96-96 Ordinance AMENDED
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank Co. Form No. 30043
96-96 (Amended)
Ordinance No .u_________n__n_uu_ Passed_____uu__ __n________u____________ n_ _u__.1 9_______
An ordinance providing for a change in zoning for 2.6871 acres of land
,- located on the southeast corner of Avery-Muirfield Drive and Post
Road, from: LI, Limited Industrial District, to: PeD, Planned
Commerce District (6750 Avery-Muirfield Drive - City Council initiated
........ rezoning)
NOW, ~RE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, Stare
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 to Planned Commerce
District and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21-
70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City of Dublin Zoning Code and
amendments thereto.
Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected
property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Exhibit "C" , are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and made
an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in
- accordance therewith.
Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest
period allowed by law.
- Passed this ~ day oi:fthfitil1-' 199 '7.
Attest:
~{t(D~
Clerk of Council
Sponsor: Planning Division I h~~eh.v r.erffv thof conies of ~,,;s Ord'ormce/Rt! I r
. . . ' . 8 l:I ,~11 were posted in
CIty of Duhhn '" accord(]n,e wiM1 S~:(ln 731.25 of the otJio ReviseB
C:\OFFICE\WP61 \COUNCIL.ORD\96-96. ~ Cle~~n, Ohio
",..,.
.....
---""',., .."....~,.,. ',,, " ~---,'_.
t~bft- fC A"
.. \ ~~" U [) " ~ ~r ,.~""1JA \ \~1h~1 'i\\
_ _._ '\.. ~ ,\"A.V'. \
"<::J'- -. "{/Tr1 ~\ \ \ Y\T\
\\ V, " ....... I P , \ R-2~
" ill-. ,..' LR \ if!:.-
- ~ \ ~
...... " ~ ',' rIf"- * _ '- .
1 ' 1 R- 1 I . j
. - ~ ;~..'. ~R~ ~ ( ""uo -
,.., ,j
~\ ' .
.' J'I.... . ,
, 4' ~l.1 R-I: . ~ l' , .
~,' . ~r 'PUll ..,~ ~v==~~' .'
I PL ~~~ . - '
I R ~~.
_ Z. l- _P~ l~ R".
I PU
, 0 PL .. rt::;/ .: ~ I ~ ~ ~
_ R-I:. _ .-1 ~ ~ . ~ 1
. Z .... ~. (~JD '- ~::::.~ 11
. ::> ~ ~-41:::1. I '. /R~,,-, .. \l \.
\ ~ ~~- -=- . ~ PUD . """ ~~I 9'<' ~
\1 ~ . '. 0 1 ~\)~ '.~iJ.~ ~.; r l~-4 /'- ,-' \ '-
r .', +4'"/. ~ R-~ h! _~ ""n .
_ _'_ \. IYPUD ~; ~ If )
I~.\ ~ - ~-I ' ----
~l'\\~\ R"P D ~ b..... " - ...... R:b JL.-- - I' ..," -= R
.'- .. ' ~ ~-I, -L-'"' '''1'1 ~~
"' . _ ~; I PUO
~ ~ 'V _ -. "'" .... JkL. '1.1' .. R-11if1..... N.. - ~ _ 7
{\r -~..z. ~ ~ITE~n.o~ t\':-u.~ ~ b. ~ ~ "'"
~ . ~ ~ ....~... ex: ~~ ~~ 4 "I....]
_~, ~ ~ H 'PCO . p.(S~ ~ P.CD ., ~l I PIJP
. .' ". 0 -y L .
\~~ r . _&. ~ ~'IK
'l ~ ' ..". Ll
_. L~ ~ <'00
_ ~~,-::, .. '" ~Roacl~ - )'~ cc
_' ~_, ___ .t.
__.' _ L1--~): )F- . J 1 'b (i. ') /' cc_
_ ij! __~- ----oo[ I- i---' 1\"1: I:::: s"'~~ ..d L ~Il / /iPUD -
_...- .' -_\ . L Ili...1j~f -
. I , - .1____ J - r- -
_ . \ .L,t CC. R ...-l '"""' .''-... R J , IU: J . . ([ -
___ /' LI nr' t-' RI ~ ~ r---
./" ",~, SO · LI ---
~r-''''' -..IU . - ~i - -.,. "-"'~
I R1~( RX, r - . l.!
-1 \ \-J R ~ - ..- L
;... I . J (lIl.llf; - I R
PlR :.-" t' _. _",~ f---'
__ a~..."" R
-- ~ ".-. \ 'II' -J ~, . - 1\ R-1" \ -,
\ 1 l 1 ... t\.\~ 1Ii..
. . . --
\ \ I \ "' , ,-: . \ .-'!!! -
,\ -. ~ ' uu
__- _ i \' PIP PUD' PLR, ~r5.:? \ \ n ,b...., l]
U ....... - ..... b.' . A."'.i.l'. \ \
__ ,_ EU J ~ezomng ppJlcation
-- \. A f-- ~ 1= PLR Z96-011
\.'" . _. R _ i\ B ~--- - ~ \ K -1 '. . - Southeast com~r of Post Rd.
tv-;;;ii\\ __1 r' \1 .. r\ "' ~ Ir- Tl',R";3. R..-1 and Avecy-MUlrfield Dr.
-. "'-
.
. I 11 ~I t
. II · E
. c
. c. ~ (
.. . ,
, . .
..! '.q;t c
I J
a.'en t
... 6)., . .
. CD
~ >-
. tS-' C
C
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
..
:.
I
. ....
. . liliiii
. , ,
."i- 1!
4'
:r,., .....
. -
'.
.
.
.: ,. -. ... ~ . " . .
. . . .,
:. \ .~. ".> ~ -'_:
.
, !: . .
.
. -
.
D .1 .
. .. ":~ ..0.:... :...._.. "..
,
. ." i" .. ~ ... .~....... . Rezoning AppliCation
.' . . . . . Z96-011
' '.
" 'I i " Southeast corner of Post Rd.
. -.... .
. . and Avery-Muirfield Dr. ..,
.
---~-~ ...~----_.._----~..__.-
. c.'K"'I~+-- '1I~.,
.
.
. CITY or DUlLIR PLARNIRC AHD ZORINC COHMI88IOR
AI APPLICATIOR rem AHDDHERT rem ru C U.e Oaly
,;,;. ,or 'DIB CITY or DUlLIR ZORIRC AppUcatiOll ROI
DIsmICT MAP ZH Z96-011
(Reclassification of Land) Date "Uedl 9/18/96
Ii"'. ree Receipt Ro. N/A
Iteceiyed byl fa.
Please type or print information - U.e additional .heets as nece.sary
'l'O 'DIB BOROIABLB PLARRIRC ARD ZORIRC COIIttSSIOR I - "'"
A.~~Lf\,~ c'l{SNut-AL- i 0-10 .jOI-\t0 -rt-\A~O rJ, S U~~RArJ\~Rlljl 5R, Rfl\.L cSiffi"G' M6~
'l'he Applicant (Initiate~ by Dublin City Council) .
. . .
.J' . . '.
being the ~er(.),/lessee(s) of property located within the area proposed for
.1 LI, LIMITED .INDOSTRIAL DIS~RICT , re~e.t. that the following
(CHI1f'JGW 8q C!JillUCt L AT 1'- /eolcl(p /'V16ETfAJ(,)
described land to be placed in the se-, St1Br'~BAN ARB IRBUSyaIAL BISyaICT
. ~CJ~ I ~\Q~~'S~ Cn'mt(\.'CRCE DI'SIR\C-\
A. DESCRIPTION OF LAND TO BE RECLASSIFIED
1. General Description of Land (describe by one of the following):
~ Lot(s)/Reserve(s) of
a.
,
""""!e
a recorded plat, with an area of .
b. Beginning at a point along
(street or other)
and being feet in a R SEW
direction from the (specify) of
(Street or other), and thence having a dimension
of from the (specify) of
(street or other), and having an area of
.
c. The tract of land containing Acres and bounded by:
(specify) on the R SEW (Circle)
(specify) on the R S'E W (Circle)
~1l"!'"'''''' (specify) on the R SEW (Circle)
(specify) on the R SEW (Circle)
, d. Attached legal description: YES X NO
See Exhibit A
Page 1 of 4
"
~, "'_"-<~""'_--<'~<".~"-'<"--""""''"'-''''~''''''--'- '_.."_.._.~. _. ~~._.~"""",.........,......._h..__....__.._.~_~ ",-.,-
.
Map of Proposed Zoninl District Boundaries
Two (2) coples of...p .ccur.tely.dr.wn to .n .ppropri.te sc.le (to fill. sheet of
not less th.n 8~ x 11 inches .nd not IIOre th.n 16 x 20 inches). The up sh.n be
identified .nd submitted in .ddition to the Cener.l Description of Land. The up
.h.n include .n l.nd in the proposed ch.nse .nd .n land within five hundred (500)
I"'~ feet beyond the Uaits of the proposed ch.nse.
I
I To be shown on the ~p - .U property Unes, .treet right-of....y. e.....nts .nd
_~ other infonation rel.ted to the loc.tion of the proposed boundaries .nd sh.n be
fully dimensioned.
The map shall show the exist ins .nd proposed Zontns District or Speci.l District
boundaries.
List .n owners of propertywlthin .nd contiguous to .nd directly .cross the street
frOla such .rea proposed to be rezoned. The addresses of the owners shall be those
.ppearins on the County Auditor's current tax list or the Tre.surer's ..Ulng list.
IWm ADDlESS
-
SEE ATTACHED LIST
EXHIBIT B
~
.
....
B. ARGUMENTS FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF THE DESCRIBED LARD
1. Proposed Use or Development of the Land:
NO IMMEDIATE PLANS FO~ DEVELOPMENT .
PLANNED DEVELOPHERT ZONlRG DISTRICTS and SPECIAL DISTRICTS submission of
three (3) copies of a Development Plan and other documents and two (2)
copies shall be retained as a permanent public record if approved.
For other Zoning Districts, such plans or other exhibits would be helpful
to the review of this application.
Plans and Exhibits submitted
Plot .Plan _____I Building Plan _____; Development Plan _____I Sketch _____;
Photographs _; Other (specify)
~.. 2. State briefly how the proposed zonins and development relates to the ex~sting
. and probably future land use character of the vicinity.
I
\ OFFICE USE IS AN APP90P~IATE TRANSITION BETWEEN ~ESIDENTIAL
,
--
DEVELOPMENT TO THE NO~TH AND EAST AND COMME~CIAL DEVELOPMENT
.
TO THE SOUTH. SBVE~AL OTHE~ OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL USES
HAVE BEEN APPROVED ALONG ~O!~ ROAD IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.
Page 2 of 4
.
"
~--- -~----
3. Has an application for rezoning of the property been denied by the City
Council within the last two (2) years?
YES
NO
If Yes, state the basis of reconsideration
r
..... C. AFFIDAVIT
Before completing this application and executing the following affidavit, it is
recommended that this application be discussed with the Building Inspector to
insure completeness and accuracy. Present owner of property:
APPLICANTS'S AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF OHIO
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN,
I (we) ':Ju I..- yt J( -ri. rJ)C h. -(v/ J C--rl-~~ IC~ /1J i LAkd ~ c:.. . C)'Uf'
being duly sworn, depose and say t at I am/we are the owne (s)/lessee(s) of ~
~ dull Ii U'R7 ~ep~ aMI- &a, "that I ..../ e $1:l. tl.~ O.hU(5),'-l~88C~(s)4 tand included
. in the application and that the foregoing statement herein contained and attached,
and information or attached exhibits thoroughly to the best of my/our ability present
.... the arguments in behalf of the application herewith submitted and.that the statements
and attached exhibits above referred to are in all respects true and correct to the
best of my/our knowledge and belief.
....
CU--!c .~
V. (signature)
c/o A-J J. l~ CI+c~ ( ;d
fO. (J1v.) i/5!
C tJ I-u/Jj; Ik-:j / 6 t - Y3.LiC
(Mailing address)
to before me this
DAVID IMRSHAU.
-:=--
.,1 If ...
-
above signatory:
I
~
(Name (Address) I (Telephone)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Do not WrIte below thIs-lIne)- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D. RECORD OF ACTION
1. Withdrawn Held to
(Date) (Date)
2. P&Z C: Date of Hearing
Approved Disapproved' . Modified
3. Citj CouDcil: Date of Hearing
Approved Disapproved Modified
n___ ~ _#1 A
.
. .
,
The applicant/owner hereby acknowledges that approval of (his) (her) (its)
request for__~ by the Dublin Planning and
Zoning Commission and/or Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee
or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential
r services such as water and s~wer facilities when needed by said applicant.
The City of Dublin will make every effort to have these services available
--
as needed. However, the rapid growth of the City of Dublin and Northwest
Franklin County has stretched the City's capacity to provide these services
to the limit. As such, the City of Dublin may be unable to make all or part
of said facilities available to the applicant until some future date.
The undersigned hereby acknowledges and understands the foregoing.
1- {c,~q7 .. Ie. ~~
Date ignature of Applicant or authorized
1 representative thereof.
On behalf of:
,.... ~~(~o;z-
'-,- Applicant ~~_
.
-
.;~
!
'---
Page 4 of 4
-~-~----- -- - ~_.__.-----.-
~UIRlT A
PAGEI0F2
.....
"4
,
...'-~ ~
'.: ...
. .
. .
.. ....:.:e=
. .
. ..... ."
0,
....
'.
, ..
.
".~-~"..~~--~-~ ""--> ,",.,._..~. .~- "~"...,,,-~.._-.
.
~HIRIT A
PAGE20F2
-_._-~---------_._-
. , .
. .
- EXIDBIT B
......
PROPERTY OWNERS FOR 2.68 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF POST AND AVERY
ROADS
PROPERTY OWNER:
n~e Research, Inc.
PO Box 14000
Lexington, KY 40512
::LlNTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS:
.I Bell Properties, Inc.
...' oW xxxx Post Rd. 8) Northwest Presbyterian Church PCA,
East Inc.
6488 Post Rd.
2) , Interstate Retirement Assets, In~. West - 12.4ac.
6250 Perimeter Dr.
South 9) Hollingshead, Wynn & Judy
6055 Flora Villa Dr.
3) Pomante, Richard L. & Linda K. Worthington, OH 43085
6800 Avery Rd. North
North
10) Fogle, Gerald E.
4) Keiderling, Ben D. & Sandra S. 6336 Post Rd.
6334 Post Rd. North - 1. 86ac.
North
11) Lusk, Roger & Thompson, Mildred
- Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. 6316 Post Rd.
6146 Perimeter Dr. North - 1.6ac.
....... Southeast - 19.88ac.
12) Bromwich, David H. & Augustine,
6) Mast, Lowell Sandra L.
6759 Avery Rd. 6300 Post Rd.
West - 2.5ac. North - 1.5ac.
7) presbyterian Church In America 13) Wall, Stephen D. & Cheryl A.
Foundation 6296 Post Rd.
1852 Century PI. - Ste. 180 North - 1.7ac.
Atlanta, GA 30345
West - 8.5ac.
~ ,._,'~- "....... ..."-.....-......---,--"".
.. .
.
.
.. .
EXlUBIT B
Hupp, Stephen S.
r90 Post Rd. .
}! >>rtheast
.".".
Hospital Properties, Inc.
un Post Rd.
Southwest - 54.0a.c.
Solove, Richard 1. &Chester, lohn 1.
(Lucas Avery Ilmited)
Chester, W'llcox, & Saxbe
17 N. High St. - 9th Floor
Columbus, OR 43215
Southwest - 28ac.
Bank One Columbus
6271 Perimeter Dr.
~uth - 1.3ac.
~uirfield Drive Partners
Perimeter Dr,
South
McDonalds Corp.
6830 Perimeter Dr.
South - 1.17ac.
Perimeter L.P.
6644-748 Perimeter Loop Rd.
South - 18.Sac.
:ollected at the Franklin County Recorder's Office (High St.) by Chad Gibson & Suzanne
~Q!l.eld, September 23, 1996.
.....
Page 20f2
-~...--~-=",,,...,.,.~-~-~~-,~.~.,~~~.~."~-_."~~-~,-="~~~~--_.~,,-_.-".,---~->'~~~''''.'"-''-'''--.--'-''''-"-----.--.-~'-' - - --_..,,---.
~.(~, b,~ ~w
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
January 16, 1997
:IT\' OF UnU.l!\
......
J Shier Rings Road
i OH 43017-1236
: 614/161-6550
~~:614/761-6506
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
3. Rezoning AppHcation Z96-011 - 67SO Avery-Muirfield Drive
Location: 2.6871 acres located on the southeast corner of Avery-Muirfield Drive and Post
Road.
ExistIng Zoning: LI, Limited Industrial District..
Request: PCD, Planned Commerce District.
Proposed Use: Establishment of zoning for more compatible development in the future.
AppHcant: Dublin City Council, 6665 Coffman Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017; and Title
Research, Inc. and Ashland Chemical clo John Thaxton, SuperAmerica Senior Regional Real
Estate Manager, Suite DAC2, 5200 Paul G. Blazer Memorial Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
MOTION: To approve this application with one condition, because it eliminates the offensive
uses of the existing U District; is consistent with the Riverside Hospital PCD standards, Perimeter
Center PCD standards, and City Council's articulated Post Road policies; and provides for
~..."... transitional uses, controlled architecture, coordinated landscaping, and Planning Commission
review.
Condition:
TI1at the development text be revised to limit the maximum density to 12,000 square feet
of building per acre or 15,000 square feet with structured parking and the maximum lot
coverage to 70 percent.
* Tom McCash agreed to the above condition on behalf of the co-applicants..
VOTE: 7-0.
RESULT: This rezoning application was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with
a positive recommendation.
STAFF CERTIFICA nON
~;~Vr~
Landscape Planner .UBMmED TO COUNCl~
..~ /1J 97 FOR MEETING ON.t:./Li;.
~'"'
- - ---------
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - January 16, 1997
Page 8
CASE 3: Rezoning Application Z96-011 - Composite Plan - 6750 Avery-Muirfield Drive
APPLICANT: Dublin City Council, 6665 Coffman Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017; and Title
Research, Inc. and Ashland Chemical, c/o John Thaxton, SuperAmerica Senior
Regional Real Estate Manager, Suite DAC2, 5200 Paul G. Blazer Memorial
Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
REQUEST: To rezone 2.6871 acres located at the southeast comer of Avery-Muirfield Drive ~
and Post Road from U, Limited Industrial, to PCD, Planned Commerce District,
to establish zoning for future development which is more compatible with the area.
STAFF CONTACT: Barbara M. Clarke, Planning Director.
BACKGROUND:
There was a 1995 rezoning application by the property owner requesting the PCD District. That
plan would have permitted construction of a SuperAmerica gasoline station plus convenience store
and fastfood sales, an oil change facility and carwash. The plan also featured a well-buffered site,
specific site plan and architectural control of the buildings. That application received a neutral
recommendation from the Commission (the motion for approval failed). After tabling the
rezoning ordinance for a number of months, City Council voted to defeat the rezoning (vote 1-5-1)
in early 1996. Subsequently, a citizens' initiative was filed to rezone the site in accordance with
the SuperAmerica PCD plan. It was placed on the November 1996 ballot, and it was defeated by
the voters of Dublin.
During the course of discussing the SuperAmerica request, Council indicated its dissatisfaction
with the U, limited Industrial zoning that has been in place since 1970. After the issue had been
decided by the voters, Dublin City Council initiated this rezoning application. Rezoning requests
are g~erally initiated by the property owner(s), but the Code provides for a mechanism for City
Council to do so as well. The stated intentions of Council include the establishment of zoning IIIlIlI
that is more or less consistent with the office portions of the Riverside Hospital and Perimeter
Center PeDs and to provide both flexibility for the use of the site and appropriate buffers along 1
residential areas. After discussions with City Council, the property owner has joined this
application. This is the first jointly-sponsored rezoning application to be considered by Dublin. IIllIlt
The Planning Commission is to make its recommendation on this rezoning and return the
application to City Council. A public hearing will be conducted, and Council will vote on the
ordinance. A two-thirds vote of Council is required to override a negative recommendation from
the Commission. If approved by City Council, the ordinance will become effective in 30 days.
A development plan, which sets out the final details of any future development, must be approved
by the Planning Commission before a building permit application may be submitted.
CONSIDERATIONS:
. The subject site is undeveloped and zoned LI, Limited Industrial District. It may have
been used many years ago as a gasoline station and auto sales lot, but Dublin has no
records regarding this. Some pavement remains from the abandoned commercial use. To
the north are large lot single-family residences zoned R-l, Restricted Suburban
..-
.:JW.o; ~',,",--'. ~''''~.~', ".,.".~.,..-.,-' ......~~"--~,~
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - January 16, 1997
Page 9
Residential. To the east is an approved single-family subdivision (Dublin Glen) zoned R-
2, Limited Suburban Residential. A building permit has been issued for the first home.
To the southeast is an apartment complex (Perimeter Lakes) zoned R-12, Urban
Residential. To the south are two banks zoned PCD, Planned Commerce District, in the
Perimeter Center development, and to the west across A very-Muirfield Drive is
undeveloped office acreage within the Riverside Hospital PCD, and farther to the
,..... southwest is a shopping center under construction. To the northwest across the intersection
is a l4-acre site zoned PUD for a church, private school, and offices.
. The 1988 Community Plan identifies Post Road as the northern boundary of commercial
.,,, development, with only residential uses recommended north of Post Road. Both the
Perimeter Center and Riverside Hospital zoning texts require transitional, office uses along
the south side of Post Road.
. The subject site is approximately square in shape, about 325 feet by 330 feet. A number
of trees are located on site and the applicant has proposed approximately 20 for
preservation. These are principally located along the east and south property lines,
although some are scattered throughout the site.
. The property is not being rezoned in connection with a specific use or development. This
measure is being undertaken to eliminate an inappropriate zone and to replace it with one
which is far more compatible with the area. There is no site plan being presented as part
of the application. Any future development on the site will need to conform to all aspects
of the development text being submitted for consideration.
. The set of uses contained in the development text are: all uses permitted in the SO,
Suburban Office and Institutional District; research and testing uses that do not involve
outdoor storage or noise, smoke or other characteristics inconsistent with a residential
environment; veterinary offices, nursing homes, daycare facilities, and drive-thru uses.
Ancillary uses not exceeding 2S percent of the building will be allowed in conjunction with
"",."'.><l permitted uses. These include beauty or barber shops, pharmacy, and optical sales. The
text provides additional restrictions for ancillary uses regarding signs and building access.
Staff believes that drive-thru uses should be subject to the discretionary review of the
Commission as a conditional use, as is the case in most zoning districts.
'", . The development text states the maximum lot coverage will be 70 percent which is
consistent with most other Dublin zoning districts. Buildings will be limited to two stories
in height and an overa1135-foot height limit which is also standard. The maximum density
is limited to 15,000 square feet per acre, permitting a building of up to 40,200 square feet
on the site. The permissible lot coverage for buildings is indicated at 50 percent, which
would yield 58,000 square feet. The maximum gross floor area (for multi-story
construction) is listed at 80 percent of the lot, yielding over 90,000 square feet of building.
The staff has reviewed these standards in the context of other development in Dublin and
believes these standards are too broad. Further, in consideration of a future development
plan, the Commission I s authority is limited to determining if the proposal meets the text
requirements, not if it "works" or seems reasonable. If utilized to maximum potential,
staff believes they would yield a clear "over development" of the site. Staff believes a
density of 10,000 square feet per acre should be the absolute maximum considered. The
site has setback requirements along two frontages and a buffer requirement along a third
~
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - January 16, 1997
Page 10
side. Additionally, because of the small size of the site, consideration of a parking
structure which could account for those larger square footages seems to be out of the
question.
. The development standards require 50-foot building setbacks along both streets and 30 foot
parking setbacks. Staff would encourage a broader setback along Post Road in
consideration of the larger established setback of all the existing buildings. The required
setback along internal property lines is 15 feet for pavement and 25 feet for buildings. ....
This does not yield a very large buffer area along the adjacent single-family lot.
. The Thoroughfare Plan indicated that the right-of-way for Post Road is 60 feet. The right-
of-way for Avery-Muirfie1d Drive in front of this site is 112 feet. Right-of-way consistent -
with the adopted Thoroughfare Plan should be dedicated prior to development of the site.
. Access will be permitted to both streets: a right-in/right-out along Avery-Muirfield Drive
and a full service access point along Post Road. This is also set out in the text.
. There are landscaping provisions in the text include continuation of the Riverside Buffer
Plan which includes mounding and a mixture of different types of trees. This addresses
the street frontages, but it does not provide any detail of a buffer adjacent to the residential
neighbor. The Code minimum is a six-foot tall opaque screen (fence, wall, mound,
evergreens) plus a shade tree every 40 feet. The site has a number of existing mature
trees, and the text does not address any tree preservation effort or expectation. Staff
believes the buffer requirement along the internal property line and some tree preservation
measures should be better defined prior to Council action. Staff would also recommend
use of the pilaster and hedge treatment along Avery-Muirfield Drive that was part of the
SuperAmerica plan (not included in the Riverside Buffer Plan).
. Signs for the site will be permitted along both streets. The Avery-Muirfield Drive sign
is generally limited to nine feet in height and 50 square feet; the Post Road sign is limited
to six feet in height and 25 square feet in area. The staff would like to suggest alternate
standards which are more consistent with the existing Sign Code as to setback and square ......
footage.
. The text requires natural materials and earthtone colors. Buildings are required to have
6: 12 pitch roofs and the same degree of finish on all sides. Buildings will be reviewed by
the Commission at the development plan stage for consistency with the area. -
. A bikepath currently exists along Avery-Muirfield Drive. A sidewalk should be installed
along Post Road at the time of development.
. Water and sanitary sewer services are available to the site and adequate to handle future
development.
. Storm water management information will need to be provided at the time of development
plan review. The design will need to meet the requirements of the City Engineer and the
MORPC Storm Water and Drainage Manual guidelines.
. The property owner has resolved issues related to underground storage tanks and cisterns
with the Washington Township Fire Department (in connection with SuperAmerica
application and review).
-
,-._--'~--"---'--"~'-'~'"'.,-_.'.----~ ~-~~--" .,...._~~_'"c..._"'_.,..._.."...~,."~"_.__~.~.,_..,...~~~
.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This proposal provides the framework for future development which is much more compatible
with the area than the LI district affords. The efforts of City Council to devise standards that
permit reasonable development of the property and protect the neighbors as well are
commendable. The cooperation of the land owner in this effort is greatly appreciated. Staff woukl
recommend several modifications to the text which are aimed at consistency and maintaining
compatibility with the area, including the residential component. Staff recommends approval with
.....~"'" the following conditions:
Conditions:
.-i-'>!i 1) That the Development Text be revised to treat drive-thru facilities as conditional
uses;
2) That the Development Text be revised to limit the maximum density to 10,000
square feet of building per acre and the maximum lot coverage to 70 percent;
3) lbat the Development Text standards be revised regarding the setback along Post
Road, tree preservation, landscape requirements, and signage;
4) lbat a bikepath along Post Road be incorporated into the future development plan;
and
5) lbat right-of-way consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan be dedicated (30 feet fran
the centerline of Post Road and 56 feet along A very-Muirfield Drive by warranty
deed.
Bases:
1) The existing U District permits a variety of offensive uses which are excluded in
the PCD Development Text..
2) The plan, as modified above, is consistent with proper development standards for
a transitional site.
tfIIl'#""" 3) The Development Text, as modified above is largely consistent with the standards
in the Riverside Hospital and Perimeter Center PCD requirements.
4) The rezoning plan is consistent with the Post Road policies as articulated by City
....", Council.
5) The plan, as modified above provides for development which has controlled
architecture and landscaping.
6) The permitted uses are appropriate for the access characteristics and development
potential for the area.
~-'~j,
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - January 16, 1997
Page 8
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher thanked the applicant and said she was looking forward to the expansion.
.%3. Rezo . Application Z96-011 - 6750 A very-Muirfield Drive
Mary Newco b said the staff report received was based on a proposed text dated December 6, 1996.
She said the te t was revised several times since then. She provided the Commissioner's with a -
revised text and emo concerning revisions. She said the major revision involved the deletion of
language in the t Coverage section.
-
This is a request to ne 2.7 acres on the southeast comer of A very-Muirfield Drive and Post Road
from LI, Limited In 'aI, to PCD, Planned Commerce District. It will establish zoning for future
development which is re compatible with the area, but there is no specific plan for development
at this time. The 1995 rezoning for a SuperAmerica (gas station, convenience store, fast food
sales, oil change facility, and car wash) received a neutral recommendation from the Planning
Commission. After tabling r a number of months, City Council defeated the rezoning request in
early 1996. Subsequently, a .tizen's initiative was filed to rezone the site in accordance with the
Super America PCD plan. In No ember 1996, the voters defeated the initiative. Council indicated
its concern with the Limited Indu ial zoning which has been in place for over 20 years. Dublin
City Council recently initiated this ezoning application. The application has been joined by the
property owner, and this is the firstjo' t application.
She said City Council wants zoning that is nsistent with adjacent portions of the Riverside Hospital
and Perimeter Center PCDs. Ms. Newcomb howed slides and described the area. The site is flat
with some vegetation. The 1988 Community identifies Post Road as the northern boundary of
commercial uses, with only residential use to north of Post Road. Both Perimeter Center and
Riverside Hospital PCD texts require transitional ffices along Post Road. This development text
permits: all Suburban Office and Institutional us research and testing uses that do not involve ....
outdoor storage, noise, smoke, or other characteri . cs that might conflict the residential area:
veterinary offices, nursing homes, daycare facilities, and ive thru uses associated with a permitted
use. Staff believes that the drive thru uses should be trea as a conditional use.
-
Ms. Newcomb said the proposed text has a maximum lot cove ge of 70 percent, consistent with
other zoning districts. The reference to maximum lot coverage fo building has been deleted from
the most recent text. The maximum density proposed is 15,000 square eet per acre, and staff would
recommend reducing it to 10,000 square feet per acre to be consistent ith other area PCDs. The
development standards include 50-foot building setbacks along both roads, a 30-foot parking setback
on A very-Muirfield Drive, and a 50-foot parking setback on Post Road. To e consistent with other
buildings, staff supports a wider building setback along Post Road,. e Thoroughfare Plan
indicates right-of-way for Post Road at 60 feet, and the right-of-way for Ave -Muirfield Drive at
112 feet. Staff is requesting such a dedication prior to site development.
The text addresses landscaping of street frontages, but there is no detail of the require buffer along
residential property. The Code requires a six-foot opaque screen plus one shade tree r 40 feet.
Staff would like a text amendments to address protecting the site's mature trees and to use the
.....
.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - January 16, 1997
Page 8
Ms. Chinnici-Zuerch,F'thanked the appli~ and said she was l~ng forward to theppansion.
3. Rezoning Application Z96-011 - 6750 A very-Muirfield Drive
Mary Newcomb said the staff report received was based on a proposed text dated December 6, 1996.
She said the text was revised several times since then. She provided the Commissioner's with a
+,:1!""" revised text and memo concerning revisions. She said the major revision involved the deletion of
language in the Lot Coverage section.
~,~ This is a request to rezone 2.7 acres on the southeast comer of Avery-Muirfield Drive and Post Road
from LI, Limited Industrial, to PCD, Planned Commerce District. It will establish zoning for future
development which is more compatible with the area, but there is no specific plan for development
at this time. The 1995 PCD rezoning for a SuperAmerica (gas station, convenience store, fast food
sales, oil change facility, and car wash) received a neutral recommendation from the Planning
Commission. After tabling for a number of months, City Council defeated the rezoning request in
early 1996. Subsequently, a citizen's initiative was filed to rezone the site in accordance with the
SuperAmerica PCD plan. In November 1996, the voters defeated the initiative. Council indicated
its concern with the Limited Industrial zoning which has been in place for over 20 years. Dublin
City Council recently initiated this rezoning application. The application has been joined by the
property owner, and this is the first joint application.
She said City Council wants zoning that is consistent with adjacent portions of the Riverside Hospital
and Perimeter Center PCDs. Ms. Newcomb showed slides and described the area. The site is flat
with some vegetation. The 1988 Community Plan identifies Post Road as the northern boundary of
commercial uses, with only residential use to the north of Post Road. Both Perimeter Center and
Riverside Hospital PCD texts require transitional offices along Post Road. This development text
...... permits: all Suburban Office and Institutional uses; research and testing uses that do not involve
1 outdoor storage, noise, smoke, or other characteristics that might conflict the residential area:
veterinary offices, nursing homes, daycare facilities, and drive thru uses associated with a permitted
use. Staff believes that the drive thru uses should be treated as a conditional use.
..
Ms. Newcomb said the proposed text has a maximum lot coverage of 70 percent, consistent with
other zoning districts. The reference to maximum lot coverage for building has been deleted from
the most recent text. The maximum density proposed is 15,000 square feet per acre, and staff would
recommend reducing it to 10,000 square feet per acre to be consistent with other area PCDs. The
development standards include 50-foot building setbacks along both roads, a 30-foot parking setback
on Avery-Muirfield Drive, and a 50-foot parking setback on Post Road. To be consistent with other
buildings, staff supports a wider building setback along Post Road,. The Thoroughfare Plan
indicates right-of-way for Post Road at 60 feet, and the right-of-way for Avery-Muirfield Drive at
112 feet. Staff is requesting such a dedication prior to site development.
The text addresses landscaping of street frontages, but there is no detail of the required buffer along
residential property. The Code requires a six-foot opaque screen plus one shade tree per 40 feet.
Staff would like a text amendments to address protecting the site's mature trees and to use the
-
e,f"' ~~ ->;..-......, ~. c..'=,,'o'_"^ .
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - January 16, 1997
Page 9
pilaster and hedge treatment designed for Perimeter Center and along A very-Muirfield Drive. The
text refers to the Riverside buffer plan, but staff believes it should conform to the more recent
standard.
Ms. Newcomb said signs permitted by the text are consistent with signage permitted along A very-
Muirfield Drive within the Perimeter PCD. The text requires natural materials in earthtone colors
to be used on any future buildings.
There is an existing bikepath along the east side of A very-Muirfield Drive. A sidewalk was
requested by staff, in error, on the south side of Post Road. A bikepath is needed.
~,..,.."
Ms. Newcomb said the text uses are more compatible than the LI District. City Council's efforts
to devise standards that permit reasonable development and protect the neighbors are commendable.
The cooperation of the landowner in this effort is also greatly appreciated.
She said staff is recommending several text modifications aimed at consistency and compatibility
with the area. She said staff recommends approval with five amended conditions:
1) That the Development Text be revised to treat drive-thru facilities as conditional uses;
2) That the Development Text be revised to limit the maximum density to 10,000 square feet of
building per acre and the maximum lot coverage to 70 percent;
3) That the Development Text standards be revised regarding the setback along Post Road, tree
preservation, landscape requirements, and signage;
4) That a bikepath along Post Road be incorporated into the future development plan; and
5) That right-of-way consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan be dedicated (30 feet from the
centerline of Post Road and 56 feet along Avery-Muirfield Drive) by warranty deed.
Mr. Peplow asked what the revisions mentioned in Condition 3 exactly were. Ms. Newcomb said
""""'""l an increase in the building setback along Post Road to 70 feet consistent with Dublin Glen, adding
a tree preservation plan and a buffer plan pertaining to the residential neighbors.
Mr. Harian asked about the setbacks abutting residential property. Ms. Newcomb said the text
i8+<'4/ makes it dependent on the building height: for two stories, the setback is 30 feet for pavement and
50 feet for building; for one story, it is 15 feet for paving and 30 feet for building. Mr. Harian said
these seemed very close to the residences.
Mr. Lecklider said Item 1 of the memo said the setback requirements for the Post Road right-of-way
should be 75 feet. Ms. Newcomb said that the 75 and 100 foot setbacks were from a previous
versions of the text; the current text proposes 50 feet for pavement and building along Post Road.
Ms. Newcomb said a 70 foot building setback would match Dublin Glen to the east, and staff
recommends a 50-foot pavement and a 70-foot building setback along Post Road.
Mr. Lecklider asked if the building setback is increased to 70 feet from Post Road, could the
required rear yard be met. Ms. Newcomb said there is no site layout at this time and this is
uncertain. She said that a 15,000 square feet per acre density did not work, and staff is therefore
asking to reduce it to 10,000 square feet. The setbacks are consistent with other areas in Dublin.
".--,.""
.^..._........__".___.T....."'_._.~..~..~_~__.~..~,.....~_...""'~'.r'_.~__~"...,..,"" __,.,&"....M,"",..i<....,."..."""o-.,;. .......
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - January 16, 1997
Page 10
Mr. Lecklider asked about signage recommendations. Ms. Newcomb said the height and size
portion of the text is consistent with the existing area and the Perimeter text. Staff requests that sign
illumination on Post Road be external only. Mr. Lecklider asked what the sentence on page 10 of
the staff report regarding signage meant. The text requires the setback to be 10 feet on Post Road,
but the Code requires eight feet. For consistency with the rest of Dublin, staff prefers eight feet.
Mr. Lecklider asked if a nine foot high, 50 foot to be consistent with other buildings sign on Avery-
f/!IIfiIIP"'- Muirfield Drive would be consistent with Perimeter Center. Ms. Newcomb said yes.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if staff was recoinmending approval of the revised text presented at
..."" this meeting. Ms. Newcomb said yes. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the changes discussed had
been incorporated. Ms. Newcomb said only the reference to maximum lot coverage of buildings has
been changed (deleted). Ms. Newcomb said the staff recommends Condition 2 as: H 17ult the
development text be revised to limit the density to 10,000 square feet of building per acre and the
maximum lot coverage to 70 percent" This would reduce the permitted density from 15,000 square
feet per acre to 10,000 square feet. She said the building setback from Post Road should be
increased from 50 to 70 feet, and the pavement setback at 50 feet was acceptable.
Thomas McCash, Dublin City Council, said this site has been very controversial. Council's
Community Development Committee met with neighbors and staff and recommends that the site be
rezoned as a City-sponsored rezoning to predominately office use. After the defeat of the initiative
and negotiation and discussion with Ashland/SuperAmerica, a development text was written (dated
December 6). It was amended by Council on December 16, and that is the latest version.
Mr. McCash said there are no special density or lot coverage provisions in the SO zone. Building
density is controlled by providing parking and the 70 percent lot coverage provision. He said the
property owner asked for a 15,000 square foot per acre density. Mr. McCash said that would not
iMM''--'''' work unless there would be underground structured parking. Given the two story limit and surface
parking, a building of 27,000 to 30,000 square feet, either one or two stories, could be built.
Mr. McCash said a bank is the most likely drive thru use. He said this site matches the Perimeter
text setbacks on A very-Muirfield Drive. Along the east, abutting single-family, a single-story
.,.,i building would have a IS-foot parking setback and a 30-foot building setback. Mr. McCash gave
the example of a one-story 33,000 square foot building, 181 feet by 181 feet, in an SO zone; the
required sideyard would be 48 feet. For a two story building 128 feet long, the side setback in the
SO would be 39 feet. This text permits a 40-foot setback for one-story construction, and a 50 foot
setback (30 feet for parking) for two-story construction from the east property line.
Mr. McCash said depending on the site layout, the trees within the parking setback may not be
preserved. He said the majority of the trees probably would not be saved. He said the pilasters and
shrubs are not in this text, but could be addressed later. He said the east property line buffer by
Code is a ten-foot wide buffer with one tree per 40 feet and a six foot high opaque screen. This text
requires a 15-foot wide buffer with one tree per 30 feet and a three-foot mound.
Mr. McCash said this text will permit a 25-square foot sign on Post Road, a lO-foot setback, and
an externally illuminated sign to be turned off when the business is not open.
JII!t'~
H , 'd' =._...~. -~,',.--'^.-
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - January 16, 1997
Page II
Mr. McCash said in this unique case, the right-of-way will not be dedicated by the owner.
Mr. Peplow noted that only Condition 4, regarding a bikepath, was agreed upon.
Mr. McCash said because of the co-application, he could not agree to the conditions.
Mr. Ferrara said conditions are usually worked out before the meeting with the applicant. He saw
- this site as becoming an expense to Dublin. Mr. McCash did not completely agree. The right-of-
way might not be dedicated in an SO application, and a future developer may construct the bikepath.
He said 15,000 square feet per acre was not feasible because a parking structure would cost $1.5M.
_..;.a
Mr. Sprague said if SO zoning provides no viable utilization of the property, it would be considered
to be a taking. Mr. McCash said the owner would have to sue Dublin claiming a taking, and it
would have to go through a test to prove there is no economically viable use.
Mr. McCash said Ms. Clarke was involved in several of the meetings before December 6, but he
did not receive staff comments during this negotiation.
Ms. Boring endorsed the effort of the Community Development Committee, but she wondered if the
committee should consider the staff comments. Mr. McCash said some of text provisions could be
addressed better, but this was the result of a negotiation.
Ms. Boring asked why would Council have to choose between PCD and SO. She asked if Council
would have the opportunity to come back and rezone this to PUD. Mr. McCash said it would
probably be the first time and it would be hard to impose stricter conditions that are in the current
zoning code. It could be considered to be a taking.
Mr. Banchefsky agreed with Mr. McCash. Council had the ability to rezone property on its own
~ initiative, but he had never seen it done using a planned district over the owner's objections. On a
i site-specific basis, he saw significant taking issues for such a Council action. Absent an agreement,
I be would recommend a straight zoning district. He did not know how to resolve this case other than
1IiN"",. to tell the co-applicants to reach an agreement and come back. He said the Commission is not the
arbitrator of what the co-applicants want. He thought this negotiated settlement has both co-
applicants less than satisfied; and he thought there would have to be a consensus on conditions.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher said the Commission was often confronted with the situation of having to
approve plans in accordance with the letter of the text.
Mr. McCash said provisions of the text guaranteed that unless there was an underground parking
structure, a 15,000 square foot density would not be permitted. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher questioned
whether underground structure parking was wanted. She said an assumption was being made that
it would never be done, but it could be done. Mr. Me Cash said the cost would be prohibitive. Ms.
Chinnici-Zuercher said it seemed logical but his co-applicant disagrees with him.
Mr. Me Cash said tree preservation was addressed in the Code.
""'~
,.. ~"..".."' ._..__,..__._......_,.~".. ~"..~..~'_.___~.~~~F'~,=C~..5..-_'__,.m..... ~",".~ ". ".~--_....=~' '". .........._.,.,
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - January 16, 1997
Page 12
Mr. McCash said this particular application was originally a City-sponsored rezoning for SO. He
said the choices are: to leave it as LI, rezone it to SO or to agree on a co-application for a plan and
text.
Mr. McCash said he was representing both co-applicants.
John Thaxton, representing SuperAmerica, said the conditions had not been discussed with him. He
- said several things came out of a negotiated text when Super America was proposed on the site. Mr.
Thaxton said his management approved the negotiated text, but the conditions would have to be re-
submitted for consideration. He was sure that original taking for Avery-Muirfield right-of-way
- would be adequate for widening, and that they were willing to sell a right-of-way to Dublin. He
suspected that in the future Council would be faced with a proposal to cuI de sac Post Road.
Mr. Thaxton said his company did not want the liability of a bikepath. He understood this was
already a busy intersection. He was not sure children should be encouraged induced to ride bikes
there, but the specific development plan will address that.
Mr. Thaxton said as co-applicant, there was a consensus with the development text presented.
Chris Cline, representing the Post Road residents and others from farther north, said they had been
a part of the negotiations. He said Mr. McCash had shared the December 16 text with them. He
said his clients endorsed the text as it stood.
Mr. Cline said initially, Council was not going to create a planned district and to rezone this
property by force. The choice was to rezone it to SO, or to reach an agreement with the co-
applicant, Ashland Chemical, on a planned district. Mr. Cline said PCD is much better than SO and
his clients support it. It will provide architectural standards and review by the Commission which
~... would not be available in a Suburban Office District. Conditional uses are not permitted with this
text, and they are happy that funeral homes and restaurants will not be permitted. He said he was
not concerned with the density because underground parking was so unrealistic. He said this text
provided more control than the Suburban Office District in many ways, and his clients want to get
l\l;r.;,'...~ rid of the LI, Limited Industrial zoning on this property.
Mr. Ferrara asked if Post Road was to be converted into a cuI de sac. Mr. Cline said in 1987 the
plan adopted by Council was to close Post Road after Perimeter Drive was connected. Other factors,
such as the recreation center, etc. may change this. He said the signal study did not assume that
Perimeter Drive will be connected and take about 80 percent of the traffic off of Post Road.
Ms. Boring said the intersection of Post Road and Avery-Muirfield Drive was #2 on meeting the
warrants for signalization. Mr. Cline said a balance between the needs of the Post Road neighbors
and the needs of the community was necessary.
Mr. Banchefsky suggested that both co-applicants approach the Commission to see of there are points
of consensus. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher said it is clear they do not agree with the conditions.
.......
"t;,.'li( 'j1"'"( ~," '0;' -"" " ~,.__" ,.' ",_",__",._".,,,,,,"",,,,,,,,,,j;~,,--"--"~_",,,,,....,,,,_~,.;,.,....,,.,,..,i;'-..,._-'....._~~.,
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - January 16, 1997
Page 13
Ms. Boring asked if this can be returned to Council with no advice. Mr. Banchefsky said yes.
Mr. McCash suggested a maximum density of 12,000 square feet per acre, 15,000 square feet with
structured parking.
Ms. Newcomb said Condition 4 was not requesting that the bikepath be addressed in the text, but
that it be incorporated in a future development plan. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher said that if Condition
r"" 4 was not included in the text, it would be difficult to get it incorporated later. She asked how it
could be a point of record or an expectation outside of the usual condition format. Mr. McCash said
it would be part of the record for this rezoning, but the outcome would have to be determined later.
"'ilai Mr. Thaxton asked what the difference was between putting it in the text and on the record as a
future expectation. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher said if it was part of the text, it would be required. Mr.
McCash said it would be negotiated with the developer. Ms. Boring said the development plan in
a PCD does not give the Commission the latitude to negotiate.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked why Condition 4 was recommended when it did not seem enforceable.
Ms. Newcomb said it was included to comply with the Community Plan, and the rezoning
application deals with those linkages.
Mr. Ferrara said there should have been better communication with Mr. Thaxton. He said the city
has previously been an applicant, and that it was unfortunate that it involved a contentious piece of
property. He said it seems there had been some last minute recommendations, especially on the
revision of the second condition without involving Mr. Thaxton.
Mr. Peplow said he still had two outstanding issues. He would like the east side of Avery Road to
have a consistent landscape treatment, and he could not support a final development plan that did not
include a bikepath. He said the Thoroughfare Plan dedication also was not as clear an issue.
~
Mr. Sprague said the co-applicants, City Council and SuperAmerica, should be commended for
pursuing a good faith compromise. He also commended Mr. Cline and his group.
"',,",<i'" Ms. Boring said she was interested in the bikepath and the right-of-way. Usually in order to get
rezoned, the bikepath is given. This is not true here. She agreed that all involved should be
commended for their efforts. She said at this point, there te b~ DO 1U9r8 ~glBJ3raffiiseB, and the J..
application should be supported without any conditions. l\\\ COri\~"'OVVllt-t.'S V)Ovv~ b~<.N c..otJ$ lc\.~:.f6
0.\ -\-\\\'$ 1-\M~ eiv.)'L.~.JJ1-\n~ ~ro~'C_y+~ OLl)tJ~\
-tne. Comm~t-.h-\:~ U<t-vc.,\QPM.<(.f\J uncoM' '
Mr. Hadan stressed that this is a rezoning from LI, something that the resi ents did not want, to a 0{ ~i ~
more desirable zoning standard. He suggested tabling so that compromises could be made. COutJ~ll cu6tl
-th.'E e..,;-\12G\J:d '*
Mr. Lecklider said this is an alternative to a straight Suburban Office District, which may have many
negatives. He thought the concerns raised by staff were legitimate, and he shared some of them.
He would like to see a bikepath along Post Road. He was also concerned about the density. He
preferred a bikepath compromise, etc., but he could support the text as submitted.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher did not support tabling. She thought that both applicants and Mr. Cline have
* ;ttllc'~lJc/Cj-l /1!act-e -Iom/AJdtc:-s :2/w/17 b1 (fa/fut' Ih/YrJ ~ lf701r'o;./ /f;{:/
~~.~
t-- n " '.' ~ '~- - '~~~","",~~~~'<"-"
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - January 16, 1997
Page 14
pointed out advantages to this text. She thought that approval could be sought with Condition 2 as
amended to the 12,000 square feet density (15,000 square feet with structured parking).
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the Commission received the staff report at the same time as the
applicant.
Ms. Boring made a motion to approve this application because it eliminates the offensive uses of
~"' the existing LI District; is consistent with the Riverside Hospital PCD standards, Perimeter Center
PCD standards, and City Council's articulated Post Road policies; and provides for transitional
";i'';J uses, controlled architecture, coordinated landscaping, and Planning Commission review, with the
following condition:
That the development text be revised to limit the maximum density to 12,000 square feet
of building per acre or 15,000 square feet with structured parking and the maximum lot
coverage to 70 percent.
Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Mr. McCash said the co-applicants agreed with this condition.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Harian, yes; Mr. Ferrara, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes;
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; and Mr. Lecklider, yes. (Approved 7-0.)
There was a five-minute recess.
4. Informal Discussion - posed Five-Year Capitallmpr ement Plan
Marsha Grigsby introd the CIP procedures. She said e first CIP was prepared in 1991, t
it was not reviewed nually unti11995. There is a endar for these considerations now. e
CIP is prepared the staff and then reviewed b ouncil during several summer sess . s. She
1~
said Counci oals, city commitments such economic development agreement community
input, the ming of development, etc. considered.
4i~
Sb . d the five-year plan is a p g document that identifies the proj
d funding of projects. Th uthorization of the projects takes pI in adoption of the annual
budget. The other four ears in the CIP outline a future pi ut not a commitment. Those
projects will be re-re wed annually based on current con ons. The frrst year is funded us
the Cash Capital B get which funds smaller projects, ally less than $500,000. The nding
is authorized ually to implement the projects.
\
One of first issues is the projected revenu . That is the starting point for nding discussions.
Mo of the revenue is from income , ut other revenue sources sue as grants from outside
ces or TIFs are included. The t capacity is identified. The vious list is updated, and
any new projects are added for oritization. The projects are s gested by staff.
Ms. Grigsby said that en programming is examined. he year-by-year implementation is
decided, and the docu ent is changed significantly through the process. She said many projects,
.'~
lI",'l'$ __'.~.-=-~~~"~O"~"~___.~_~'_'_'_~
i
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Duhlin City Conncil Mp.p.ting Pagp. 4 Meeting
I .:,:-:'::-I~1996 19_ I
. Campbell, yes.
-
......
INTRODUCI'ION & FIRST READING - ORDINANCES
Ordinance No. 96-9' - An Ordinance Providing for a Change in Zoning for 1.6871 Acres
of Land Located on the Southeast Comer of Avery-Muirfidd Drive and Post Road,
from: LI. Limited Industrial District, to: SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District.
(City Council.ponsored rezoning)
Ms. Hide Pitta1uga introduced the ordinance.
Mayor Kranstuber asked for a motion of referral to Planning Commission.
Mr. Zawa1y commented that prior to referring the rezoning to Planning Commission, he would
like to mOve that it be referred back to the Community Development Committee. He has been
in communication with the Super America officials and with Chris Cline who represented the
residents in the recent initiative. SuperAmerica representatives have indicated that prior to
referral to P&Z, they would like to explore whether there is an opportunity to rezone the land
consistent with the neighborhood's wishes, perhaps even considering a planned district that
would allow for internal accesses and keep traffic and curb cuts to a minimum or perhaps non-
existent oft' of Post and Avery. Mr. Cline has also indicated his willingness to work with the
Community Development Committee on this endeavor.
Mayor Kranstubcr invited representatives of SuperAmerica and the citizens group to make
brief statements.
Jack R~olds Smith & Hale stated that they represented Ashland throughout the rezoning
process and believes this would represent an opportunity to negotiate with the neighbors for .
the best use of the property.
....
Chris Cline representing Post Road residents stated that he would support referral to the
I Community Developm,ent Committee with the understanding that what is being considered is
an office use on this site. He is willing to contribute his expertise to assembling a planned
...... district for an office use. A planned district would benefit both the City and the neighborhood
I since the Suburban Office district would not include review of the site plan and would also
I include some conditional uses not appropriate for the site. They are interested in doing this
I exploration within a short time frame.
I Mr. McCash stated that in anticipation ofthis possibility, he has tentatively scheduled a
Committee meeting on Friday, November 22 at 4 p.m.
III Mr. Cline confirmed that they do not object to referral of the rezoning to the Community
Development Committee.
II Mrs. Stillwell asked if this could be referred to Planning Commission and Community
:1 Development concurrently, with the recommendation from Community Development going to
:: Planning Commission.
:: Mr. Zawaly stated that this is an attempt to have the landowner be a co-applicant with Council
or to be the sole applicant for the rezoning.
Following additional discussion, Mr. Campbell moved to table the ordinance until December 2
and to refer it to the Community Development Committee for report back to Council on
December 2. At that time, the proposed rezoning in the form worked out by the parties could
, then be referred to Planning Commission. I
j. Mr. Zawaly seconded the motion. :
Vote on the motion - Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Zawaly, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, I
, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes; Mrs_ Stillwell, yes. Ii
Mr. Cline noted that there is significant office use interest in that site_ The inquiries which il
have come to the residents group have been referred on to SuperArnerica as the propert~Z96-0il
OuJl\e,< .
_ A very-Muirfield Drive and Po~
Road PrnnPrtv
Community Development Committee DRAFT
of Dublin City Council
Minutes of Meeting
November 22, 1996
Attending: mm&mDW~V-' IIlIlIII
Tom McCash, Chair "-7IO~7 I
Cindy Hide Pittaluga v~ I' ....
Joel Campbell ~ CITY OF DUBU~~
Bobbie Clarke
John Thaxton, SuperAmerica
Jeff Brown, Attorney
Chris Cline, Attorney
Mr. & Mrs. Driscoll
Mr. Mast
Mr. Lecklider
Mr. McCash called the meeting to order at 4:25 p.m.
Mr. McCash stated that today's agenda is the proposed rezoning of the site at the southeast comer
of Post and Avery. An ordinance has been referred from Council to Committee to rezone this site
to suburban office. Mr. McCash would prefer to do this as a planned text instead of a straight
rezoning. He has discussed this with the neighbors and would like to come to agreement with
Ashland and the neighbors about an appropriate use for the site.
Mr. Cline stated that the neighborhood group would like to see uses with a low impact on the ...
surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Thaxton stated that Ashland owns the property and has an economic interest in its ....
development unlike the others in the room. Some types of office use would be more economically
viable than other office uses. He has had some interest from a party who would like medical
office space and a pharmacy in this location.
Mr. Campbell noted that Council would like to move this process quickly toward finding a
solution that is reasonable from Ashland's view economically and reasonable from the City's view
in terms of land use. The concern with a delay is that a somewhat undesirable zoning could attach
itself to the land as currently zoned.
Mr. Thaxton stated that Ms. Driscoll and Mr. Cline have told him they are not concerned with
the current LI zoning as it has been zoned that way for 20 years.
Ms. Clarke noted that P&Z would be able to hear this rezoning on the January agenda since there
is not a second December meeting. Therefore, Council would have to make a recommendation
Z96-011
Avery-Muirfield Drive and Post Road
Property ...
,......" , " . t"'" 1 -1 ~__~_
-,,,_.,.,,",,.",~ ~' ~'-~~'"" '{: ,.'~""'~,"
Community Development Committee
November 22, 1996
Page Two
for referral prior to the January meeting of P&Z.
~
Discussion followed about the possible uses under the straight suburban office zoning.
.4 Mr. Cline commented that clearly the starting point is the word "office". He would like to see
Ashland make a profit and at the same time have an acceptable use to the neighbors.
Ms. Clarke stated that a pharmacy could be-a viable use with the medical office on this site, but
it is difficult to put this together without participation from the end user.
Mr. McCash noted that the zoning text could be revised later to accommodate a particular end
user. .
Ms. Clarke agreed that changes and modifications can be made through the zoning process. But
what she is hearing is that Ashland may actually bring an application to the table and the rezoning
would no longer be City sponsored.
Discussion followed about the need for development standards within a PCD text in order to give
Planning Commission discretionary overview.
Mr. McCash proposed that a planned development text be drafted which would meet everyone's
criteria for the site. He believes a plan could be drafted that would address 80 percent of the
.....~ possible types of uses for the site.
Mr. Thaxton noted that the interested party in the site is out of town at this time.
."','""
Mr. McCash suggested ~at between now and December 2 Council meeting, Mr. Thaxton could
meet with the party interested in purchasing the land and a Community Development Committee
meeting could be set prior to the December 2 Council meeting for an update and. then
recommendation back to Council.
Mr. McCash set a tentative date for the next CDC meeting on Monday, December 2 at 6 p.m. for
an update on the status of doing this as a planned district. He asked Mr. Thaxton to review some
of the uses in the suburban office and OLR districts to see if they would be acceptable.
Mr. Thaxton noted that Ashland and SuperAmerica -are not developers but rather discretionary
land owners. It is their business to operate SuperAmerica retail stores - in this case, they own a
piece of land. They will likely dispose of the land or will hold it and do nothing with it in the
near future. He would be more supportive of a planned development text than a straight suburban
office zoning where the intention is to revise it at a later date.
Z96-011
Avery-Muirfield Drive and Post Road
- Property
,-~" .. ". ._~_LJ T'"\_:......
~ "---"'.'-..,-"--'
Community Development Committee
November 22, 1996
Page Three
Mr. Mast commented that in terms of access to the site, he would prefer that it be via the IIllIt
Perimeter Mall.
Mr. Brown commented that this site has prime visibility and should have access to both streets, -
as Mr.Cline had noted earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Cline responded that in all fairness, the site should have access to both roads but it would be
beneficial if the site would have a back door access through the Perimeter Center. However, that
is a private road and would be problematic.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
Assistant Clerk of Council
...
....
Z96-011
A very-Muirfield Drive and Post Road
Property -
''''~r\ ... ___" ,1..=_l":.....1....1 "'...;.......
Community Development Committee DRAFr
of Dublin City Council
Minutes of Meeting
December 2, 1996 W m.~ u w ~!
- Attendin~: .J; ~~ - .., 12,'; J
Tom McCash, Chair
Cindy Hide Pi7 CITY OF' DUBL1L
..... Joel Campbell
Bobbie Clarke
Chris Cline, Attorney
Jim Renard, Lowell Trace Civic Assn.
Bob Adamek, Wyndham Village Homeowners Assn.
Mr. McCash called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. and noted that the purpose of this meeting
is to determine whether a planned district can be proposed for the Post & Avery site as a joint
application between the City and Ashland Chemical. Ashland's representatives were not able to
attend tonight. He distributed a planned development text for discussion purposes noting that
Ashland has not reviewed this to date.
Mr. Campbell stated for the record that this Committee met with representatives of Ashland and
their legal counsel a week ago Friday at the last Committee meeting. At that meeting, the plan
was to reconvene tonight to discuss the possibility of a planned text proposal. Since no one is
present to discuss this on Ashland's behalf, the Committee's intention is to recommend to Council
that the matter be referred to Planning and Zoning.
...-
Mr. McCash agreed and called for a motion.
Iiffl<;,;;:~ At this time (6:20 p.m.) Mr. Thaxton arrived at the meeting and proceeded to hand out an outline
of a proposed development text standard for the site.
Mr. McCaSh noted after quick review that it seems very similar to his draft proposal for text.
Mr. 'Thaxton stated that most of the text was taken from the Perimeter text, the Mast property text
and from the Dublin Code.
Mr. Thaxton noted that he wanted to bring something to the table for discussion purposes; the text
could be massaged to have something agreed upon to take to Council.
Mr. McCash noted that it is impossible to go through and mark up this proposed text for
submission to Council by 7 p.m.
Mr. Campbell noted that between now and the time Planning & Zoning reviews the text and it
comes back to Council, all of the issues would have to be resolved and finalized for the adopted
text.
Z96-011
A very-Muirfield Drive and Post Road
...... Property
---"" . "..~_r:._l..1 n_:..^
Community Development Committee
December 2, 1996
Page Two
Mr. McCash noted that modifications for P&Z's review must be provided no later than 15 days
prior to their actual meeting.
....
Ms. Hide Pittaluga asked Mr. Thaxton if he has met with any possible buyers or tenants for the
site.
Mr. Thaxton stated that he has talked to three of five potential interested parties. Certain of the .....
uses proposed would fall under Section 1159 and others under 1175.
.
Mr. McCash suggested. that Council continue the tabling of the ordinance until December 16 so
that the text could be tina1i7-ed for referral to P&Z on December 16.
Discussion followed about the logistics of putting together an acceptable list of uses and the time
frame to have the ordinance on the P& Z January agenda.
Ms. Clarke noted that the staff review sessions for the January agenda items are scheduled on
December 9 and 11 and her concern is having adequate review time to draft the staff
recommendation.
Mr. McCash noted that what is being discussed is not an elaborately detailed planned text.
Mr. Cline noted that the neighbors would not support and Council would likely not support any
of the Limited Industrial uses. Mr. Cline asked if eliminating the Section 1171 uses will prompt
Ashland not to participate in a planned district process.
....
Mr. Thaxton responded that 1171 was included because potential buyers have inquired about some
of the uses in that group. He is not certain which ones would and would not be acceptable to the
neighborhood groups. ....
Mr. Cline stated that he believes SO and OLR are the appropriate uses for the site.
At this point, Mayor Kranstuber arrived at the meeting.
Mr. McCash commented that he would like this item to be tabled by Council until December 16
and at that point make a formal referral to P&Z. Between now and Friday, he would like to meet
with Mr. Cline and Mr. Thaxton to put together a planned development text and submit that to
Ms. Clarke for her staff meeting on Monday.
Mr. Cline clarified that he represents the region to the north of this site and this is a general
community concern and not just one of those living close to the site.
Mr. Campbell agreed with the plan of action since it will not delay the application and will likely
result in a better product. Z96-011
A very-Muirfield Drive and Post Road
Property ..
-- -- ~... . ,... ... - .
_' '_"mc_.~~'_ ~, ~..~,,~".,"_.~~"- U' .- ! (.. --~
Community Development Committee
December 2, 1996
Page Three
Mr. Cline suggested that it would be appropriate for Ms. Clarke to be involved in drafting the
text.
- Mr. Campbell commented that he does not want to burden staff with this, especially since the land
t
owner has an interest in it and it would be incumbent upon Ashland to have their representatives
...". do the initial paper work.
Mr. Thaxton noted that a corporate decision has not been made at this time regarding whether
SuperAmerica will do a joint application with the City.
Mr. Campbell pointed out that there is a financial advantage in being a co-applicant since the
filing fees will not have to be paid again and much of the process has already beeR initiated.
Mr. Cline provided a copy of the subarea text for the Riverside prope~, noting that there are
some uses included that do not show up in an SO district.
Mr. McCash will provide a report from the Committee at the Council meeting, requesting that the
matter be continued on the table until December 16.
The meeting was adjourned at 7 p.m.
iIIII""""t
Assistant Clerk of Council
lib...
Z96-011
A very-Muirfield Drive and Post Road
- Property
€..,~" A ......_. l.A'..:_t':....lA T'\_:......
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
JUNE 15, 1995
OF DUBLIN
IIIIIlII
,
11
'I
t
1
IIIIlIi
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at its special meeting:
1. Rezoning Appncation Z95-001 - Composlte Plan - SuperAmerica
Location: 2.6871 acres located at the southeast comer of Avery Road and Post Road.
ExIstIng ZoDfng: U, Ilmited Industrial District.
Request: PCD, Planned Commerce District.
Proposed Use: A 6,233 square foot structure containing convenience store, car wash
and oil change facility, with ten gasoline pUlilps.
Appllcant: Ashhmd Oil Company, c/o Jeffrey L. Brown, Smith and Hale, 37 West
Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215.
MOTION #1: To disapprove this rezoning application.
RESULT: The motion failed for lack of a second.
....
MOTION #2: To approve this rezoning application because several issues have been addressed
adequately; the' application has been sufficiently modified to provide an
appropriate transition; it is a well-planned commercial activity given its location ...
on a major arterial and orientation away from nearby residential areas; it is
appropriate given its proximity within a large commercial node (perimeter
Center and Riverside Hospital); Community Plan land use policies and historical
use of the property further support the rezoning; and the existing U, Limited
Industrial, zoning on the site provides no protection to adjacent residential areas
and permits a broad range of incompatible uses, with the following nine
conditions:
1) That the Development Text be revised to further limit hours of operation for the
convenience store to 6 am to 1 am on Friday and Saturday;
2) That the applicant dedicate 30 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Post Road and
56 feet of right-of-way along Avery-Muirfield Drive consistent with the Community Plan
by warranty deed;
Page 1 of 2
1'leV I 0,", ~ ~ f ,c..l cA.\' J l)IJ
Z96-011 . IltJ
Super Amenca
....
"'_~__~_._C,,_'_'O~"_ _...., ........_. _." ... _ _~_ _ __~____'~_____~______"___"'~"~__~_'~"___"___.__~____._.___~.___"_~__.~__._"_..____.____.,.."._.__...
DUBLIN PLANNING AND WNING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
JUNE 15, 1995
1. Rezoning Appncation Z95-001 - Composite Plan - SuperAmerica (Cont.)
~ That access along Post Road be limited to one curb cut;
~ That the applicant justify both the parking and stacking ratios;
That the Development Text be revised to state that gasoline pumps will be neutral in
..... color, compatible with the principal structure and contain no internal illuminated panels
or graphics;
6) 1bat the Development Text be revised indicating ground signs in complete compliance
.with the Perimeter Center Subarea B sign standards;
7) 1bat the Development Text be revised to commit the applicant to installation of a
mecht'nical garage door at the car wash entrance;.
8) 1bat the Development Text be revised include meeting the Dublin Lighting Guidelines,
~ a revised lighting plan be submitted with the Development Plan which fully meets
the Dublin Lighting Guidelines, including gas pumps without intema1 illumination;
9) 1bat the Development Text be revised to indicate that public address systems will only
be used for messages of an emergency or safety nature.
* Jeffrey Brown agreed to -the above cOnditions.
VOTE: 2-3.
RFSULT: This rezoning application was not approved. The application will be forwarded
to Council without a recommendation because the motion failed to receive four
"""'~'" votes.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
........
Page 2 of 2
Z96-011 zle
SuperAmerica
~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 2 Meeting
DAYTON LIlGAL WLJlr,N" l;Q.. PU""'" ..u. lV'I".
i Helci January 22 , 1996 19_ IL
i Ms. Colwell. Ii
ji
I'
II Mrs. Stillwel ved to approve the minutes of the January 8, 1996 meeting.
ii
Ii seconded the motion.
- Mr. Zawaly, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr.
II rs. Boring, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes. IIIllI!I
I,
I, I
il
,;
II .....
II
,\
( I'
I! Correspondence
il The clerk reported that no co
a i
.,
ii I
,
, I
ij
!I reported:
,j I
'! 1. The newly formed Leadership Dublin group held their first session last wee ,
i will meet twice a month throughout the program. I
:1
Ii 2. A 9-county association representing FranJdin and the conti~ counties has now been I
established and will be known as a Regional Association 0 vemments. Council Member I
Campbell has participated in the organizational effo e mission of the group will be to ,
unite the Central Ohio region through an . Ion dedicated to utilizing our geographic Ii
region~ diversity to advance our oppo
Ms. Hide Pittalu2a: Ii
1. Congratulated the Div' . n of Public Information and Special Events for their recent I
recognition from ity Hall Public Information Awards. I
:i 2. Requested ate from staff regarding the ongoing telecommunications negotiations.
'i Mr. aniel responded that staff has been working on the issues for the past 2 years and ! ...
" are now moving forward. He added that there will be a need for a public hearing soon
I!
II regarding extended area service for phone services for residents west of Avery Road.
II ayor Kranstuber moved to refer the telecommunications matter to the Public Services Committee
,.
!! for an update and to monitor the progress.
ii ...
'I Mrs. Stillwell seconded the motion.
:j Vote on the motion - Mr. Campbell, yes; Mr. Zawaly, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes; Mrs. Boring,
ii yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Stillwell. yes.
i ~ I
" 3. Requested production of an up-to-date development map for Council's use during meetin
"
!!
ii in order to provide the "big picture" on development. Perhaps this could be a com ed
l'
,I version projected in the Council Chambers. Her intent would be to provi ouncil with
!l
Ii an up-to-the-minute status of development proposals.
"
I' Mr. Foegler suggested that staff work with the Community D 'I
!
il format for this information. II
4. Commented regarding her daughter's recent s s accident, commending the team effort
;! by all of those who responded to the e ncy. She praised the emergency response team, ,I
including the dispatcher, the . the Perry Township Fire Department, the ambulance, 1
MedFlight, and the trau m at Children's Hospital. She thanked the entire community I
for their support Ir concern and their prayers for her daughter. :
I'
Ma r Kr r acknowledged the presence of his campaign treasurer, Shelly Petite, and thanked II
I'
,I
her er support in his re-election campaign. "
i:
" LEGISLATION j,
~ird Readinl!s
, Ordinance No. 04-95 - An Ordinance Providing for a Change in Zoning for 2.6871 Acres of Z96-011i,S
Land Located on the Southeast Corner of Avery Road and Post Road from: LI, Limited
Industrial District to: PCD, Planned Commerce District. (Ashland Oil Company -
SuperAmerica) (Public: hearing (cont.) and third reading) (Applicant: Ashland Oil Company, SuperAmerica
Jeffrey Brown, Smith & Hale, 37 W. Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, OH 43215) ....
'0._ .. "'.....~.~_;"...~~._.. ~-~~,.;.=" ..., ~,"'..~ .....--.<.-..... ~ " "
~:[ ~: 'j
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 3 Meeting
--. OAnON LltoAL ...........IIl co.. "u"'.... NQ. lU1C.
Helrl January 22, 1996 19_ I
;:
Mr. McCash stated that he will recuse himself from voting on this ordinance and will not participate . ."
!
in the discussion due to a prior conflict before his election to Council. He noted that he has not had d
any conversations with any members of Council regarding this ordinance. ::
Mayor Kranstuber noted that staff will make a ten-minute presentation, to be followed with questions I ~
~ from Council to staff. The proponents and opponents will then have 20 minutes each for their d
"
presentations. q
!:
.
Ms. Clarke stated that this rezoning is a composite plan for 2-1/2 acres at the southeast comer of ,i
,; Post and Avery/Muirfield Drive. The existing zoning is LI, Limited Industrial district, which j;
.o4f
". provides a fairly broad range of industrial uses. The proposal is to rezone the property to PCD, I
! Planned Commerce District in a clearly articulated plan. The use permitted on the site would be for p
'.
a SuperAmerica store, including gasoline pumps, a convenience store with a Taco Bell, and a quick- ;!
change oil facility and car wash. The uses would be consolidated in one major building and under
a canopy. She then showed slides of the area and described the surrounding uses. She noted that
i a substantial landscape buffer will be extended along Post Road, and .the plan includes tree
preservation as well as planting of additional trees. The buildings will be brick with residential roof
i lines and a canopy. Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at two meetings but did not make
., a recommendation since the proposal did not receive four affirmative votes. Revised plans have
! been forwarded to Council, and staff would request that Council's action tonight include the 9 :!
." conditions agreed to by Mr. Brown, representing the applicant at the public hearing before Council.
Staff and the Planning Commission's position was that the site requires a great deal of sensitivity and ,
I Ashland has done an excellent job in terms of outstanding architecture and landscaping plans. The I:
"
issue is whether this is an appropriate land use for the site. There was no consensus on the issue,
and therefore the proposal comes without a recommendation from P&Z. Staff does recommend I,
;i approval of the rezoning application.
Mrs. Boring asked for clarification of the previous plans for the area in terms of transitional land
use.
Ms. Clarke resPonded that in previous rezonings of the area, the comer site was not included as the i
owner was satisfied with the LI zoning and had no interest in the PCD under consideration. She ..
i
does not recall any discussion of this site, except that all along Post Road there were to be no curb
, cuts, all of the sites were to be internally oriented to the new street systems of Perimeter Drive and
- Perimeter Loop, and the only sites with direct access were single family homes.
Mrs. Boring noted that the intention was to find a transitional use along Post Road.
Ms. Clarke confirmed this and provided additional history of the Perimeter rezoning and the Post I
Road residents' desires. i'
! I
i'
- ". Mr. Kranstuber noted that the area to the east is single family and to the west is office. In view of :
this, what would the most appropriate land use be for this parcel? i.
'1 Ms. Clarke responded that it would be office site if a llsercould be identified. . The other factor is i
I that the property currently has limited industrial zoning rights. In terms of transitions, she would !
prefer that this be office use. I
i
Mrs. Boring pointed out that SuperAmerica would be the only commercial site not internally
I oriented.
Mr. Zawaly asked Ms. Clarice about the rationale for the staffs recommendation of approval.
i: Ms. Clarke responded that it is a good plan, well-buffered, and a more preferable zoning than an
LI. If the site were unzoned, staff would prefer office zoning. The applicant in this case has
complied with all of staffs requests for the development, and this retail plan is highly buffered.
Ms. Hide Pittaluga stated that staff had previously commented that if this were to be zoned office,
it may be difficult to layout because of parlcing,
Ms. Clarice responded that the site is flat and square and would accommodate many office designs
with adequate parking.
David D' Antoni. President of Ashland Chemical stated that they have accommodated the concerns
raised about the proposal and are hoping to provide the citizens with the high quality services and
convenience of a SlIperltmerica in this location. He then introduced John Thaxton, Regional Real Z96-0114i~
Estate Manager I'M SlIpaAmerica.
- t0hn Th!!:5t0!J displaYl'd charts which denll'nstrate IHlw the pr"I'"sal addresses the mlldincJlilHIS SuperAmerica
rl'queslt'd'
~~-~-~--~ ~~"---- - .~....j - ---.-----------.--,.- -"."~_.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 4 Meeting
0"""0" \.lG;..... .LAN'" ~o.. PUIIIlIIII NC. 1101..
Helcl January 22, 1996 19_ I
.'
i'
1. They have voluntarily agreed to limit the hours of operation in view of the neighborhood Ii
location. The other nearby retail developments will be allowed 24-hour operation. I'
2. They have provided for extensive landscaping, saving existing mature trees and installing ..
$100,000 of additional landscaping, including mounding along the boundary separating the ,
!
development from a residential lot. i
" 3. They have revised their street access points to comply with Code and one of them will be I,
a right in, right out because of the median on Avery/Muirfield. I IIIlIIII
4. The curb cut onto Post provides adequate circulation on site. I:
5. The property was oriented away from the interior and away from the neighboring residential
sites at the request of staff and the neighborhood. It is oriented toward the adjacent " ...
commercial. i:
6. The facility lighting plan complies with Code. L
7. They have agreed to neutral colored gas pumps with no internal illuminated graphics. ,
I
8. They have limited the use of outdoor spealcers to emergency' and safety communication onI y. ,
9. The garage doors at both the oil change and car wash are tinted and operate on an automatic
basis so that internal operations are not visible to the passing public. i
10. A City of Dublin limestone entry sign will be constructed facing the commercial traffic along i'
AverylMuirfield, and another stone entry pier will be located at the eastern end of the j'
property with a bronze plaque indicating the Dublin residential district.
11. This is a much higher and better land use of the property than. the current Limited Industrial
zoning.
12. Any changes to the building, the exterior, the location or the use of the property would have
" to go back to Council for approval.
13. The facility plan would maintain 53 percent of the property as greenspace, far greater than
the 30 percent required by Code. ,
,
14. Office use could not be sustained in this location, based on the number of office buildings
for sale or lease along Post Road. i
15. They have thoroughly investigated other sites but found them unacceptable as outlined in a
letter to Mayor Campbell. I
16. The area is under-served in terms of service stations. !
17. They have agreed to provide additional right-of-way along both Avery and Post Roads for i
future widening of the roads. ,
I.
He then showed a graphic presentation of a 1,000 foot circle around the site and the number of "
residential homes within the space. He noted that their business is dependent upon traffic and the Ii
residential support in the area. This is an important factor in the financing portion of the retail I: ...
development. I:
'i
:t I.
" Mr. D'Antoni then commented that the application was submitted over a year ago, and they have Ii
: ~ worked closely.with staff on the proposal, with business and community leaders and neighborhood " ....
l;
" groups. They believe it will be a favorable addition to the area and that it is well buffered. A Ii
survey done in November by an independent polling firm indicated that 89.5 percent of the residents Ii
of Dublin support this facility. In the immediate area, over half supported the facility on this site.
Only 28 percent in the immediate area opposed it. I,
Ben Jacoby. 5470 Ashford Road stated that he has lived in Dublin for 30 years and this site has been j'
q an eyesore. What is proposed would be a tremendous improvement. Ashland Chemical has been I'
very beneficial to the City of Dublin, and he is in favor of the proposal. i
Mr. D'Antoni then asked the proponents in the audience to stand, and thanked them all for coming I
, out tonight. He added that SuperAmerica and Ashland Chemical are committed to working
cooperatively with the community as they have in the past.
Chris Cline. 6060 Post Road stated that he was a residents'advisor during the original zonings in the
1980's:
I. He presented the original drawing plan presented in 1987 by Ben Hale which the residents
of the area had endorsed. Everything north of Perimeter Drive was indicated as transitional
uses, non-commercial uses, with residential orientation. The residents supported multi-
family as a transitional use from the retail.
2. Limited industrial development would nOl make sense on this site as an oftice use would bc
much more profitahlc. Z96-o11S18
3. Muirfield/Avery Road was design...d to 1->... the primary entran.:e 10 residential Duhlin and to
Muirlield and this Clln.:~pt dominated lh... wnings in ]987 and 1989 - Lowt.'ll Tra.:~. SuperAmerica
Rivl'rsid... Hospital, and r...rime:tt.'r Ce:nte:r. Re:uil de:ve:lopme:nt was a.:.:e:ple:d 011 AVl'ry R(lad
hut pnly llll the: ':llnditi,ln th:1t \'isu:t1 alld tr:\fti,' imp:\cts Wl're: millimiud Strict standards ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 5 Meeting
--- DAYTON ~{';o"'" _LANK l;Q_. '-0"" NU. 101..
Heir! January 22. 1996 19_ i
It
were imposed, and retail development was prohibited from directly accessing Avery Road 11
or even facing Avery Road. 11
4. Super America would be given a competitive advantage over the BP station with direct access "
'I
and orientation which was denied the existing plaMed development. I:
5. This represents an expansion of an existing and carefully plaMed retail area, and Dublin's :1
~"M economic development strategy states that expansion of existing retail is not in the best II
d interests of Dublin and should be discouraged. II
t 6. Rezoning this site to such a high intensity commercial retail zoning will destroy key elements II
,
, of the previous plaMing for the area, eliminating the transition between the retail and
residential area. I!
.., 7. This rezoning would undermine a key traffic goal of maintaining effective traffic flow on
,i
i Avery Road. "
I!
He summarized by stating that this application violates the most basic planning principles which "
,I
ensure the community's continued quality. It is a choice between plaMing and spot zoning, and Ii
there is only one good choice. Ii
I,
I!
Edith Driscoll. 6230 Post Road stated that she represents the Post Road Residents Association. Her ,.
! ~
comments were as follows: '1
'.
1. The rezoning application was a gamble that the applicant chose to take; they concentrated ii
on architecture and landscaping design before the land use determination was made. The ii
! "
citizens of this section of Dublin have objected to the project all along on the basis of !i
;.
inappropriate land use which does not fit the long range plan. Ii
2. The neighbors met with Jeff Brown last February and conveyed their belief that this was an "
i'
inappropriate land use. The applicant has concentrated on concessions, while the land use !I
i:
issue is unresolved. ii
3. She has researched the principles of land use through her service on the Community Plan r
committee. She has mailed a list of guidelines to each of the Council members. It is clear :!
that this proposed use fails every one of the guidelines. It constitutes spot zoning. !I
4. While there may be a temptation to permit spot zoning for this corporate citizen, she urges Ii
Councif to defeat it in order to reach the long-range goal of a beautiful and well-plaMed ;'
i;
city. Ii
:;
Annie Moffit. Indian Run Meadows Board of Trustee stated that neither she nor 28 of her neighbors 1:
j'
""'"",...."'" received a phone survey. The Association is opposed to the SuperAmerica in this location and will ji
not support the station if it is built. Dublin needs the support of the businesses, but Dublin is what
~ i it is because of the residents. They chose to live in Dublin because it was very community oriented,
and she hopes that Council does not disappoint them with this decision. ,I
I'
II
- ROller BasteD. 6390 Newllranlle Drive. President of Lowell Trace Civic Association stated that he q
is here again to express the Association'sopposition to the proposal. Very few of the residents of ~ !
their neighborhood were surveyed about their preferences. Neighbors are in favor of a conveniently !'
i located gas station, but not in favor of this location. They are hopeful that Council will support the j,
n
residents by defeating this ordinance. H
" I:
Lowell Mast. 6759 Avery Road noted that his comments involve visions, promises made, promises .,
kept, traffic quality and values. Ii
1. Over 20 years ago, the vision began with Annie Miller's residential deed restrictions on the !:
northeast comer acreage. Council respected her wishes and the wishes of those who since "
:1
" have purchase home sites in that area. I:
2. Perimeter zoning called for a residential buffer along the south side of Post Road.
3. In 1987, Council approved a park reserve and office institutional uses for the northwest
corner acreage. This was reaffirmed in 1995 with the approval of an II-acre church/school
complex with a 2.5 acre office site on the northwest corner.
4. The Riverside tract on the southwest corner was granted office use under a PUD plan
approved within the last 5 years.
5. And now, Council is being asked to rezone a 2 plus acre site on the southeast corner
immediately adjacent to and across from single family lots for an intense retail use. This
is an inappropriate use for this location, and its approval would "fly in the face" of zoning
and d~ed restrictions estahlished over the past 20 years.
6. Traffic is another conc~rn as th~ turning and re-emerging traffic at this intersection for a gas Z96-011 tis
station In.:ation would add to existing prohlems.
7, '111e Post R\lad/Av.:ry interseclion has long heen touted a.s one of Duhlin's featured gateway
- Sil':S. II.: has ash'd d.:vcl\lpcrS of their int~rest in the site at the northwest .:orner, and their SuperAmerica
rl'SI>lIIlSl' is Ihal they w\\llld nnl he inlerest.:d wilh a gas slat ion located nn the opposil':
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 6 Meeting
DA'l"'TOI\l "'(QAL .~NK CQ. .0.... ...U lUl..
Helci January 22, 1996 19_ i
corner. Therefore, a retail use would affect not only the residential lots in the area but also. I'
I:
,.
the value and end quality of already approved office sites. p
8. He asked that in the interest ofvision shared, promises made, quality issues at stake, traffic i:
and safety concerns, that Council deny the proposed rezoning. I
j,
Robert Adamek. Wyndham Villa!!:eHomeowners Association President. 7478 Tullymore Drive stated I,
that they are located .7 miles away from this intersection. Their major concern is the safety issue. Ii .....
The customers of this station will enter from all directions, compounding the safety problems already 'I J'
existing at the intersection. His constituents did not receive the mass phone polling. Approximately I,
90 to 95 percent of the homeowners are in disagreement with this rezoning. They are not opposed II II
'i .....
to a SuperAmerica gas station in the area, but not at this particular corner. II
Ii
I I:
Ralei!!:h Cruise. Valleystream Drive noted that he and 2 fellow residents did a house to house survey 11
of the people in the immediate area and within a short time collected 352 signatures in opposition .,
I'
to the proposal. He takes issue with the Ashland statistics regarding support for the rezoning. It il
ii
is a safe conclusion to say that the people in the immediate area are not in favor of this proposal. I:
Council members then summarized their positions:
!l
Mrs. Borin!!: commented as follows: i:
1. Ashland Chemical is a good corporate neighbor and the proposed development is very E
attractive. r
"
2. The issue here is a matter of integrity and consistency with an existing plan. People in the Ii
H
community worked hard to develop the plans for the area and this intense use is not I'
:;
consistent with the previous planning efforts. l ~
3. Council has an obligation to maintain consistency with the original plan as committed to the
residents. ,i
Mrs. Stillwell stated: ,
! ~
1. Council must make a decision based on what is best for the entire community, balancing the ,
"
input from both sides. Ashland has been a good corporate citizen and can take a great deal ,:
of credit for the way the community has developed. !!
2. The decision comes down to the basic question of land use. While this is a beautiful facility, I.
"
the location cannot be supported based upon the history and past policies already put into I'
"
place with decisions made by previous Commissions and Councils. I
I: ~
3. She cannot support this rezoning application, but offered to continue to work with Ashland r
I;
to find a suitable location for a Super America to arrive at a win/win solution over the long I: l'
term. Ii
Mr. CamDbell commented: Ii
1. He thanlced all parties involved for their courtesy and professionalism over the past year. Ii ....
2. A major factor in the consideration is the de-emphasis of Post Road and the safety factors I:
i:
involved with left turn traffic. Ii
3. He has supported controversial commercial rezonings in the past'.because they had'merit for 11
the City in terms of payroll tax or infrastructure contributions. In this case, the financial Ii
benefits for the City are not in place, Le., income tax, infrastructure improvements, real
estate taxes for the City or the schools. I'
4. He sent letters in November to the civic associations in his ward, and all of the responses Ii
he received back expressed opposition to the rezoning. Since there is no compelling reason i'
to support the rezoning and in view of the civic groups' opposition, he will vote against the I'
rezoning. i
Mr. Zawaly stated that: I
1. A common theme among Council members is that this may be the most difficult decision
they have been faced with.
2. For him, personally, the history is in the record. As Council's representative to Planning
& Zoning Commission, he spent extensive hours in review of the application. They were
able to negotiate several additional conditions which raised the application to exceed the
normal standards applied in Dublin.
3. He does not like the existing Limited Industrial zoning and supports staffs recommendation
for approval.
4. Thc-~c scrvi..:es are needed in all areas of the City. especially in this quadrant.
5. Ashland is 01 good ..:orporOlle neighhor and. in this close call, they deserve a hrcak which he Z96-0111le
is willing to give them.
Ms. Hide Piltalul!!! wmmented as follows: SuperAmerica
I. She ;lgrcL's with h,'th sides of this issue. nllling lhattheir presentalions have he,'n pL'rsuasive,
l'llllJu,'nl ;lIld 1,'sl'L'ctful IIIIIIIIl
.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 7 Meeting
--- 0"""0'" l[G"'" .I.ANIlI co.. '0,","'" NO. 101C.
Helr! January 22, 1996 19_ !
2. This is a land use issue as well as a neighborhood issue.
3. Barring any overwhelming outcry for support of this kind of service in this particular i.
neighborhood, she is unable to support the application. "
Mayor Kranstuber stated that: !.
1. This applicant has been extremely responsive in this case and they are very good corporate ;:
- citizens. He personally appreciates their contribution to the schools.
:,
I 2. He believes that this is not an appropriate transition, is not oriented to the interior roads, and I;
; does not conform with the planning done in the area. It would constitute spot zoning and i.
for these reasons he cannot support it. 'I
"
i'
-
Vote on the ordinance - Mr. Campbell, no; Ms. Hide Pitta1uga, no; Mayor Kranstuber, no; Mr. j:
Zawaly, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Mrs. Stillwell, no. p
A brief recess followed.
"
westlBest Bid for Muirfield, Village Phase 42 Fire Hydrant
0 adoption at this time.
I, - Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Zawaly, yes; Mrs.
anstuber, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes;
"
:j Resolution No. 32-95 - A Resolution Requesting the Delaware and nklin County Auditors I:
, to Draw and the Delaware and Franklin County Treasurers to ue a Draft to the Director of
!l Finance of the City of Dublin for any Money that ma in the County Treasury to the
:1 Account of the City of Dublin, and Declaring an Em eney. (I'hird Reading)
0, Mr. Hansley stated that staffrecommends adoption emergency to obtain the revenues that are due j,
.,
" the City.
"
'i Mr. Campbell moved to treat this as e
" Mrs. Boring seconded the motion.
I! Vote on the motion - Mrs. Sf ell, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Zawaly, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes;
;1 Mayor Kranstuber, yes; . Campbell, yes. ,
"
:; V e n d'n - Mr. Zawaly, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mrs. Boring,
'I yes; Mr. McC , yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes.
"
i;
......'''''l Readin
dinance No. 02-96 - An Ordinance Amending Section 955.01 and Repealing 109 Sections
155.01 and Sections 955.01 - 955.04 with Respect to Cemeteries and Iishing a Dublin
Cemeteries Guidebook. (Second Reading)
Mr. Hansley stated that staff is requesting this be held over for
.......,'* meeting.
There will be a third reading of the ordinance at the I
!
Consent Al!enda Items
Mr. Campbell moved to treat Or ce Nos. 04-96, 05-96, 06-96 and 07-96 as consent items,
introducing them and waivi e first reading, and holding them over for second reading.
Mr. McCash stated th e has some legal issues in regard to Ordinance No. 05-96 which he has
requested Mr. S to respond to by memo. i'
Mr. Smith eed to do so,
Mr. aly seconded the motion.
te nth m ti n - Mr. Zawaly, yes; Mrs, Boring, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Mr. C
yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr. McCash, yes.
Ordinance No. 04-96 - An Ordinance Accepting the Lowest & Best Bid fo
Materials. (First Reading)
Ordinance No. 05-96 - An Ordinance Accepting the Lowest & B
Accessories at the Dublin Community Recreation Center. (Fi eading)
Ordinance No. 06-96 - An Ordinance Amending Certain tions of Ordinance No. 23-93
("Compensation Plan"). (First Reading)
Ordinance No. 07-96 - An Ordinance to Author.' .' the E.~tablishment of the Land
Acquisition Fund. (First Re.adin~)
First Readinl! Z96-011 Bfa
Ordinance No. 08-96 - An Or . mnce Amendin~ the Annual Appropriat .
the Fiscal Ye~lr Endin~ Il ember 31, 1996, and Dt'Clarin~ an Emer~en( SuperAmenca
~
Mr, Zawaly intrllJlIC' t: llrJinance,
.."",,-~ ..........~."- ._,......_"...,"-~
Final Development Text
2.6871 Acres at the Southeast Corner of
Avery-Muirfield and Post Roads
General Provisions
r 1. If these standards conflict in any manner with the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances, then the
provisions of this Text shall prevail. All matters not covered by this proposed development text
shall be regulated by the standards contained within the Dublin Zoning Code.
.... 2. Access to the site shall be achieved thru one right in/right out curb cut along Avery-Muirfield
Dr. and one full service curb cut along Post Road. Locations of the curb cuts shall be subject to
further review and study during final development plan approval of the site.
3. Development of this site should be of the officetype or similar low intensity uses compatible
with the Post Road related uses in the vicinity and should harmoniously reflect the aesthetics,
scale and character of the vicinity. Landscape buffering as further defined herein should be
maintained between this site and the residential uses.
Permitted Uses
The following uses .shall be considered as permitted uses for this site:
1. All uses contained within Section 153.026(a) (Former Sec. 1159.01), Suburban
Office and Institutional District.
2. Uses within Section 153.034(a) (Former Sec. 1175.01), Office, Laboratory and
Research District, provided that the use does. not involve noisy operations, outside
- storage, outside testing and does not generate, noise, smoke, odors or waste that is
harmful, noxious or hazardous to adjoining property.
3. Those uses listed in Sectron 153.026(B)(3) and (5, offices only without kennels)
..... (Former Sec. 1159,02(c) and(e, offices only without kelUlels)).
4. Skilled Nursing, Hospice or Day Care Facilities.
5. Drive thru facilities when developed in association with a permitted use listed in
herein.
2. The following ancillary uses shall be permitted in conjunction with a primary
permitted use when operated as part of the primary permitted use and
oriented/accessed through the primary permitted use without a separate outside
access or slgnage:
a.) Beauty/Barber shops
b.) Pharmacy
c.) Optical dispensing when associated with a physicians office
These ancillary uses shall not occupy more than 25% of the building area.
Density and Lot Coverage
......
- ---_._----------~
The maximum density of development shall not exceed 12,000 sf per acre or 15,000 sf per acre
with structured parking. The total combined lot coverage area for both buildings and paved areas
shall not exceed 70%.
Yard and Setback Requirements
1. Setback from Post Road right of way shall be 50' for pavement and 50' for buildings.
!I-' 2. Setback from Avery-MuirfieldDr. right of way shall be 30' for pavement and 50' for
buildings.
3. Setback from all property lines adjoining single family residentially zoned property shall
.... be 30' for paving and 50' for buildings for buildings two stories in height. For single story
office uses the setbacks along the east maybe reduced to IS' for paving and 30' for
buildings.
4. All other setbacks shall be 15' for paving and 25' for buildings.
Height Requirements
The maximum height of structures on this site shall be 35' as measured per Dublin Zoning Code.
The maximum number of stories above grade shall not exceed 2 stories.
Parking and Loading
- Parking and loading spaces shall be as specified in Section 153.200 thru 153.212 inclusive
(Former Chapter 1193, Off Street Parking and Loading) of the Dublin Zoning Code.
Waste and Refuse
......
All waste and refuse shall be containerized and fully screened from view in accordance with th~
Dublin Zoning Code. All dumpster enclosures shall be no closer than 50' from the east property
line. Materials for the enclosure shall be consistent with the building materials.
Storage and Equipment
There shall be no storage of materials, supplies, equipment or products outside of a permitted
structure. All mechanical equipmept shall be fully screened in accordance with the Dublin Zoning
Code.
Landscaping
1. Landscaping shall be according to Section 153.130 thru 153. 139 inclusive (Former Chapter
.....
~ ~.,..," , .^.,-~~-
1187, Landscaping) of the Dublin Zoning Code. In addition, landscaping along the Post Road
setback shall include a sodded or seeded mound with a mixture of ornamental, evergreen and
shade trees. The mound shall be generally continuous along the width of the property and be
natural in appearance, variegated height and/or serpentine in shape, and an average height of 3'-4'.
Landscape plantings shall be compatible with tite "Buffer Plan" Sheets 1 and 2 of the Riverside
Development text and shall be subject to review during final
development submittal.
....
! 2. Landscaping along the Avery-Muirfield Dr. shall be compatible with the "Buffer Plan"
Sheets 3 and 4 of the Riverside Development text and shall be subject to review during
..... final development submittal.
3. Landscaping along the east property line shall consist of a 3' average height mound with
a combination of deciduous and evergreen trees at the rate of 1 tree for each 30 If of the
property line. Minimum size of tree shall be 2" caliper for deciduous and 5'-6' height for
evergreens. Clustering of trees in a natural aesthetically pleasing manner may be permitted.
4. All portions of the site that are not covered by building or parking shall be landscaped or
seeded.
Sign age
All signage shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 153.150 thru 153.164 inclusive
(Former Chapter 1189, Signs) of the Dublin Zoning Cpde except as modified herein.
Size and Number of Signs
This site shall be permitted either two ground or two wall signs per the provisions of
- Dublin Sign Code Section 153.159. Ground signs shall be permitted to have a maximum
height of 9' along Avery-Muirfield Dr. and 6' along Post Rd. measured from the top of
the street curb elevation or pavement surface if no curb exists.
..... For a ground sign along Avery-Muirfield Dr. the maximum area of sign face shall be 50sf
for all permitted uses except daycare which shall have a maximum area of sign face of
20sf All signs shall be setback 10 feet minimum from the right of way or property line.
For a ground sign along Post Road the maximum area of sign face shall be 25sffor all
permitted uses except day care which shall have a maximum area of sign face of 20sf All
signs shall be setback 10 feet minimum from the right of way or property line. Any sign
permitted along Post Road shall be externally illuminated or may be internally illuminated
provided that the lights are turned off during non business hours.
Site Lighting
All site lighting shall comply with the Dublin Lighting Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit A.
....
i
_.~----~-----~--_._---~_._._-_..__._-
The maximum pole height shall n01exceed 28'. All fixtures shall be ofa cut offtype.
Architecture
It is intended that the architecture of this site be harmonious with and reflect the aesthetics, scale
and character -afthe vicinity. With this as the intended purpose, the architecture of buildings on
this site shall be compatible with and substantially similar to the architectural standards of existing
".... buildings in Perimeter Center.
i In general these provisions require natural materials~ brick, stone, wood, stucco of
I
i earthtone/subdued colors. Roofs shall be pitched with a pitch of no less than 6: 12 with
[
...... dimensional asphalt/fiberglass shingles or wood shingles. Buildings shall have the same degree of
finish on all sides. The Planning Commission shall have right to review materials to assure they are
consistent with other building materials used in the area. The Planning Commission may accept
alternative materials and colors if they are consistent with other building materials and add to the
overall architectural quality of the vicinity.
r-
....
....