visible from the street. Mr. Ferrara asked why the sign area was increased nine square feet. Mr. Brentlinger said it increased when "Dublin" was added. Mr. Ferrara said the text clearly stated that the sign shall not exceed 32 square feet, not including "Dublin" . Mr. Ferrara said there was no documentation on the height of the pylon. Mr. Cline said these were contained in the January 9 text additions. Mr. Sprague said the building was very attractive and consistent in design and material with the main building. He would like to soe the rock display removed. Mr_ Peplow liked the green Land Kover sign 03.112!, Kezonin~lizninary Develolxnerit Plan Perimeter Cer~der-, Subaru ll, IvIAG PatlCUil I.ot Venture Ihive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -January 15, 1998 Page 4 Mr. McCash said Council had been concerned about the 1S foot height of the sign, but was satisfied with the text at this time. Mr. Lecklider said since the wall sign appeared within a text revision approved by City Council, he was no longer concerned. Mr. Ferrara made a motion to approve this development plan because the use is compatible with the surrounding area and meets the intent of the Perimeter Center text with three conditions: 1) That the building match the original MAG building in terms of colors and materials; 2) That if Land Rover is no longer the tenant of the building, that the green architectural element on the front elevation and the wall sign be removed; and 3) That the overall site Iandsrape plan be revised to show all changes caused by the development of land Rover. Mr. McCash seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr_ Lecklider, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Harlan, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; and Mr. Ferrara, yes. (Approved 7-0.) Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher thanked and congratulated Mr. Brenilinger on this expansion. 2. R 'ng Applica ' Z96-014 - Develo ent Plan -Ave illage Commons very Road Rings Road hn Talentino led this ng which was ed without discus ~ n on December 4, 7. The develo ent includes lots and 243 ti-family units. "unloaded" road ithout drivewa rs will be bu' y the develope rough the site. 1 development is to a north of it, there is a par the south. A s is from the ne street with a second access from rporate Cente rive. He rho the Samson perty immediately the north. Mr. Talentino said a pool and par ' are both within 200-foot setback_ nd with a foun n provide a interest. He d the architectur drawings were con ual. Fo industrial lots been added to lan at the end of Co rate Center Driv . Office use preferred in Community PI for these. The rest the site is sho in the Plan as residential use r 1-2 du/ac. S as been working wi 's applicant fora ng 6me. The , except for nsity, complies the Southwest Ar lan. Staff likes t amenities sue the large k and new road his plan defines a nt where the sin -family area be ' s. The ap cant has respon to many of the City' equests. Mr. Talentino 'd issues of density, ad/pedestrian con lions between s site and off si , and provi ' n of parkland have been resolved. t sizes should "crease as they ove westw d. Architectural draw' gs have not been milted. The a leant wants f ack on de ty. He said staff reco sends disapproval this rezoning ed upon 11 r ns: The project densi five dwelling unit r acre) exceed he recommend density in the Community PI ,and the propos an's characteri cs fail to justif density increase. 2) The plan f ' s to incorporate t Avery Road t-of--way cons' ent with the adopted Thorou fare Plan. 03-1127. Re7Anin~Prelunii~y Development Pl:u~ Peam-eter Cater, Subarea D, MAG P~uiang IAt Vahn~e Drive RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of 1•a~hlin (5tv ('.nanp'(~~ y,~ n Meettttg - Held June 9, 1947 t is 9 i high quality d not grown in the ~ - i; Mr. Hahn mrttcnted that althou CouacrT bas approved fing increases for 's {I division y are unable to Fill y seasonal positions d to the labor mark conditions. i'[3te U 'cultural crew is now about 60 peicxnt of auth 'zoel staffing. ~! It the COaSti-Stts of Co ~cil w eliminate the ir! i}~;i! ~n sv¢fem anri fn ~ r nwPr. ~.~. ~..-„r ~ a r i,x~u as ouaut~ tae memo. ; it was the consens of Council to put tyres o the north side use 7 to 8 foot in the same quanti , as suggested by Mr. Rei Mr. Helwig red that the total costs of items selected b Council, including 10,500 ~ for the n the north side of the b ' ge is 5595,752. a budget was esti red at 5565,000. i t Mr. h suggested that spray rings be used o the waAs to protect em from the f salt. Mr Smith suggested that the dinance specify th ttnc total cost not 5600,000. l ~S ff can then follow the d' 'on given by Co cil tonight in reg o the alternates. y4te on the o~~ - . McCash, yes; .Reiner, yes; Mrs. ring, Yes; Mayor I ~' Kranstuber, yes; Mr. pbell, Yes; Ms. Ide Pittaluga, yes. i =Ordinance 82x47 - a Ordinance ring [mprovemen to Certain Parcels f Rea! ji Property to be a blic Purpose, tibing the Public fnastructure hnpr emeats Ito be made to efit Those Pa ,Requiring the O ers Thereof to a Service ~Yayments in u of Taxes, Au rivog a Citp Ag ent with Ruscilli onstniclion ! ~iCo., Inc. d Sharing Plan d Trust and Olde a Properties, Co mhos Building, .C. and Brentli er Eaterprites wit Respect to Those yments, IEctablisb' a Municipal (ic Improvement T Inctrmeut Iiquiv ent ~lrnd foclhe ~~Deposit f Such Service P vents, Authorizin a Related Anrendn nt of an ~ ~~Agt ent with the Dub City School Ditit ct, and Declaring a I%naergency. i qMr. anslcy noted that is is the tax inerem t financing agreem for rite Midwesee Au Group and Gord Flesch devclopm s. i . Kranstuber mov to treat this as em gency legislation. ~ r. Campbell seco deA the motion_ .;Ms. Grigsby star ihat the need fore agency is to comply ith the time frame or the iipubfic improve is to be made to a mmodatc these dcv lopmcnts. ~ I'.Vo a on - Mr. McCash, bstain; Mc Reiner, es; Mrs. Floring, ye. Mayor ~ (;Kranstubcr, mss; Mr. Campbell, ; Ms. Hide Pittalu , yes_ i~Y.41C nitiinant<c - Mr. Re' cr, yes; Mayor K obey, yes; Ms. Elid 'ittaluga, yes; ~~Mr. Cam !l, yes; Mrs_ Ilo ' g, yes; Mr. McCash abstain. i Tableti..4rdinartct~r~tssltrled fitr Action Ordutauce 4l-97 - An Ordinance Providing for a Change in Zoning for 14.78 Acres of ,. Iand Located at the Southeast Corner of Perimeter Loop Road and Perimeter Drive .from: PCD, Planned Coumreree D'~strict to: PCD, Planned Cowueree District. (Midwestern Anto Group) (Applicant: Chcis Cline, 37 W. Bridge Street representis Charles Aeh, Midwestern Auto Group, 5016 Post Road, Dublin, OLI 43017) ' Ms. Clarke noted that atwo-page addendum to the text was distributed this evening. She noted that the text was amendtxl based on the discussion at the public hearing regarding signage. She believes that the text represents tl!e direction given by t'ouncil, and staff recommends approval of the ordinance with the amended text. 03-1127. R~zoningf Preliminary Develaplncnt Plan Paim~' Center, Sllbar~t D, MAG Paticing I.,ot Vaulu~ Drive RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ---~~~.o_ ,mot M,~,~_ _~ ----p~~,t Meeting Heid_ Lune 9, 1997 19-- Mr. Rdnu asked about the landscape changes on the display 'fingers"_ Mr_ Cline slated that the short finger is virtually all display azea. `.~ Ms. Clarke noted that in regard tq the landscaping Plan, she cannot verify staff's ~• aooeptartce. "4 Mr. Cline stated that Ms. Newcomb had verified that the landscaping changes were acceptable. ~; Mayor Kranstuber moved approval of the ordinance with dte conditions of Planning and Zoning, the trr~et and the addendntn submitted to Council tonight. "Mr. McCash seconded the motion. Yofe.Qn.She~otis2n - Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Krartstubcr, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Ms. ~1 Hide Pittatuga, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. rdinance 63-97 - Ordinance Providing Change is Zoning for Acros 'Located at the us of David Road, ro ' rely 720 Feet Ho of SR 161 rem: R-4, urban Residential D" to: PCD, Planned Co District, and Decla ' an Emergency. (AEP posed David Road Su n) (Applicant: Roy `S ser, American Elect ' wen, 215 North Frout S t, Columbus, OR ~ . Clarke stated that tit plicant and staff aze now rsfied with the tent su tted to ;Council. Planning mission bctievcs that at a point in the future, mmuniptions ~`. tower on this si y be desirable. 'LYte Ci c:ourages locating th ewers on existing structures crever possible, so this ible use was added t c tent. It also includes :that a tower would be subject the approval of tltc of Zoning Appeals or o opriate authority at the ti Ms, ffide Pittalaga that she is concern ith including a provisio gout a :rnmmunication wcr when the entire: to mnnmications issues fo c City have not been and it In ta[ Ncre woutu no[. s. Clarke confirmed t dte [rsponse; to this question did not come m City staff. :Mr. Campbell ed that he does not recall any discussion 'ously about a tower at this 'location. r. McCash proposed that it would make re sense to allow one communications to at this location rather than have an et cal substation here and a cellular tower tin Road which was one of the othe tes under consideration. fie would prefe change the language to 'cellular towe ' rem "towers' and stipulate [fiat it would to be attached to 'the ezisCtng stn~cture the site. Ms. Hide uga stated that sttc would have prefc to have the input of the Service Dire r on this matter_ She believes it is ina priatc to add this provision; she would er see that portion done as a separate Doing matter. f Ms. Hide Pittaluga moved to delcl e language that refers speciftcally to the tower the motion died for lack of red. Ms. Hide Pittaluga ask ~ ial Mr. IvtcDaniel follow up with a report out ng how this ordinance will of the pending te;lcx:ommunications ordinance. Folio ~ g discussion, Mr. Campbell moved to add o gc 6, 'further, a communications er which equals or exceeds 36 fcet in Neigh is related facilities will be permitted to be mounted on the existing electricai substatio structures if approved .__" ' 43-112L Rt~:~nin~Pleliminary Develalxnent PIa~n Paimt~-f;~Ztel',SubareaD,MAG Paddng I.ot Vf~ltll[>v Ihive RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Special Meeting of Dublin City Courtdl Pa>{e 2 Meeting ~C.+m Zrrn-swr or~snr.rry~ Held_ June 2, 1997 Vou on the rtrotiEn - Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs! Stillwell, yes, Mr~. Boring, yes; Moor Kranstubex, y Ms. ti del Pr aluga, yes; Mr. CampKcll, yes; Mc McCaSRt, yes. rdinance Ho. 41-97 - An Ordirtanct Providing for a Change in Zoning for (4.78 Acres ~f Land Located at the Southeast Corner of Perimeter Loop Road and Perimeter Drive from: PCD, Ftanacd Commerce District to: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Midwestern Auto Group) (Applicant: Chris Cline, 37 W. Bridge Street representing Charles Aeh, Midwestern Auto Group, SOl6 Post Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017) Registucd as a proponent of the rezoning was Chris Cline. Thuc were no registered opponents to the rezoning. Ms. Clarke stated that Midwestern Auto Group is looking to triple the siu of their existing facilities on Post Road and relocate to the Perimetu area between Pcrimctu Drive and Perimctu Loop. The site consists oCrtcarfy I S acres and the building proposed is very unusual ~ and tailored to this user. Thc site as presently zoned under the Puimetu Ccntcr plan purtrits construction of otTice and OLR uses, hotels and multi-story buildings. The proposed plan j acatcs a new subarea within the Pcrimctu Centu text plan -Subarea `T'. The proposed usu is an auto dealu and the building plan is exotic, with a spxialized landscape plan, and unusual I stgnaga The building features three glass showrooms that face the southwest of the site. Tht parking has been divided into several areas. The rezoning was approved by Planning Cottunissiort on April lU, 1997 with G conditions: I) That the text be revised to provide clarification as to visual sale gimmicks, landscaping, lighting, auto display, grading, and building architecture; 2) That access to Perimeter Drive be prohibited; i 3) That a more acceptable sign package be submitted as part of this rezoning artd arcorporated in the text; 4) That design for all storm watu management, site utilities and improvements including grading meet the approval of the City Engineer, 5) That construction be linked to approval of ttre preliminary plat for "Wall" Strcet; and ~ That an appropriate subarea plan be submitted. ~ Ms. Clarke commented that the grading, lighting and architecture for this plan are very unusual jl and it does not conform to Code in a variety of ways. However, staff and Planning ,t Commission have supported tfte application because of the creative approach to this site which f~ will house an auto dealer. ~ ~~ In terms of the signagc, Ms. Clarke explained that because the site has fruntanc on four streets ~i - US 33, Perimeter Loop, Perimeter Drive and Venture Drive, they arc permitted to have four ,~ signs. What has been proposed arc two signs t8 Ccet in height and 50 square feet each, a not ~ yet identified wall sign, and an identification sign at the entrance on Venture Drive. Dublin's II Codc does not permit signagc over 1 S feet and does not permit a combination oCwall signs and I~ ground signs. ?' In response to Mr. Reiner, Ms. Clarke stated that there arc other areas where this application { I~ does not ntcct Dublin's Codc_ a G-foot high screen is required along the perimeter of property I ~! along freeway frontage and limited access freeways. This site does not have 6-foot high i; screening. She noted, however, that the Codc specifically permits an auto dealership to have a ~' certain percentage of the frontage to be used as a display area, and this site does not exceed l r that percentage. They have chosen to do the display in an atypical fashion. p The lighting on the site rs not addressed by the Dublin lighting guidchncs which call for , . consistency across the entire site. The application as proposed is for acr:ent lighting on display I; cars and up-lighting on features of display cars. Ms Hide Pittaluga noted that the plan is very tasteful, but wondered about the eficct the (~ variances allowed in terms of signagc, grading and lighting ~•:ould have on fuwre rezoning ~ requests. Ms. Clarke noted that a variance from the G foot screening requirement in front of buildings along 33 and I-2?0 eras been granted to several applican[s previously, including Airl'ouch, the Thomas Kohler retuning, Cardinal [tealth and the Tuttle 11 building The type of lighting , t?3-112Z R~Alungf Prelimir><~uy Devclt~~ent Pl~i Pelimder Center, Suba#~ D, MAG P~rifln~ I~t Venture Drive RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Syedal MeetinG of Dublin City Coundl PaQC 3 Meeting June 2, 1997 requeued in this case is very unusual and unique and not likdy to be requested by another user. The Planning Commission looked favorably on this application due to the comprehensive design which incorporated these individual elements. Mr. Campbell pointed out a Planned Commerce District has its own zoning, therefore, tcehnically, these would not be called "variances"_ Ms_ Clarke agreed that these elements are ai variance to the present Code, trot vatiartces in themselves. There is no hardship situation involved. Mr. Campbell also noted that there had 6cen a com[rtitmeat that this would be the Last car dealership on the site, and asked if the landowner has agreed to decd restrict the rest of the proP~Y• Ms. Clarice stated that the Land owner has agreed to this deed restriction, adding that he still controls 77 aces. ut that the Marriott rezoning had some similar drwmstances to boat PCD's and have distinguishing characteristics which justify Mayor Kranstuber asked for further clarification on the size of the signs. How do the Dublin standards compare to those in Perimeter? Ms. Ctarkc stated that neither the Dublin Code nor the Perimeter text addresses a site with '•. four frontages such as this one. The Pe.~meter Mall and the outparcels have been tightly { controlled in terms oCsignage. There are no restrictioru on colors. •~ Mayor Kranstuber asked about the justification for eliminating the mounding. Ms. Clarke explained that under the flubfin Code, auto dealers are pe[mitted 25 percent of their frontage to be used as display_ They could choose to do no mounding along US 33 and it would still meet Code. This is the only auto dealer of the three on the site which will have frontage along [JS 33 Mr. McCash asked what the intended ancillary commercial uses would be as referred to in the next dated May 16, 1997. ~; Ms. Clarke responded that these could be a newsstand, a sandwich shop, etc which could be ancillary uses within a structure primarily devoted to office use. '~ Mr. McCash expressed some concern about a reference to special cultural events to take place :I on the site with no mention of obtaining permits for such events. :~ Mr. McCash also noted concern about the outside speakers and music system and the possibility of sound emitting onto the adjacent properties. The sound system could be used to :! attract customers much the same as signage would do. Mr. McCash asked if the sign on the Land Kovcr building will be iintited to the 15 foot height i provision. He could envision a 6S foo[ tall portion of the Land kLover building with a sign on it • given the text language. Ms. Clarke responded that has not been specified. The Planning Commission indicated they would review this as a design element when the building plans are submitted. Mr. McCash also noted that the signage as proposed would exceed the three~ofor Code restriction Mayor Kranstuber commented that ire believes they should be restricted to a three- color maximum on the signage per Dublin code. Mr. Reiner asked if willow trees are still banned as acceptable aces due to the drainage !- problems with the species. ~~ Ms. Clarke responded that they are not on the approved tree list r is Chris Ciirt~ ;i7_~. i o~$tretS stated that he represents the applicant Efe displayed a model i~ of the site and proposed development. He stated that the site has 2,800 feet of frontage on four public roads which constitutes a umquc situation for signage. He explained that the height ~ of the signage was the major concern at Planning Commission. l"he signs as proposed are of 03-1127, R~,onu>g~'refimic>~yDeveloprnent Plan Pe[irndt~C~itef, S[lbal~a D, MAG Palicin~ Lot Verlhue Drive RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _ Minutes of S e{~-iatl~jc~iir~of Dublin City Stwncil Page 4 IKeeting June Z, 1997 brushed aluminum or stainless steel, and the logos will be cut out and back Gk He added that a ~~ logo is needed for each of the t2 dcalexs on the sign and for this reason the applicant could not compromist on the I S feet requested. He noted that lfie major area where this signage ~~ proposal differs from Code is the logo wording on the sign The sign with the logos, however, ii is artistic and aesthetically pleasing. The Land Rover sign on that building is needed and is not an area where they want to negotiate Thty will still have to have the approval of Planning Commission for that, and he assured Council that the sign wiU be compatible with the size of '' the building The other sign at the service envance is a directional sign and will corRain tto logos. ~ Mt. Mc(.ash noted that the text indicates that the applicant plans to reuse the present BMW pylon sign which is an internally illuminated sign. Mr. Cline responded that it will be used as an internal sign and not visible f[om the street. Mr Cline commented that the concept for the grading plan involves an innovative and i aesthetic approach to concealing a car dealership, the proposed design stoptng will conceal . the stock of cars which are downhill from the tips of the "fingers" used for display tars. The comprehensive plan for the site integrates grading, azchitecture, quality design and sets a ~ precedent The Pianncd DlSIf1M use cncour~es imaginative design and the creation of unique development standards. They believe they have done so with this application. In terms of j spexial events, the anticipation would be for a special event such as a symphony concert for the community where the cars would be removed frorn the sfiowroom for the event. There will be gallery space in the dealership where art exhibits could be displayed. The music will be a low level classical type. 'fhe !ow level ground lighting and the music v+iU be subject to staff review. • Mr. Reiner pointed out that if the intent of the landscaping is for screening purposes, the proposed plan calls for only one third as many spruce trees as are needed to accomplish the ' obj~ctiv~~ Mr. Cline responded chat they arc committed to screening and will work with staffto make this acceptable. '°. Mr. Reiner suggested that the willow trees be removed since they will disrupt the pond. Mr. Cline responded that the applicant understands the drawbacks of the willow trees but plans to include them. He will work with tfie City's landscape architect on tlus issue. Discussion continued about the mounding and screening of the finger areas. Mr. McCash noted that he has concerns about the lighting left on in the showrooms after ' hours. ~1t?1G.~ Ash_1~ rv tern AyS4 ~rQ~t~ stated that they anticipate leaving some lights on in the evenings as is currently done, bur they will be at a much lower level. It will be tasteful, subtle and elegant- Mayor Kranstuber suggested that the applicant put into writing that the alter hours lighting will be subtle and of accent type only. Mrs. Boring commented that under the Revised Charter, Council has the option of suspending the vote after a public hearing until the next Council meeting. In view of the many issues being raised, this may be appropriate Discussion continued about the signa~e for the Land Rover building. Mr McCash indicated that he would like to add language to the text stating that no wall signs would be permitted along US 3i Mr Cline responded that this would not be a problem Mrs- Stillwell commented that this is an important piece of land in terms of its location at a gateway area. The discussion engendered by a creative and innovative application has been good She does not believe the issues raised tonight arc insurmountable She would like to a~-~ izz Re~~rlil~Prelirninafy Development Plan Pefim~ Ca »ter, Subarea D, MAG Pahang LAt Venhln; Drive RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Saecial Meeting of Dublin City Councl Page S Meeting Held June 2, 1997 19 II identify the remaining issues and move forward. Mrs. Aoring stated that this application is unique in its design and deals with display in a different manner than other car dealerships. Tt does not sd a precedent to allow car dealerships to park cars on top of mounds for display. It is instead a comprehensive design, innovative anti creative. Mayor IGanstuber summarized that the issues identified tonight are. the number of spruce trees needed to saes; the text language regarding sign colors; internal illumination in the showrooms; and noise level of music on the site. Mr. Campbell suggested that the vote be postponed until the next meeting to allow for redrafting of the text to address concerns identified tonight. He moved to suspend the public hearing and to have the ordinance voted on at the Iune 9 Council mceting Mrs. Aoring seconded the motion. Mt. Gine asked for clarification on the interior trees since the present proposal meets code. Mr. Reiner stated that if the intent is to screen the inventory, they rood to add one third more trees. There are also ercors in the specifications for the texas shrubs. Vote on the motio~t - Mr. McC.ash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mrs Stillwell, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes. The ordinance will be voted nn at tfic June 9 Council meeting. ! Ordinance . 63-97 - An Or ' lance Providing fora ange is Zoning Cor 4 Acres Located the "Cermiuus oC avid Road, Approzima y 720 Feet North oC 161, From: -4, Suburban R dential District to: PC ,Planned Commerce ittrict (AEP - Pro sed David Road ubscttiou) (Applicant: oy Strawser, Ameri lectric Power, 2 Korth Front St et, Columhus, Ohio 43 ) cgistered as pro ncnts of the rezoning we :Edward Maher, 349 {clot Place, Grove Cil OI{; Roy Stra cr, 517 Northfield Urivc, .uclcvillc, OH; Daniel antbory, 5672 Clavcrva y, Johnstown, 1, John l_ Rrady, 4l S gh Street; Roger Vo ,6668 David Road, i)tt n, OH, Mic el Churclla, 6656 David ad, [hrbliq OH.. ! Regist ed as opponents of the r .Doing were,: Ethel Sc ell, 6629 David Road, D fin; Virgil Sc ell, Westerville s Clarke slated this is rezoning for eight to to the David Road srdrdi Sion -the back i eight lots, four of whi t arc on the east side the road and four on lh west. ~fhe eight lots I plus Ute right of w for David Road equ 4.25 acres. The site is rrently zoned R-4 and it I~! is developed wi sin~de family homes t appmxtrnately one-hal crc lots. The proposal is or i it a Planned C unerce District fora . ectrical suhstaUOn and public street. She noted at the text is ill in negotiation bet •cn stafFand AEP, and guested that Council del their ' ;I vote u June 9 This apphc ton was reviewed by th arming Comn»ssion on ay 1, 1997, ~ ~I and ey recommended ap oval by a vote of 5-0 wi four conditions' ~~ I That an appropr [e development text be mitred which outlines th maximum future ~ . development ammeters and specific d ails of the buffering; ~` • 2) That then dcd Davtd Road n.vht- -luny be vacated by City C until; ! 3) That ac •ss be provided to then h exclusively, and ': 4) That to height of the facilitie a kept to the absolute mi ~munt ~. Ms Clar showed slides of [he ar < to Council Stag has w ed with the applicant to ! provi , as little disruption asp siblc for the remaining net tborhood. David Road wash t t i; a, t.rivatc erect, and it is t 'fear how much heavy co ntetion trafTic it cart handle, he st section that will be c su acted will be thr. north . tJ of the site Two adtlitiona ots have • been set aside for the y to purchase for an extc nn of Village Parkway. The e will be ~~ i surrounded by a S of mound and by evergree frees Village Parkway can b •xtended to the west throu~~h to northern two lo[s to jo up with a proposed road calle "Shamrock i~ 03-112L Rezoning/Preli;mil~IlYDevelopmt~lt Plan Paimetcr C,ealtel-, Subarea D, MAG Padcinl I:ot Verihire Drive DUBLIN PLANNING AND 7.ONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION May 1, 1997 ;1'1'1' (IF I)lllil.IR 5600 Shier Qugs toad lkibCm, ON 43016-1195 6oae/IDO: 614/761 X550 Fax 614!761 X506 'The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 6, Development Plan 97-034DP -Perimeter Center Subarea J -Midwestern Auto .Grnup -6025 Perimeter Drive Location: 14.78 acres located at the southeast corner of Perimeter Loop Road and Perimeter Drive. wing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter Center plan, rezoning for Subarea I pending). Request: Review and approval of the development plan fora 70,866 square foot auto dealership under the provisions of Section 153.058. Proposed Use: Proposed auto dealership. Applicant: Chazles Aeh, c/o Christopher Cline, 37 West Bridge Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017. MOTION: To approve this development plan because it will preserve the desired character along US 33JSR 161 and within the area, conforms to the PCD regulations, is consistent with the Community Plan, and employs very innovative site design and architecture, with nine conditions: 1) That access to Perimeter Drive be prohibited and that access along Perimeter Loop Road be subject to approval by the City Engineer; 2) That the construction of the site be coordinated with the construction of public roadways and utilities, subject to approval of the City Engineer; • • 3) That the design of all storm water management systems, site utilities and improvements, including grading, be subject to the approval of the City Engineer; 4) That the landscape plan be revised to conform more closely to the requirements of the Code and the comments in this report, subject to staff approval; 5) That text be amcndcxi to further address landscaping, signage, lighting, grading and building architecture; 6) That signage be permitted as follows: two, 15-foot pylon signs as presented at this mceting; one, four-foot high direction sign; a ground sign facing US 33, subject to staff approval (not to be a 15-foot pylon sign); and a future wall sign on the proposed Land Rover building, subject to staff and Commission approval; Page 1 of 2 03.1122 Rezonin~Preluninary Develc~nnent Plan Pgirt~erCa~ter, Subareall,MAG 1'~idng IAt Venture Drive DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD O)r' ACTION May 1, 1997 6. Development Plan 97-034DP -Perimeter Center Subarea J -Midwestern Auto Group - 6025 Perimeter Drive 'n That lighting be subject to further review and staff approval; 8) That sidewalks be constructed along the east and west frontages; and 9) That a rievised site plan which incorporates all of the coaditions be submitted within two weeks. * Christopher Cline agreed to the above conditions_ voTE: 4--1. RESULT: This development plan was approved. STAFF Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director Page 2 of 2 03-1122 Rczoning~Pre&minary Development Plan Perimeter Center, Subarea D, MAG Packing I~ot Venture Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -May 1, 1997 Page 22 4) at the east edge the parking lot b reeved per Code tthin 36 months occupancy unless the adj nt site is develo ; That sio ater meet the r ' ements of the Ci gineer; 6) That li ling conform to Dublin Lightin uidelines; 7) tree proservatio providing for tection of the no ern treeline be sub tted 'or to issuance o building permit bject to staff ap val; 8) That aright-o ay permit be o ed from the D' sion of Enginee ' to abandon existing sto sewer lines and at the abandoned pes be grouted; 9) That th to comply with ecommendations the Barton-Aschm ffic study, da Ap ' 6, 1997; 10) at the treeline be aintained as requi by City Council ' connection with t utility waiver; That the wi of the driveway ' ands and the tali of the trees (3.5 ' hes) meet the require nts of Subarea A of the Tuttle Cros ' g text, or that to modifications be appr ed by City Coun ' ;and 12) at a revised lan pe plan, site di sion plan, and ding plan, reflec 'gall conditions of ap val be submitted t e Planning Divi ' n within two wee Mr_ Harian's mo ' n was also for appr al of the Pagura ' e revised develop nt plan because it will provid 'mproved traffic circ lion and an attrac ' e water feature, three conditions-. 1) the site comply wi a recommendati of the Barton-Ase an traffic study, led pril 16, 1997; 2 That the pond i esigned to maxi a its aesthetic ch cteristics, as appr ed by staff and install ith Phase 1 of th 'ngs Road Office uilding; and 3) That th t-west link is pleted prior to oc pancy of Phase 2 r the widening Rin oad, whichever curs ftrst. Mr. ale agreed to the ove amended con ' ons. Mi. Lecklider ded the motion, the vote was as fol s: Mr. Peplow es; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, ye , Mr. Sprague, yes- r. L,ecklider, ye • and Mr. Harian es. (Combined Vote: 5. Development Plan 97-034ll1' -Perimeter Center Subarea J - Midwesteru Auto Group - 6025 Perimeter llrive Bobbie Clarke said the Commission made a positive recommendation on the Midwestern Auto Group (MAG) rezoning April 10. Action on the development plan was tabled. The development plan will be subject to any conditions City Council adds. Most of the current issues deal with landscaping, lighting, grading, and signage. Q3-1127 R~~onin~elimin~uy Developmalt Pl~ui Paimela-Centa', Suba~tD, MAG Pa~iong Lot VaittueDrive Dublin Planning and Zoning C~ Fission Minutes -May !, 1997 Page 23 The site contains 14.8 acres on the southeast corner of Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road. This is a 71,000 square foot building with parking for almost '150 cars. She said a new street, Venture Drive, will be continued which will provide the fourth street frontage to this site. A "MAG" wall sign, a low ground sign, and two 1S-foot high ground signs are proposed. The dealership is large and will service many different types of cars. The raised vehicle display "fingers" are not screened as requ'u-ed by Code. However, the exposed ends of each of the fingers fall within Code (maximum display area of 25 percent of the frontage). Staff would like the display area to come closer to meeting the Code in several respects. She said staff recommends approval with nine conditions (as amended): 1) That access to Perimeter Drive be prohibited and that access along Perimeter Loop Road be subject to approval by the City Engineer; 2) That the construction of the site be coordinated with the construction-of:public roadways and utilities, subject to approval of the City Engineer; 3) That the design of all storm water management systems, site utilities and improvements, including grading, be subject to the approval of the City Engineer; 4) That the landscape plan be revised to conform more closely to the requirements of the Code and the comments in this report, subject to staff approval; 5) That text be amended to further address landscaping, signage, lighting, grading and building architecture; ~ That signs be brought into compliance with the recommendations in this report, subject to staff approval; '7) That lighting be subject to further review and staff approval; 8) That sidewalks be constructed along the east and west frontages; and 9) That a revised site plan which incorporates all of the conditions be submitted within two r weeks. Mr. Harlan asked if corporatelnational flags were considered as signs. Ms. Clarke said national flags are permitted in the Sign Code, and nonpolitical signs are regulated. She said the maximum pole height for corporate flags is 20 feet. Mr. Harian asked if there was a limit to the number of corporate flags. Ms. Clarke said one corporate flag is permitted for the.site. A choice of one auto company, or a MAG, flag would be permitted as a corporate flag. Any number of national flags could be flown under the Code. Mr. Sprague said they could change the flag every day. Mr. Lecklider asked if the wall sign proposed was appropriate. Ms. Clarke said she liked the sign, however it would set a precedent. A decision needed to made to include wall signs in Perimeter Center, because none are now permitted at this time. Mr_ Lecklider asked about the etevation of the display fingers. Ms. Clarke was uneasy with the elevated nature of the fingers, six feet along the freeway. Mr. Lecklider asked if the landscaping needed to be enhanced. Ms. Clarke said more trees were necessary on the site. Acne-foot vegetative screen around the display area is alsa needed. 03-1122 Re~~cn~vigf Prelimu~aty Devclopme~u Pl m PaimeterCer~a-, SubareaD, MAG Partcing Lot VenttueDrive Dublin Planning and Zoning C~ fission IVhnutes -May 1, 1997 Page 24 Mr. Lecklider asked about the lighting of the display fingers. Ms. Clarke said less light than permitted was being proposed on the site. She said there may be justification to work with the applicant for something that was far more subdued, but perhaps more dramatic, than what is normally associated with a car dealership. Ms. Clarke'said architectural issues needed to be addressed in the text to insure that in the fuh+re, the text appropriately identifies what can be built an the north end of this site. Staff would hope that it could be coordinated with the lazger building to the south as much as possible. Ms. Clarloe said the Code has no provisions for a site with four frontages. Staff proposes that it be treated as two comer sites, which would be entitled to approximately the same rights as if were two sites with two frontages. Mr. Peplow asked about .the access road. Ms. Clarke said an entrance was initially proposed along Perimeter Drive, but it has been removed from the plan. The only engineering issue deals with the aesthetic and safety placement of the Perimeter Loop entrance_ The applicant feels strongly that it should not be relocated for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Harlan said he did not see the required display landscaping screening at other dealerships. Ms. Clarke said many dealerships were developed prior to the landscaping code. Difference in the grade elevation between the street and lot sometimes eliminates any screening function, although the mound is in place. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher said cars pulled onto mounds looked bad. She asked if the display fingers were intended to display in a more appealing way. Chris Cline, attorney, said the gasoline will he only for the cars serviced and it will not be sold. He said the tank will hold 6,000 gallons of gas. Mr. Cline said the curbcut on Perimeter Loop Road is proposed because of the artistry of the site. fie understood that the City Engineer wanted 250 feet between offset driveways, but it was not a policy or code. He said the Perimeter Center text only a requires 100 foot offset. Mr. Cline said the customer parlang bas been increased to 76 spaces. Mr. Cline said they would work with staff to meet the street trce requirement. He said they had 3-inch caliper street trees for every thirty feet of frontage, but not on center. They have been arranged to complement the site. He said they would meet the Code. Mr. Cline said their sign proposal basically complied with the Sign Code. He said the wall sign was artistic. The wall sign is a signature to the building itself. There are two ground pylon signs of stainless steel material. A transtucent plastic material will be used that the light will softly shine through. 03-1127, Rezonu~l'reliminary Development Plan Perimeter Center, Subarea D, MAC Parking Lot Venhue Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Cc Fission M nutes -May 1, 1997 Page 25 The purpose of the complex grading plan was to conceal everything except the cars that are for sale. As you look down the finger display, the cars become less visible. A maximum of four display vehicles will be seen on the fingers. Mr. Cline showed the Commission digital photographs of the building model showing what would be seen from the roadway. Ms. Clazke asked how tall the trees were as shown. Mr. Cline said the Sunburst honey locust were shown at about 25-30 feet tall. Mr. Cline said Page 2G of the development plan text detailed the permitted display areas Mr. Harlan asked if the front side of the mound was grass. Mr_ Cline said yes Mr. Cline said the relative elevation of roadway on SR 161 was azound a_19..contour and the six- foot mound went up to 24. Mr. Cline said the setback .wasapproximately- IOQ,feet. -Mr. Cline said there was asix-inch cement curb around the end of the finger display-areas and-the ends of the fingers would be illuminated with accent uplighting on the cars. Mr. Sprague asked how many cars would be exposed to the streets. Mr. Cline said on the 14 fingers there might be three or four cars each. Mr. Cline said there were 60, cut-off gray fixture lights on 14-foot high poles. Mr. Cline said ilie two pylon signs proposed were 1S feet tall and the issue was that they did not comply with Code because of the percentages of logo used. He said the logos were needed because they had 12 separate manufacturers. The third sign has been reworked as a s'vc-foot tall directional sign without logos. The wall sign was 50 square feet in size located on the wall that screened the mechanical units. Mr. Kuspan said it would have stainless steel channel letters with backlighting. Ms. Clarke said there was a problem with the height of the wall sign, and that Perimeter Center generally does not permit wall signs. Ground signage in Perimeter Center was defined as a 3 by 5 (height with relationship} on a brick or stone base. The applicant is required to follow the text requirements. She said the MAG ground sign, due to .its:very unusual design, is somewhat smalter. Ms. Chinnici-7uercher said the Commission should be consistent in applying the Sign Code. She said they needed a new text written for the whole area to provide a level of consistency. She wants to avoid the same problem occurring again without some text structure. Ms. Clazke asked if there were consensus among the Commission members that wall signage should be incorporated in the Perimeter Center text. Mr. Harlan thought they were trying to stay away from wall signs there. Mr. Harlan said the sign was neat and asked if a ground sign on US 33 would be considered instead of a wall sign. Mr. Bretlinger said the sign was expensive to produce. They were also looking to brand MAG as a company. He said they would remove the building sign, if necessary. 03-1122 Re/otruigfPreliminaryDevelopmentPlan PerimeterCentcx, Suba~D, MAG P~icu~ Lot Venttue Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Cc Fission N>"inutes -May 1, 1997 Page 26 He said Land Rover, which was proposed next door, had anon-flexible design requirement for a wall mounted sign. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher said ultimately, wall signs may be okay, but consistency is necessary. Mc. Bretlinger said if wail signs were forbidden in this area, Land Rover will not participate and the project may not be possible. Ms. Clarke said Page 6 of the existing Perimeter Text has design criteria for signage and addresses specifics such as materials and landscaping, signs with a base, signs mounted on pylons, maximum sign faoe is 50 square feet, an overall height of eight feet above the top of the adjacent curb, that signs cannot be on mounds, they must be three by five in ratio, but the words "There cannot be any wall signs" are not included. It does state that no sign shall be painted or posted directly on the surface of any building. The text gives permission to use ground.signs, nothing else: Ivis. Chinnici Zuercher asked if the signs proposed were in compliance..Ms.. Clarke said they were too tall, the wrong size and design, and the logo area exceeded 20 percent_ Mr. Sprague asked if the Chrysler sign complied. Ms. Clarke said the text had been revised yearly since 1987. She said the Chrysler dealership came in originally as the Mercedes dealership and a new tent was drafted for Subarea I. When .originally zoned, it too was part of Subarea D, and then it became Subarea L Subarea I was zoned specifically for a dealership, with specific architecture, in accordance with the Trott and Bean plans, and with the signage as presented. Due to the clean look of the sign, it was granted an exception. Mr. Cline asked how Big Bear got a wall sign. Ms. Clarke said the original Perimeter Center rezoning was driven by the desire to construct a retail mall of 250,000 square feet, similar to Wortfiington Square. That proposal fell apart due to many things, including a sewer ban. When the pro}ect was revised, it became an exterior mall. The azchitectural design exhibited at Perimeter Center shopping center was part of that negotiation process. Wall signage for all other tenants is not illuminated but Big Bear was permitted the sign which is now in place. Staff recommended against, but the Planning Commission and City Council approved it. The sign package is included within the text, including an exhibit. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested a committee in the near future to address these issues and return with acceptable parameters to make a decision. Mr. Harlan was against wall signs on US 33. A monument sign or a version of another type sign would possibly be preferable. Mr. Peplow, Mr. Leckl.ider, and Mr. Sprague preferred a ground sign on US 33. Mr. I.ecklider concurred about consistency being necessary. He liked the pylon sign, but would like it less than 15 feet tail. 03-1127 K~ma~limii~uY Development Plan Perim~x Center, S~.~bauca D, MAG Packing Lot Venture Drive Dublin Planning and 'Coning Cc tiission ' Mrnutes -May 1, 1997 Page 27 Mr_ Sprague said Gorden Flesch was not permitted to have watt signs, and this site should not be either. He said if Range Rover insisted on a wall sign chat was otherwise compatible with Dublin's Sign Code, perhaps there was an exception that could be written into Subarea J. Mr. Cline suggested that the tall sign would not work on US 33. Mr. Bretlinger anticipated that in the next 18 months three additional logos would be added to the sign. Ms. Chinnici Zuercher understood the applicant to be requesting two, 15-foot tall pylon signs, a six-foot pylon sign, and that the MAG sign on the building was withdrawn, and a ground sign facing US 33 would be added. Language in the text is to be added: That the proposed Land Rover center would be permitted a wall sign as approved by staff. Mr. Cline said afour-foot directional MAG sign saying "parts;-service; :fuel deliveries, etc". would be located at the third entrance to the site. Mr. Sprague said .the -MAG logo needed to be removed. Mr. Cline said agreed. Ms. (~innici-Zuercher said the Commissioners had indicated some acceptance of this application, except for the signage. She said five signs: two, 15-foot signs, a wall sign on Land Rover to be deternuned at a later time, a ground sign along SR 33, and a directional sign at the entrance which will not exceed four feet in size were being discussed. Mr. Lecklider was concerned with the siga height, Mr. Harian, Mr. Peplow and Ms. Chinnici- Zuen~her said 15-foot signs were acceptable. Mr. Sprague liked the sign, but said 15 feet is too tall. I~Ie suggested a height of I3 feet with the base. Ms_ Clarke understood that the Commission was not endorsing arty IS-foot high sign, but the specific 15-foot sign presented. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher said that was correct. Ms. Clarke said then it needed to be written in the teat. Mr. Harian made a motion for approval of this development plan because it will preserve the desired character along US 33/SR 161 and within the area, conforms to the PCD regulations, is consistent with the Community Plan, and employs very innovative site design and architecture, with nine conditions: 1) That access to Perimeter Drive be prohibited and that access along Perimeter Loop Road be subject to approval by the City Engineer; 2) That the eonswetion of the site be coordinated with the construction of public roadways and utilities, subject to approval of the City F,ngineer; 3) That the design of all storm water management systems, site utilities and improvements, including grading, be subject to the approval of the City Engineer; 4) That the landscape plan be revised to conform more closely to the requirements of the Code and the comments in this report, subject to staff approval; 5) That text be amended to further address landscaping, signage, lighting, grading and building architecture; 6) That signage be permitted as follows: two, 15-foot pylon signs as presented at this mceting; one, four-foot high direction sign;'a ground sign facing US 33, subject to staff approval (not to be a LS-foot pylon sign); and a future wall sign on the proposed Land Rover building, subject to staff and Commission approval; 7) That lighting bc; subject to further r'evicw and staff approval; q3-112Z Rewiun~Ptclinunary Development Pl~~n Pc~uneter C.es~r, Subs D,1vlAG Pariang L.ot Venture Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Cc tiission Minutes -May 1, 1997 Page 28 S) That sidewalks be constructed along the east and west frontages; and 9) That a revised site plan which incorporates all of the conditions be submitted within two weeks. Mr. Peplow seconded the motion. Mr. Sprague asked what square footage would be for the four- foot ground sign. Ms. Clarke suggested it be resolved with staff. Mr. Cline agc~aed to the above conditions. Fie said the sidewalk on Venture Drive was part of the TIF. Mr. Bowman agreed. The vote was as follows: Ms. Chinnici Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, no; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; and Mr. Harlan, yes. (Approved 4-1.) The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ~\ . ~ Tabby Farley Administrative Secretary Planning Division p3-112Z. Rewnin~f'relimin~uyDevelopment Plan Pe~inleter Center, Subarea D, MA.G Pariang Lot Venture Drive DUBLIN PL.ANNIIVG AND ZONING CONIlVffSSION REt.~ORD OF ACTION April 10, 1997 Cl'1'Y (1F Ilt~ltl.ii~ 5800 Shier ~ hood DuhG4 OH 43811-123b ~hone/1D0: it 4~lil ~SSO Fmc 614/IH~506 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Rezoning Application 97-034Z -Revised, Composite Plan/Development Plan - 1Viidwestern Auto Group -6025 Perimeter Drive Location: 14,7$ acres located at the southeast corner of Perimeter Loop Road and Perimeter Drive. 1~tdsting Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter Center pLan). Request: PCD, Planned Commerce District. Amendments to the existing Perimeter Center composite plan and development text, under Section 153.058, are proposed to create a new Subarea J. Proposed Use: Proposed auto dealership. Applicant: Charles Aeh, c% Christophea Cline, 37 West Bridge Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017. MOTION ~1: To approve the revised composite plan portion of this rezoning application, because it is a compatible use, presents the desired character along US 33/SR 161, conforms to the PCD regulations and the Community PIan, with six conditions: 1) That the text be revised to provide clarification as to visual sale gimmicks, landscaping, lighting, auto display, grading, and building architecture; 2) That access to Perimeter Drive be prohibited; 3} That a more acceptable sign package be submitted as part of this rezoning and incorporated in the text; 4) That design for all storm water management, site utilities and improvements including grading meet the approval of the City Engineer; 5) That construction be linked to approval of the preliminary plat for "Wall" Street; and 6) That an appropriate subarea plan be submitted. # Chris Cline agreed to the above conditions. Page 1 of 2 03-112"L Rcwnin~liminary Develc~nnent Plan Pe~ime2er Centa~, S~ D, MAG Parking L;ot Ventruc Drive DUBLIN PLANNIlVG AND ZONING COMMISSION RFAbRD OF ACTION ' April Y0, 1997 3. Rezoning Application 97-034Z -Revised Composite Plun/Development Plan - 1Viidwestern Auto Group -6025 Perimeter Drive (Contiaue~ voTE: ~-o. RESULT: This rezoning application was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. MOTION ~4f2: To table the development plan portion of the application, as requested by the applicant. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This development plan was tabled, as requested, until May 1, 1997_ 'The proposed lighting, srgnage, landscaping, building materials, and grading plan will be addressed further at that meeting_ STAFF CER IgICATION -~ ~~ Barbara. M. Clarke Planning Director Page 2 of 2 (I3-112Z KrlAning~limit~ary Developmc~t I'1<ui PExitnc~er Center, Subazt~ D, MAG Parlong l.ot Vc~ltu~ Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission lviuiutes -April 10, 1997 Page 6 Ivls. 'ci-Zuercher ted a complete w all residen of David Road to h ' ply six or e' t homes. She cited The vote Mr. Peplow, yes; r. Harlan, yes; Mr. Z. Rezoning This case }trds postponed ~e regarding the potential fE a, yes; and D iZ evised the meeting. yes; Mr. Yom- R was no an of David oad. She within a w years, not •h an example. der, yes; Mr. S ue, Parcel and no action taken. 3. Rezoning Application 97-034Z -Revised Composite Pian/Development Plan -Midwestern Auto Group -6025 Perimeter Drive . Bobbie Clarke presented this combined rezoning and development plan for an auto dealership. The 14.78 acre site is on the southeast corner of Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road (formerly Wilcox Road). The rezoning would permit all of the current Subarea D uses, mainly office and hotel., plus an auto dealership. T'he Midwestern Auto Group (MAG) dealership is now located on Post Road and will relocate here. Anew loop road is shown to the east of this site, but its name will not be "Wall Street" as shown on the plans. Tax increment financing CTIF) legislation is pending at City Council that would install the full street loop. The two-level building will have three elevated showrooms facing southwest. There are three entraiKes into the lower service level. A wet pond is located near the main entrance_ 'I`he parking lot is divided into several use areas. The tips or "fingers" are used for display and the inventory cars are stored in the remaining area. Customers will park along the C-shaped driveway, and employee parking has been designated and screened. A future showroom is shown at the north end of the site, which could become Land Rover, or a showroom could be added to the building. Ms. Clarke said two separate actions are requested: a recommendation on the rezoning application (composite plan) and final action on the development plan. Subarea J will permit the current uses and an auto dealership in accordance with this plan. The PCD permits this combined review. Since the initial plan submission, there have been several revisions. The staff report indicates 12- 15 signs for the site; this has been reduced to three signs which have not been reviewed by staff. The specialized lighting proposed is a staff concern. Staff is not stressing blanket compliance with Dublin Lighting Guidelines because such a specialized lighting plan, site plan, and a unique building is proposed. It is requested that lighting be left to staff discretion. Additionally, six-foot high screening is normally required along US 33, but none is proposed here. Ms. Clarke said no architecture had been submitted for the future building along Perimeter Drive. Staff hopes that it would be coordinated with the main MAG building. 03-I1.2Z Rezoningf Prefiznii~ary Developtn~t Plan Perimeter C~~ter, Suba~a D, MAG Paddng Lot uQ1lLII~ D11Ve Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Aprit 10, 1997 Page 7 Ms. Clarke said staff recommends tabling of the development plan. She said staff recommends approval of the rezoning application with six conditions: 1) 'T'hat the text be revised to provide clarification as to visual sale gimmicks, landscaping, lighting, auto display, grading, and building architecture; 2) That access to Perimeter Drive be prohibited; 3) That a more acceptable sign package be submitted as part of this rezoning and incorporated in the text; 4) That design for all storm water management, site utilities and improvements including grading meet the approval of the City Engineer; 5) That construction be linked to approval of the preliminary plat for "Wall" Street; and ~ That an appropriate subarea plan be submitted. .Chris Cline, attorney, said this project had integrated landscaping, grading; and parking. He said it will be nationally recognized for its design. This project was designed to look good from every angle. Toe Kuspan, the architect, demonstrated the site model. The site has been cut with a C-shaped loop road that separates the different areas. There are seven display "fingers" to the north and seven to the south. The building has a split level design. The service entrances are lower and bidden, and the showrooms are elevated. Fle said service vehicles, employee parking and new car inventory will be screened with landscaping. The parking lot at its lowest point is at a 911- foot elevation. The fingers have landscaping to break up large masses of parking, and they are elevated toward the highest points at the tips. This permits the vehicles on the end of the mounds to be seen while the other stored inventory is descending downhill. Three-foot landscaping will screen most of the cars. A seaies of quartz fixture`s at the grade level will footlight the wheels and grills of the cars. Other lighting will provide general ambient light in the display spaces. Jerry Smith explained that the amount of asphalt was minimized with the fingers being landscaped and screened. Evergreen screening is minced with deciduous materials. All the employee parking is screened. The fingers allow for particular cars to be displayed. 1'he entrances will have tree clusters. They will meet the Landscape Code and Dublin street tree regulations. Mark Brentlinger, Nfidwestern Auto Group, said his current business has outgrown its Post Road location. T1ie goal is to have a European feel of architecture and design and a timeless building. He hoped the environment will be a pleasant and exciting landmark. The pond will have geese. The glass is to be aSwiss-manufactured clear glass that can eliminate heat gain inside. The landscaping species will be native to this area or reflect the same European countries as the cars. He does not want customers to see anything unattractive or cars not for sale. Alighting consultant will do subtle but dramatic lighting. Mr. Brentlinger does not want to repeat the old "stadium" type lighting used at the old dealership. Mr. Kuspan said each showroom will have an internal ramp which ascends up to display cars and allow customers to visit other showrooms in the building. There will be a retail store for vehicle merchandise on one end. Low, 14-foot high dcxorative fixtures will light all of die outer portions 03-1127 Re~~onin~l'~eGminaryDevelopment Plan Perimeter Caltex, S~ ibarea D, MAG PariCing Lot Vent<tre Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Mnutes -April 10, 1997 Page 8 of the site in addition to the low-level quartz fixtures which floodlight and footlight the cars. He showed three European design fixtures. The rear of the site will be lit with cutoff type 27-foot high futures. Flagpoles for each nation of origin, plus the City of Dublin and MAG corporate flags. are proposed. Amain pylon sign will be 15 feet high at the west entrance. Windows at the rear of the building will break up the massing and make it more appealing. Afire wall separates the sales/office space from the service space_ A rooftop trench will screen the mechanical equipment. He said the building materials are a combination of colored masonry and a ground face masonry. They were chosen for their rich appearance, which is similar to terrazzo_ Some of the masonry will have scored joints. The blocks use marble, granite, and other aggregates to bring out the color and texture. A white PVC roof will be used. The large wall separating .the front from the .back of the building is a combination of three :materials: . dark charcoal .grey .ground faced masonry on the lowest. l0 feet, white ground faced masonry~on the middle 10 feet, and white masonry with a white marble chip for the upper 10 feet. Interior and exterior accent lighting on the building walls is proposed. Most of the upper areas of the building will be of a natural colored stucco. Aluminum window mullions will be unfinished. The front showrooms are of clear glass. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked how many cars az~e on the !ot and in the fingers. Mr. Cline said 737 vehicles cars would be on the lot. He said each one of the fingers had a specific number of cars spelled out in the text. The largest finger had 38 spaces. He said absolutely no display vehicles are permitted in the C-shaped driveway. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked how many 14-foot light poles and flagpoles are proposed. Mr. Kuspan said there are sixty, 14-font pole lights and eight flagpoles. The flag sizes will meet Code. The 22 light poles in the back are 27 fcet high and are the typical cut-off, shoe box type. Mr. Harian asked which material was on the front elevation, A-2. Mr. Kuspan said the blocks between the showrooms, inside the knuckles, had a striped pattern of two textures with a natural grey stucco above. Mr. Hasian asked about the wall where the MAG sign appeared. Mr. Kuspan said it was white. He said the tallest HVAC unit was 5 feet high. Mr. Brentlinger said the used cars would be integrated with the new cars. Mr. Harian asked if a future fourth pod would be identical to the others. Mr. Kuspan said yes. Mr. Harian read a letter from Tim Kelton, Ruscilli, excluding more dealerships from its remaining 77 acres. Ms. Clarke said staff did not request this condition, the developer volunteered it. Mr. Harian asked if the roof elevation of the main building will be seen from US 33. Mr. Kuspan said the white roof was chosen to reflect the sun because the back half of the building was not air conditioned. He said a small portion of the roof might be visible. 03-1122 Rezoningd~eliminary Develolxnent Plan Pc~im~er CentEr, Subarea D, MAG Parlang Lot Venture Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Ivfinutes -April 10, 1497 Page 9 Mr_ Lecklider lilted how the finger design breaks up the mass of asphalt. Mr. Kuspan said each finger was raised at the same slope per each side of the site. They chose afour-foot elevation change faking Perimeter Drive, and a six feet along US 33. They are sloped to provide drama by ascending upwards, and they also block the view of the rest of the cars. Mr. Kuspan said the highest mound was about six feet higher than US 33 and about 120 feet away. Mr. Lecklider asked about the exterior sound system. Mr. Cline said it would play aloes-key ambiance-.type music. The music will be totally inaudible at the center of any adjoining road. The exterior sound system is subject to staff approval. Loud intercom speakers would not be permitted. Ms. Clarke said the text cites that the sound cannot be heard offsite. Mr. Leckiider asked about the coffee shop_ Mr. Cline said the coffee shop will attract the public as well as customers. The goal is to provide a gathering place. Mr. Ferrara asked if the flagpoles are signage. Mr. Cline said corporate flags were regulated as signs, and any national flags weae permitted. Mr. Banchefsky said there was no limitation on the number of flags representing any political entity. Mr_ Ferrara. asked if the perimeter of the water feature would be grassed. Mr. Kuspan said typical rip-rap will not be used. They want to find a grass that will work with the retention. Mr.~ Cline said they would like to duplicate the pond in front of the Horror Corporation. Mr. Kuspaa said there is a "MAG" sign at the end of the wall. Ae said the stainless steel, backlit channel letters are proposed, six to eight feet tall. Ms. Clarke said the sign shown by Code, was a roof sign, and not permitted unless written into the development text. She said the revised signage package had not been discussed. Mr. Cline said there were 54 customer parking spaces. Mr. Ferrara said if this was to be a gathering place with a a~ffc~ shop he was concerned about adequate parking. Mr. Peplow asked if the landscaping on the model provided was indicative of the quantity of material to be used. Mr. Kuspan said yes. Mr. Peplow asked about the 25 percent of road frontage being used for auto display. Ms. Clarke said it is permitted at dealers citywide and includes US 33. Mr. Cline said the pod displays equal 25 percent of the frontage, and the lot coverage is 60 percent. Ms. Clarke said the display pod calculations have not been verified, and Perimeter Center permits up to 75 percent lot coverage. Ivlr. Sprague was impr+esseci by the plan. Mr. Cline said the parking lot will not be seen, and the cars for sale will be artistically arranged_ It will be the best looking dealership Dublin has ever had. Ms. Chiruiici-7,uercher asked if 750 cars was the optimum number or would they have less in the beginning. Mr. Cline said 400 cars were for sale presently. 0.3-1122 R~cot~in~liminary Development Plan Perim~'Ca~ter', Sulu D, MAG Parking Lot VentuceDrive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -April 10, 1997 Page 10 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher said this was a tremendous presentation and it offers something unique and different. She said the typical car dealership was not what Dublin wanted at this site. She was concerned about the future of the exisfing MAG site. Mr. Cline said Mr. Brentlinger wanted special cultural events to take place on this site. Ms. Boring asked what the parcel between this and the Crown Mercedes dealership was caned. Ms. Clarke said the 5-acre parcel is zoned for hotels, offices, and OLR uses, with a minimum of two-story structures_ Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher reminded the Commission that two different actions were under review: a rezoning recommendation of a composite plan and action on the development plan. Mr. Lecklider said it was a fabulous design_ He was concerned.about.the height of the fingers to the southwest. He liked the treatment of the parking on the interior side. Mr. Harlan said it was good to have MAG relocate within Dublin.. He said was considering approval of the composite plan and tabling the development plan, so that details could be examined more carefully. He however, did not see anything he did not like. Ms. Boring thanked everyone for their thoroughness. She said the model helped a lot. She said Council did not want to see auto dealerships all along US 33. She Liked the site layout. This design will set the standard for the remaining properties along the freeway. Mr. Ferraza also was glad ~to have MAG remain in Dublin. He had no problems with the composite plan. He said the new information for the development plan needed tv be absorbed. Mr. Peplow said the building architecture blended well with the other car dealerships nearby. He agreed that the development plan needed further verification by staff. Mr. Sprague said the time, thought, and attention to detail put into this plan were very impressive. MAG has exceeded Dublin's high standards. He was concerned about.the height of the mounds. Ms. Clarke said a note on the grading plan indicated that there would be a s'uc-foot mound between US 33 and the site, but it was not indicated on the grading plan. It only shows the elevated fingers which is the opposite of what the Code intended. Phis particular grading plan has never been done elsewhere. Ms. Clarke said because this was such a specialized design, she thought it worthy of discussion at this meeting. Mr. Lecklider's concerns were also raised by staff. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the Infiniti dealership at the Sawmill/I-270 has display mounding. Ms. Clarke said a small area was approved but never constructed. She said Code requires a rim of one-foot high vegetation in front of auto display, and the fingers have none. By Code, a 3-inch caliper tree is required every 30 feet for vetricular display. Staff is most concerned with the 03-1122 RcconinglPrelimina~y Development Pian Paimda- Carter, Subama D, MAG Parlcinl Lot VauureDrive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -April 10, 1997 Page 11 uplighting at the end of the fingers which will not comply with the Dublin Lighting Guidelines. Mr. Ferrara asked about other Dublin dealerships using this type of display elevation and lighting. Ms. Clarke said the door will be open to other dealerships. She said if that was not the Commission's intention to approve such a design elsewhere, this is not a good site plan. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if any other dealership had submitted a creative way of presenting themselves. Mr. Ferrara said Infiniti had by using their remote location for display. Mr. Cline said there needs to be differentiation on why this manner of display was permitted and another was not. He said this plan has fewer vehicles displayed from the street (70) than other dealers have now. Mr. Ferrara. said three dealers are affected by the SR 161 widening; and he predicted that they will have new plans which may include elevated display areas. Mr. Harian said this development plan should be tabied so the Commission could give specific reasons why this plan was approved for the record at a later date. Mr. Ferrara said the Commission should not give anyone a competitive advantage. He asked for ciarification of Condition 1. Ms. Clarke said the text made several references to the plan for standards, but the plan was not specific or did not conform to Codes as required by the text. The text language is different from the Mercedes text: visual sales gimmicks are not permitted on the Mercedes "site", and the MAG text says none are permitted on the cars. Lighting cannot be brought into compliance with the Dublin Lighting Guidelines, but the text says otherwise. Staff Wends to verify the auto display calculations and the signage conflicts. Mr. Sprague said issues still needed to be reviewed. 'This may set a precedent in the future, and the justification should be solid. Mr. Peplow agreed. Ms. Clarke said the text needs improvement and the northern building was not mentioned in it. Mr. Ferrara said he did not want to sit through another presentation, but felt the development plan should be tabled. Ms. Boring, Mr_ Harian and Mr. Lecklider agreed. Mr. Banchefsky said only the composite plan and not tt-e development plan will be reviewed by Council. Mr. Cline said the development plan will be presented with the composite plan. Mr. Cline asked if the developrent plan could be tabled to May 1. Mr. Ferrara made the motion to approve the revised composite plan bocause it is a compatible use, presents the desired character along iJS 33/SR 161, and conforms to the PCD regulations and the Community Plan, with six conditions: 03-112"l. RezoninpJPteliminatyDevelopmeWt Plan Paunc~er Center, Stil~a D, ivlAG Padang L,ot Verlttu~: Drive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -April 10, 1997 Page 12 1) That the text be revised to provide clarification as to visual sale gimmicks, landscaping, lighting, auto display, grading, and building architecture; 2) That access to Perimeter Drive be prohibited; 3) That a more acceptable sign package be submitted as part of this rezoning and incorporated in the text; 4) That design for all storm water management, site utilities and improvements, including grading, meet the approval of the City Engineer; S~ That construction be linked to approval of the preliminary plat for "Wall" Street; and 6) That an appropriate subarea plan be submitted. Mr. Harlan seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr_ Peptow, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Boring, Yes; Mr. Sprague, Yes; Mr. Harlan, yes; and Mr. Ferrara. (Approved 7-0.) Mr. Ferrara made the motion to table the development plan, as requested by the applicant, until May 1, 1997. Mr. Harlan seconded, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Peplow, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. I.eckiider, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Harian,-yes; and Mr. Ferrara, yes. (Tabled 7-0.) Mr. Ferrara wanted to make sure that all information was distributed to the Commission in time to review it carefully. Ms. Clarke said she needed to talk to Mr. Cline about the meeting dates. Mr. Cline said the rezoning composite plan needed to be heard by Council on May 19 in order to not hold up the TIF. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher preferred that this case be heard on May 1, so that if there were any problems, there would be another meeting available before the Council review. 4. C itional Use/ velopment Pta 7-037CU/DP - rimeter Center RF.C evelopment - 35 and 6239 Pe ' peter Drive John Talen ' o presented this ditional use appl' ion and developm plan for 1.5 acres locat the F-1 Subar f Perimeter Cent Office use is pe fitted and preschools e co oral uses. He ~ a rezoning was fil o modify the Perim r Center text to allo roof This developm plan is short thr arking spaces, parking r ~rements per C Elevation revisi~ buildi to bring the sto material to the s~ ~hool building ca a compatible with t neigl the building signa 'll meet Code. S recommen hedge along private drive. "t interior lands landsc;a[~i are; deficient. -d~taff recommends full mpliance with »~to the rear and si of the preschool' level, are reque ~ Staff believ the I~ "Talentino said this oposed medical burl g is brick on will have the same rglass roofing as th urrounding buildy The applicant ces that ~e stone pilaster d landscape Code, but er facets of di rst level of all a ations and He said the velopment text 03-11.27, RezoningJl.'reliminary DevelalxnentPlan Perimc~er Centa-, Subarea D, MAG Pa>idng IAt V~t<ucDrive g'2 I I ' nib ~'R ~~r ?~-~ I ~I~ ° ~~~~, „Ib ~'~ ca I u~l ~ ~ ~ ' IP ~: 1't I ti v -~;. 4 l _ ~ ,~~- 1 -: ,: `; ~ 1 ' ,, ~~ ~'< _ ~~P' ~ ~•~ . r~ - ' ~ _ - .' ~ ;i-~_ ~ ~ 'X ~~ 1 ~ ~.. \\. V l a, ~ ~~ ~~ - - ~ 'Z' `~ . , a a - a-.- '~.~._.. / ~7 , •, e 1 '7~ i ~ ~ : r 4 r t f 1 " r,.~ i i as ~~ ~ ~ ~i I i ,• . ;~;; ~ 0 v.asi ~ I ; ~ ~- ~, - -=~-~ _ __ _~ y.. e.y.. I o 1 ~ ' ~" ~ ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN o ~ ~ e ~ I ~fri _w.a~--- >a J,~-rr~ ~ .:• _, ;Y~ ~ total perrtw provkfeo. ,91 apnea • / ~~•I~~[1I Intmior LeWcapn aae: Q p~, r.: Rs~JVao, 5 a! er landaeaoe aree p« IL0 of of vd+kub• we eroa r ~ ~,~; Ropaeed 54,B5a N or er+eubr we a.eaAOO • 5 •r • T,'.47 •! I }: ,J•%„- hovided: SA95 er of mtrior laade<apsg Total bte baa • 96537 S f71] aoaa! ~ ?rovldodi 38111 of ecWai ~rxn epaca f39a: or lolel ells) L Taal'a1 eovaeos `' - ~ _ _ , _ _ - - _ ~ - _ - I Rovld«J. 54p94 err%x or tool Niel R G E I U E D ______ _, ------------ - _ ~ - - - - - - - _ _ I cITP o~uu~~i~ -------- - - ---__. _ - - - - - IAND USE & - ---- - _ 1~1V~ Rl4~IGEPIANNING _ _ g "' ~____ _ _ { A?048 -----~_ a _ '-----~. _ _ •~ _~ snap ra ~~ _ ,Ib AHCHITEC7URAl ~~__-- _ ---~__ AS SUBhtifil'EO 10 AIL- - srre HIAN -----_ _ -- ------ ' EE x-13 ~~{iR MEETING ON K -1~=~ ~~~~ "~°""~ !~~ ~. 1.02