46-93 Ordinance
-<--,..._---'<-
., .It.
" RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank Co. Form No. 30043
,----
r
Ordinance Na..4~..9.1. ... Passed... . --- .. m.nm .m19n n i~
JIIII'i""'o.
_M AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE OF
ZONING OF 33.398 ACRES, LOCATED BETWEEN
PERIHETER DRIVE AND PERIHETER LOOP ROAD
TO BE REZONED FROH: PCD, PLANNED COKKERCE
DISTRICT TO: PCD, PLANNED COKKERCE
DISTRICT i
I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Dublin, state of Ohio, -; of the elected members
concurring:
section 1. That the following described real estate (see
attached map marked Exhibit "A") situated in the City of
Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned to PCD, Planned
Commerce District, and shall be subject to regulations and
I procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter Eleven of
the Codified Ordinances) the City of Dublin Zoning Code and
amendments thereto.
section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list
of contiguous and affected property owners, and the
,.... recommendations of the Planning and zoning commission , Exhibit
"C", are all incorporated into and made an official part of
__ this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and
used in accordance therewith.
section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force from and after the earliest period allowed by law.
Passed this / i-ti, day of ~ ' 199/
~
Mayo Pre iding Officer
Attest:
~~
Clerk of Council
I sponsor: planning Division
.-
-
i .... clfrliiy that copies of this Ordinonce/R9~911lIiQR were posted' in fhe
tiIr '" I&Jblin in accordance with Sedlon 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code,
~ ~ (L... (!1---4.A...I..A_
t\lerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio
"J J 1m
, .."~..-. _.
,
. CITY OF DUDLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AN APPLICATION FOR .AMENDMENT. FOR P&Z C Use Only
OF TilE CITY OF DUDLIN ZONING Appl1clltion No:
DISTRICT HAl' ZH, -z. -0
(ReclnssiCiclltion of LlInd) DlIte FUed: I
Fee Receipt
Received'by:
Piense type or print informntion - Use IIdditionnl sheets liS necessllry
~, TO TIlE 1I0NORAllLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Muirfield Drive Partners & 1,
The Applicant Continental Real Estate Interests/Park Development Company
(Have property in contract)
being the owner(s),/lessee(s) of property locllted vithin the IIrell proposed for
.t rezoning ". ' , , requests thnt the folloving
described.lnnd to be plnced in the -PQS- pc.. ~
.
A. DESCRIPTION OF LAND TO BE RECLASSIFIED
1. Ceneral Description of LlInd (describe by one of the folloving):
n. Lot(s)/Reserve(s) of
,
n recorded pInt, vith IIn IIren of .
b. Beginning nt n point along '.
(street or other)
nnd being feet in n N S E Y
direction from the (specify) of
(Street or other), IInd thence hnving II dimension
of from the (specify) of
(street or other), nnd hllving an nren of
.
c. The trnct of lnnd contnining Acres nnd bounded by:
(specify) on the N S E V (Circle)
(specify) on the N S F. Y (Circle)
(speCify) on the N S F. Y (Circle)
(specify) on the N S F. Y (Circle)
d. Attnched legnl description: .YES X NO
,-
.
.
m~rn 'M ""'III:U1O COUNCIL:
. t I / ~ f., /'1 lr;{
UU MAY-41993"
Page 1 of J I? "'? [1:;; FOII...11NG ON ? I ./
I I I I
CITY OF BUN
-
"-',~"-
.
Mnp of Pr.oposed 7.onin~ District Doundnries
Two (2) copies of mnp accurately, drawn to an appropriate scnle (to fill n sheet of
not less thnn 8\ x 11 inches nnd.not more than 16 x 20 inches). The mnp shnll be
identified nnd submitted in nddition to the Ceneral Description of Lnnd. The mnp
shn11' include n11 Innd in:,the proposed chnnge and nll. land within' five hundred (500)
feet beyond thel-imits of the: proposed chnnge.
To be shown on the map - nIl property lines, street right-oC-vny, easements and
other informntion related to the location of the proposed:boundnries nnd shall be
fully dimensioned.
The mnp shall shov the existing and.proposed'Zonfng District,or Special District
boundaries.
List all owners of property vithin and contiguous to and directly across the street
from such area proposed to be rezoned. The addresses of the owners shnll be those
appearing on the County Auditor's current tax list or the Treasurer's mailing list.
~~~
NAME ADDRESS
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LIST
D. ARCUHENTS FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF TilE DESCRIDED LAND
automobile
1. Proposed Use or Development of the Lnnd: commercial/office/dealership
.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONINC DISTRICTS and SPECIAL DISTRICTS submission of .
three (3) copies, of a Development. Plnn nnd other documents nnd tvo (2)
copies shall be retained as a permanent public record if approved.
~, For other 7.onin~ Districts, such plnns or other exhibits vould be helpful
to the review. of this application.
Plans and Exhibits submitted
Plot Plan -; Building Plnn _; Development Plan X; Sketch ;
-- -
Photographs _; Other Comoosite Plan (specify)
2. State briefly how the proposed zoning nnd development relates to the existi'ng
and probably !uture land use chnrncter of the ViCinity.
The ro osed development represents a modification to the
uses and site"lari~ which were part-of ~ubarea'F and a portion of
Subarea D in the oriqinal Perimeter Center zoning. This proposal
will be com atible with existing and permitted development
on the ad;acent properties.
Page 2 of J pages
- J. lI"s nn npplication for rezoning of the' property been denied by the City
Council vi thin the lnst tvo (2) years?
YES
NO X
If Yes, stnte the bnsis of reconsideration
C. AFFIDAVIT
Defore completing this npplication nnd executing the folloving affidavit, it is ~
recommended thnt this applicntion be discussed'vith the Duilding Inspector to..
insure completeness and accuracy. Present ovner of property: ~
APPLICANTS'S AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF OHIO
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN,
1 (ve) JEFFREY L. BROWN, attorney for applicant
being duly svorn', depose nnd say that I nm/ve. _L~ Ll.~ eVRrp(I[)/l-."III1(a) of being
duly svorn, depose nnd say.that I nm/~~ _u:: ..I.~ u~..~d5)/le!l!lU(1I~ of lnnd included
in the applicntion nnd thnt the foregoing statement herein contained and attached,
nnd information or attached exhibits thoroughly to the best of my/fIU'r' ability present
the nrguments in behnlf of the application herevith submitted and.that the statements
and nttnched exhibits above referred to are in all respects true and correct to the
best of my/~ knovledge and belief.
.
37 W. Broad Street, Suite 725
Columbus; Ohio. 43215 ~
(Hailing address)
....,.
221-4255
~ (Phone)
Sob,eribed ond ,~= ,. bef.re .. 'hb /f - d"~ a. . ,J.l
. _(oo<or, rohUe) ~~
Person to be contncted for details, if othel;~~JI1" .'~cl'\natory: CJ\THt:RINE A. NErr~r~GER
J ~(J 01 NOl~kY PUBlIC. S"'A1t Ci OHIO
: ..' ~ ;.....t I, . I ~ trl c:;.....~;~~:O:J ~::?~~~~ $~?' 25. It}~3
,.... ..... ....... .''':'--. ....,....,... a..
(Name (Address)' ~i:t:~1.c:p'hone) ;
.... ....., "", .'l,.'. ,...~ff,AL *"-"
---------------7------- ......-J..;....:: oJ'
\00. not. write below tl\is llne)- .....;:
O. .::':RF.CORD. OF. ACTION Is:
ill
1 n'thd \~
. wl. ravn. lIeld to. \~
(Uate) y .. .'
"'~,~ S"f ~....,
2. P&Z C: Date of nearing ...-........
Approved Disapproved'. Modified
J. City Council: Onte of lIearing
Approved Uisnpproved Modified
.,....
----- "~."-"~ -,",-,-,",~~-~-~,~~""""~'",,,"~,-'" ,
~
The applicant/owner hereby acknowledges,that approval'of (his) (her) (its)
request for ZONING CHANGE' by 'the Dublin ~innning and
, .
Zoning Commission bnd/or, Dublin City Council does not constitute 8 guarantee
'or binding conunitment that" the City of Dublin w11l be ab1e, to provide essential
services sl:lch os water and sewer facilities when needed by said applicant.
The City of Dublin will make every effort to hove these'services available
as needed. However, the rapid growth of the City of Dublin and Northwest,
....... Franklin Cotin'ty, has stretched the, City IS cnpacity to provide' these ser'vice9
"
to the limit. As such, the City of Dublin mny be unable to IIIlIke all or port
of said, facilities available to the applicant until some future dote.
The undersigned hereby acknowledges and understands the foregoing.
~ \\ \ ~ .~h
~ I
ate gn e of Applicant or authorized
representative thereof.
JEFFREY L. BROWN
On behalf of:
MUIRFIELD DRIVE PARTNERS & CONTINENTAL
REAL ESTATE INTERESTS/PARRSDEVELOPMENT CO.
Applicnnt
,
"
-
. ._.n.. .... .. ......-.
'.
"
;-:#"
,
"
33.398 ACRE TRACT
- Page 3 -
The above description was prepared for rezoning purposes only and is not Intended
for transfer.
EVANS,MECHWART,HA
(
'"
Lawr E. Ball -J
Professional Surveyor No. 6878
LEB/mf
~
.....
-"--'-" -~--"~
PAGE 1 of 2
, 'ADJACENT PROPERTY O\~ERS:
Dwayne & Peggy Hawkins
6520 Perimeter Loop Rd.
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Randolph Gibbs & Eren Dira
8936 Lea Ct.
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Sherrie G. Ridenour
6051 Perimeter Dr.
Dublin, Ohio 43017
.-'
Central Ohio Credit Union
.... 6185 Shamrock Ct.
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Huntington National Bank
c/o Property Tax Division/Freq Hulkenberg
P.O. Box 1558
Columbus, Ohio 43216
Service Station Holdings, Inc.
c/o BP Oil Co./Standard Oil Co.
Property Tax Department
Cleveland, Ohio 44101
BancOhio ~ational Bank
c/o National City Bank
155 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43251-0041
Bank One Columbus
c/o Vice President Facilities
100 East Broad St.
Columbus, Ohio 43271
.,r,1JIf'tc~
Residential Services, Inc.
c/o State Savings Co. Properties & Subsidiaries
3800 W. Dublin Granville Rd.
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Jack L. Ruscilli, et al 5 Co. Trustees
c/o Ruscilli Construction Co.
Olde Poste Properties
2041 Arlingate Lane
Columbus, Ohio 43228
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Corporate Real Estate
1 State Farm Plz
Bloomington, Illinois 61710
-'-,'-.....-_. -.
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS CONTINUED: PAGE 2 of2
Olde Poste Properties
c/o Ruscilli Construction Co.
2041 Arlingate Lane
Columbus, Ohio 43228
Perimeter Lakes Ltd. Partnership
1105 Schrock Rd.
Suite 816
Columbus, Ohio 43229
~
McKitrick L.P.
c/o John W. McKitrick ..,
Bethel Rd. Inv. Co., Inc.
5837 Karric Square Dr.
Suite 336
Dublin, Ohio 43017
~
~'
-
"' '^.-, __ __ .. n,,' ..__''''__'d' __om' ,~ ~ '_,_~~___.._'~'~,~,~<_~".'" ............-"'""""..........,
.... . - ..' .. ..,~.. ,,-.., -
;~..::~:~ i _ '.i .~~' 1
, . '1','...., 1
. ; \ '--"'''1
-- - !..~~-- . I !_-';"~j
~ '. :~.)t
,
II
L__....
/' @ ~ t~'
~J J r-:I
...... ,.' ('.J
'..".-.'..'. ..... ,)
-- -- --"
- ....", ~
. <~ ~
- . ~ ~
F- :;.J
roo " .:~ ~$ rrJ~! .
.' ~ ': 0-
- - 3:A.! 1= -~, ~~
, -- 41 ill -:z ;; ;,
I ._ :;_
\J ''''
..' '. :J
,~ III _ -~ . rn
~ ,-- ~=:1.
-- I-L -_'
.
- ",
"/, '\\. \
~ I~..-t /
~l \- ~ .
x . \ . __ ,..
~ / 1-------
-3
u..
- ..~
'. .."
I _ __
\ /.. . ,..' .. -'- ~HI~ ==Tff ..-;=:.
/.. LJ ~~ r ~~ -.. -" ~
/' II,
- < . .
.. ' - . -- . . - . ..,"' ~
,,"
. ".,IiI
"
. .
33.398 ACRE TRACT
Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin and being 33.398
acres of Reserve "A" ot that subdivision entitled."Perimeter Center", of record in Plat Book
72, Pages 47 & 48, all references being to those of record in the Recorder's Office,
Franklin County, Ohio and being more particularly bounded and described as follows;
Beginning for reference at the point where the centerline of Perimeter Loop Road
Intersects the centerline of Perimeter Drive;
.'
thence northwesterly along the centerline of Perimeter Drive and the arc of a curve
iW to the right (Radius = 620.00 feet, Delta = 23. 41' 36") a chord bearing and distance ot
North 750 36' 50" West, 254.56 feet to a point;
thence leaving said centerline South 26. 13' 58" West, along a line radial to the above
described curve, a distance 01"50.00 teet to a point In the existing southerly right-of-way
line of Perimeter Drive marking the northwesterly corner of an existing 0.707 acre tract
and being the true place of beginning for the following described tract of land:
thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line South 270 41' 13" West, along a
westerly line of said 0.707 acre tract, a distance of 83.61 feet to a point of curvature to
the left;
thence southwesterly along the arc of said curve and a westerly line of said 0.707
acre tract (Radius = 233.00 feet, Delta = 310 54' 35") a chord bearing and distance of
South 110 43' 55" West, 128.09 feet to the point of tangency;
South 40 13' 22" East, passing the southwesterly corner of said 0,707 acre tract at
80.00 feet, a total distance of 287.46 feet to a point;
thence South 85. 46' 38" West, a distance of 758,01 feet to a point of curvature to
the left;
~
thence southwesterly along the arc of said curve (Radius = 180.00 feet, Delta = 36.
24' 34") a chord bearing and distance of South 67034' 21" West, 112.47 feet to the point
of tangency;
thence South 490 22' 04" West, a distance of 82.79 feet to a point in the existing
northeasterly right-ot-way line of Perimeter Loop Road;
thence along the northeasterly right-ot-way line of Perimeter Loop Read, the following
courses and distances:
"~"'- '....--,-.,.....-------...--'- .,
: L~t lC~__~ 0 JJ ~ 1 :1: i Continued..........
. .
: II;;
Ii !.y 6 :r..~,"'I ' , ,'.: ~ :
i\' t...! - ~'_.:'-j "\ . ,
.~..... . I II' .............~ !" .~...J;
i-.o_......__......_...__...-.j .
r"TY fie ppc' Q.1 ;
_~<_l...-=-_l:::'_t___~~.~ L t~.':.. J
. .
33.398 ACRE TRACT
- Page 2 -
North 400 37' 5611 West, a distance of 201.00 feet;
North 270 45' 26" West, along the arc of a curve to the right (Radius = 370.00 feet,
Delta = 250 45' 00") a chord distance of 164.89 feet to the point of tangency;
North 140 52' 5611 West, a distance of 297.48 feet to an angle point in said ~
right-of-way line;
"'l
North 1 00 49' 5411 West, a distance of 111.10 feet to a point of curvature to the left;
and.. .
North 350 23' 29" West, along the arc of said curve to the left (Radius = 400.00 feet,
Delta = 290 07' 00"), a chord distance of 201.09 feet to a point;
thence leaving the northerly right-of-way line of Perimeter Loop Road, across Reserve
"A" the following courses and distances:
North 420 11' 57" East, a distance of 49.65 teet to a point of curvature to the left;
North 180 47' 09" East, along the arc of said curve (Radius = 110.00 feet, Delta = 46.
49' 35") a chord distance of 87.42 feet to the point of tangency; and...
North 40 37' 38" West, a distance of 511.37 feet to a point in the southerly
right-of-way line of Perimeter Drive;
thence along the southerly right-ot-way line of Perimeter Drive the following courses .~
and distances:
North 850 22' 22" East, a distance of 408.50 feet to a point of curvature to the right;
South 560 18' 39" East, along the arc of said curve (Radius = 570.00 feet, Delta = 760
37' 56") a chord distance of 706.80 feet to the point of tangency;
South 170 59' 42" East, a distance of 101.34 feet to a point of curvature to the left;
and...
South 40. 52' 52" East, along the arc of said curve (Radius = 670.00 feet, Delta = 45.
46' 20") a distance of 521.12 to the true place of beginning and containing 33.398 acres,
more,or less.
Continued...... ....
..-..
,~~",-,,-~ ____r.~..'~__',''''..~.___ -->...'.~ ,
Response to Section 1181.09(d) (1)
Composite Plan contents:
A. See composite drawing
B. See materials provided for Perimeter Center in the
original zoning
C. See materials provided for Perimeter Center in the
...."'. original zoning
D. Major streets and utility lines have been constructed
E. See materials provided for Perimeter Center in the
original zoning
F. Major streets and utility lines have been constructed
G. N/A
.
PERIMETER CENTER TEXT AMENDMENT
This text covers Subarea F and a 8.9+ portion of Subarea D
which is east of Subarea I, as those subareas are delineated in
the Perimeter Center zoning. The purpose of this amendment is to
modify the site plans and uses which were included in the
original Perimeter Center zoning for these affected subareas.
The original Subarea F is divided into three subareas: Subarea F
(26.6+ acres), which is located between Perimeter Drive and
Perimeter Loop Road; Subarea J (2.5+ acres) located on the south ~
side of Perimeter Drive; Subarea K (4.9+ acres) located on the
south side of Perimeter Drive. A new Subarea L (8.9+ acres) is -
created out of the western portion of the original Subarea D and
is south of Perimeter Loop Road.
SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
Subareas F, J, K and L shall comply with the general subarea
development standards contained in the original Perimeter Center
zoning unless otherwise indicated in this text or in the
submitted site plans.
SUBAREAS F, J AND K:
The retail center (Subarea F) will have a maximum total
gross square footage of 250,000 with a 70,000 square foot grocery
store. This retail center may be developed in phases. Servicing
for the proposed center will be totally screened from view by
passer-by traffic. Special attention will be provided to design
of all elevations of the center to maintain an established
architectural theme with good aesthetic quality throughout the
development of the retail and services zone. The same or ~
compatible building materials and a common lighting, signage and I
landscaping ethic will also be incorporated to blend with the J
surrounding proposed uses for total site compatibility.
The following uses shall be permitted within Subareas F, J
and K.
a. . Those uses listed in Section 1159.01 and 1175.01 of the
Zoning Code.
b. Those uses listed in Section 1163.01.
c. Theaters
d. Drive-in facilities developed in association with a
permitted use.
e. Ancillary commercial uses within a structure primarily
devoted to office uses.
.....
""'--='-'<'~~---- ,-~,",-,~~,---"."-~
Yard and Setback Requirements:
1. Along Perimeter Drive pavement setbacks shall be 30',
building setback 75'.
2. Along the Perimeter Road, pavement setbacks shall be
25', building setback 50'.
3. All other local street pavement setbacks shall be 25',
,...... building setback 50'.
4. Total building square feet for Subarea F shall not
',;:k;j'~~ exceed 10,000 square feet per acre: for Subareas J and
K: 12,000 square feet per acre.
Height Requirements:
1. Maximum height for buildings in Subareas F, J and K
shall be 45' as measured per Dublin Zoning Code.
Parking and Loading:
1. All parking and loading shall be regulated by the
DUblin Code Chapter 1193.
2. Drive-thru stacking areas for fast food restaurants
shall accommodate a minimum of eight spaces per
exchange window.
3. Bank drive-thru stacking requirements as per the
Columbus Zoning Code.
Circulation:
.-" 1. Perimeter Drive shall have a 100' right-of-way, and a
56' pavement width.
-'>IV
2. The Loop Road shall have a 60' right-of-way, and a 36'
pavement width.
3. All other local public access streets shall have a 60'
right-of-way, and a 32' pavement width.
4. Opposing curbcuts on Perimeter Drive and the Perimeter
Loop Road shall be offset no less than 100' (as
measured from the driveway's centerline) or directly
aligned wherever possible consistent with prudent
traffic engineering principles and practices.
2
.
Waste and Refuse:
1. All waste and refuse shall be containerized and fully
screened from view by a solid wall or fence.
storage and Equipment:
1. No materials, supplies, equipment or products shall be
stored or permitted to remain on any portion of a
parcel outside a permitted structure except for a
garden center which may be free-standing or part of a ..
larger retail operation.
-'
Landscaping:
1. All landscaping shall conform to the Dublin Landscaping
Code Chapter 1187.
2. In addition, landscaping within the Perimeter Drive
setback shall include a 3' - 4' landscape mound with
street trees planted 50' on center within the R.O.W.
and planted +1 from R.O.W.
Architecture:
with the exception of service corridors, the building shall
have the same degree of exterior finish on all sides.
SUBAREA L:
Permitted Uses:
The following uses shall be permitted within Subarea L:
a. Those uses listed in Section 1159.01 and 1175.01 of the ~
Zoning Code. r.,
,
..,I
b. Corporate offices.
c. Hotel and motel.
d. Institutional uses.
e. Drive-in facilities developed in association with a
permitted use.
f. Ancillary commercial uses within a structure primarily
devoted to office uses.
g. Use listed in Section 1163.01 (a) (551) . New car
dealer, developed to provide a retail-to-office
3
~
"~'M~_'"_'_~"~"_ ""',"'~""',~"..~,.."~~ -'"~'. --,~.'~~-~~.................
. '.
, . -
transition and in accordance with accompanying
standards.
.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS:
Auto display, sales and service, shall be permitted and may
not include a body shop, or storage of damaged vehicles or other
activities which may detract from the visual quality intended
here.
.'-",,"" No automobile body work shall be permitted on the site. No
damaged automobiles shall be stored outdoors on the site.
Automobiles stored outside of buildings and awaiting sale are
limited to number of approved parking spaces, and may be
displayed in single rows only; i.e., automobiles may be displayed
nose to tailor side to side but not both. Display pad areas
outside or parking areas are not included in foregoing
requirements, providing same is finished with concrete, brick
pavers or other permanent material and is located behind building
setback line. No outside loudspeakers permitted. No balloons,
banners, flags, blimps or helium air devices or similar devices,
may be used on site for any purpose. All building materials must
be or equal quality all four sides.
Display information on vehicle not a part of the vehicle
itself is limited to stickers required by federal or state law
and, in addition, one additional sticker not larger than 3 by 6
inches, not an iridescent color, and listing the year and type of
car. There will be no slogans, prices or other information
painted or added to the windows, either on the interior or
exterior side, of automobiles held for display on site.
No loading docks are permitted on site. All curbcuts on
public streets shall require brick pavers or concrete finished in
a brick pattern at point of entry into site.
.... Treatment of hazardous materials on site:
1. Waste oil and waste anti-freeze must be stored above
ground in concrete vault within the primary structure.
2. All hydraulic lifts shall use only biodegradable
vegetable oil as hydraulic medium, or future EPA
approved material.
3. New (as yet unused) oil will be stored above ground
indoors within the building.
4. No automobile gasoline or diesel fuel storage tanks
will be permitted on site for the purpose of fueling
autos.
4
. .
. . ,
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHICH APPLY TO ALL USES IN SUBAREA L:
Mechanicals:
All mechanicals must be so located or screened so as to not
be visible by automobile from either state Route 33, the exit
ramps to Avery Road, Avery Road, or the interior roads of the
center.
.
Architecture: ~
OJ<
All buildings shall be designed to reflect the architectural
elements of the retail center and reflect the image and scale of
any office building. Materials must be complementary and
compatible with the retail center as determined by the Dublin
Planning and Zoning commission. This standard does not require
exact duplication of the themes, materials or elements of the
retail center. The goal is to achieve total site compatibility
within the retail center.
Yard and Setback Requirements:
1. Setback along Perimeter Loop Drive shall have a 25'
pavement setback and 50' building setback.
2. All other publicly dedicated local streets shall have a
25' pavement setback and 50' building setback.
3. Side yards shall be 25' for pavement and buildings.
4. Rear yards shall be 25' for pavement and buildings.
5. Total ground covered by all buildings shall not exceed
25% of the total lot area. However, parking garages .~
and buildings shall cover no more than 75% of the total
lot area. .'fIII
Height Requirements:
1. The maximum height for structures in Subarea L shall be
measured per the Dublin Zoning Code and have a maximum
height limitation of 65'. A minimum height of 20.
shall be required for all primary structures.
Parking and Loading:
1. Sizes, ratio and type of parking and loading and other
facilities shall be regulated by Dublin Code Chapter
1193.
5
,~
j . .,
-
2. Bank drive-thru requirements as per the Columbus zoning
Code.
Circulation:
1. Perimeter Loop Road shall have a 60' right-of-way, and
a 36. pavement width.
Waste and Refuse:
",.. 1. All waste and refuse shall be containerized and fully
screened from view by a solid wall or fence.
storage and Equipment:
1. No materials, supplies, equipment or products shall be
stored or permitted to remain on any portion of the
parcel outside the permitted structure. Mechanical
equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground, or
buildings shall be screened from public view with
materials harmonious with the building. storage of
automobiles displayed for sale is regulated by specific
requirements for automobile dealerships. See
Developments Standards.
Landscaping:
1. All landscaping shall be according to the Dublin
Landscape Code Chapter 1187.
2. In addition and within the required building setback, a
3' - 4' earthen landscaped mound shall be provided
along Perimeter Drive with street trees planted SO' on
center and located +1' from R.O.W. line with R.O.W.
r 3. Along SR 161, a 6' landscaped mound shall be provided
with trees planted a minimum of 1 tree per 30' O.F.T.O.
'- (trees may be grouped).
4. street trees shall be planted along Perimeter Loop
Road. Trees shall be planed one (1) per 30' along the
R.O.W. (trees may not be grouped). The minimum caliber
shall be 3" per tree.
Siqnage:
Signage shall be in accord with Dublin Code and the
Development Standards contained in general section of text.
6
. _4 . ~
-
Lighting:
General standards for lighting are contained in the general
text. Lighting for automobile dealerships must comply with the
general standards. Further, lighting for automobile dealership
display if or a higher intensity than surrounding parking lot
lighting must make a smooth transition to lower intensity
lighting on surrounding uses. Applicants for this type of land
use must show specific fixtures to be used and specifications,
and further must provide lighting engineering plan showing actual
intensities of light falling on illuminated area and cutoff ..
areas. Higher intensity display lighting may be used only in ;
association with sales activity, limited to the hours of the "",'f'
showroom operation. A secondary lower intensity lighting level
consistent with the adjacent parking lot(s) will be used at other
times.
If fixtures selected for surrounding uses in Perimeter
Center are not suitable for lighting for automobile dealerships,
then similar and visually compatible designs must be used.
Fixture finish and color will be the same as Perimeter Center
standard.
~
J
PERIMET.TXT
5/4/93 (2)
7
-.
L
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Bobbie Clarke, Director of Planning
fU
! DATE: July 14, 1994
~
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 46-93 - Perimeter Center Mall
Please find attached the following documents for your review for the third reading and vote on
Perimeter Center Mall:
1. Documentation for the original Rezoning Application - Approved by the Planning
Commission on May 19, 1994 (Excluding signage).
2. Documentation for the original Development Text - Signage - Approved by the Planning
Commission on June 9, 1994.
3. Documentation for the second revised Development Text - Signage - Disapproved by
the Planning Commission on July 7, 1994. Although not yet received in writing, the
,,-. applicant has indicated he will withdraw this request.
-.....
,....,
__,__ u' '_""=-'~_C ,^ ^",^~"..,"",,"....--~~~-'~,...........-~~,._-~~.,-
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COl\fMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
:MAY 19, 1994
CITY OF DlBLI~
r The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action in the application below at its
""-" regularly scheduled meeting:
2. Rezoning Application Z93-00S - Perimeter Center Mall ;. Subarea F
Location: 33.398 acres located between Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road.
Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (perimeter Center Plan).
Request: Review and approval of an amended Composite Plan and Development Text
to permit an unenclosed strip shopping center, new architecture and materials, and related
permitted use changes at Perimeter Center Subareas F, J. and K, which are proposed to
be reconfigured into Subareas F, F1 and F2, under PCD, Planned Commerce District,
as provided under the provisions of Section 1181.09 (d)
Proposed Use: Retail shopping center of 150,000 square feet in an unenclosed, strip
design, a 100,000 square-foot flex-office structure, and two commercial outparcels
totalling +4 acres.
Applicant: Muirfield Drive Partners, Continental Real Estate Interests/Park
Development Company, c/o Jeffrey L. Brown, Attorney, 37 West Broad Street, Suite
725, Columbus, OR 43215.
MOTION: To approve this rezoning application with the following condition:
That text issues, except for signage, be successfully resolved between the
developer and Staff. (Signage will be subject to separate review and approval
by the Commission.)
.....#
*The applicant, Franklin Kass, agreed to the above condition.
-'-----
VOTE: 6-0.
RESULT: This rezoning application will be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation
.----.,.--. for approval by the Commission.
STAFF CERTIDCATION BY:
.---... .- 1)iMb~~ ~
- . Vince Papsidero, AICP
-,---,.-.---...
-.---, .- Senior Planner
_.- NOTE: If the text issues are not successfully resolved by the Staff, they will be returned to the
Commission at a later date for final disposition.
..
-
. ,.," 'o..,,~,~~_,.__~._~^,~__._ "~~~,-'.
,Dublin PIIDming and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - May 19, 1994
Page 7
~
\ CASE 2: Rezoning Application Z93-00S - Perimeter Center Mall - Subarea F
I
APPLICANT: Muirfield Drive Partners, Continental Real Estate Interests/Park Development
Company, c/o Jeffrey L. Brown, Attorney, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725,
Columbus, Ohio 43215.
REQUEST: Review and approval of a rezoning application, including revisions to the site
plan, architecture and development text for Subarea F of Perimeter Center in the
PCD, Planned Commerce District, under the provisions of Section 1181.09(d).
The rezoning will permit a 119,400 square-foot unenclosed retail center, 46,000
, square feet of additional retail space in three detached structures, two
commercial/restaurant outparcels totalling 3.5 acres and a 100,000 square-foot
flex -office structure. The site is 33.393 acres in size and is located between
Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road. . Staff is recommending disapproval
as submitted.
UPDATE:
This proposal has been before the Planning Commission several times, most recently on
February 10, 1994. Since then, the proposal has been revised to include a modified site plan
and revised architecture for the retail center. Planning Commission and Staff had previously
indicated to the applicant that an exceptional solution to architecture, site layout, entryways and
gathering spaces would be necessary in order to achieve City support, due to the critical location
of the development. The revised architectural concept for the retail center presents a unique
opportunity to create a district retail experience within a physical setting compatible with
Dublin's character. Credit is due to the developer and the architect for positively responding
to the City's goals.
Staff believes the applicant has made significant progress. However, noting that several issues
remained unaddressed, Staff was prepared to recommend an informal review. On Friday, May
13, the applicant notified Staff that an informal review was unacceptable. Staff, therefore,
recommends disapproval as outlined below.
BACKGROUND:
-. - Under the current zoning text, an enclosed 250,000 square-foot retail mall is the required type ___n.__.."u
of construction. The site was zoned PCD in 1988. Roadway and utility improvements were
constructed at that time. Street lighting remains to be completed, and the A very Road and SR
161 buffers and the Perimeter Drive bikepath were not installed by the retail developer. Three
_ uses have developed at the far eastern portion of the site (credit union, veterinary clinic and
restaurant). Construction of the mall was delayed because of the 1990 sewer connection ban,
and shortly thereafter financial backing was lost.
This rezoning request under the PCD district involves submittal of a Composite Plan and
development text. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make its recommendation on this
application and return it to Council. The rezoning ordinance will be scheduled for a public
hearing later for the Council vote. A two-thirds vote will be needed to override the
)
'-~ .....~
,----",--
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - May 19, 1994
Page 8
recommendation of the Planning Commission. If approved, the proposal will again be reviewed
-- by the Planning Commission under the Development Plan regulations prior to construction.
CONSIDERATIONS:
0 The proposal continues to divide the Subarea F into three subareas, as detailed below:
0 Subarea F - This subarea, totaling about 20 acres, is to contain 165,400 square
feet of retail commercial space (the development text has incorrectly stated the
size as 250,000 square feet), comprised of a 72,000 square-foot grocery store and
- - -, -- -'-' '.. -.~ ..,-,---- .._~ 93,400 square feet of retail space, within four separate structures. The structures ~
are oriented toward A very Road and will occupy the western portion of existing
Subarea F.
0 Subarea Fl - This 4 acres is comprised of two separate outparcels, each proposed
to contain a commercial or restaurant establishment. The development text,
however, permits the full range of uses: SO, OLR, CC and several conditional
uses. These parcels front on Perimeter Drive and are situated on the "corners"
of the main Perimeter Drive entrance.
0 Subarea F2 - This subarea contains about 9.7 acres on the eastern section of
Subarea F. It is proposed to contain a 100,000 square-foot flex-office structure.
The facility is oriented to the east, screening the rear of the shopping center.
0 Several buildings have been developed within the current boundaries of Subarea F.
These include the credit union, veterinarian clinic and a restaurant. With the
/
modification of Subarea F as presented, these uses should also be placed in a new
subarea (F3) and the present development standards, or a refined set of standards as
appropriate, should be placed in that subarea's development text.
0 Permitted uses in the current text for Subarea F include permitted uses of the SO,
Suburban Office District, OLR, Office, Laboratory and Research District, CC,
Community Commercial District, theaters, drive-in facilities developed in association
with a permitted use and ancillary commercial uses within a structure primarily devoted
- to office uses. Under the proposed text, these same uses are stated for each of the three
subareas, but with the addition in each subarea permitting "a garden center which may ~
- - -. be free-standing or part of a large retail operation. ". Outdoor garden sales should be a J
- :: conditional use in the development text for Subarea F. Staff recommends the text be
., revised to differentiate uses in each subarea (including a subarea F3 for existing uses),
------- --- as follows:
0 Subarea F - Permitted uses to include uses permitted in the CC, Community
Commercial District. Conditional uses to include outdoor seating associated with
an eating and drinking place, theaters, outdoor garden sales including garden
---...'"-- --" --..,...-- centers, drive-in facilities associated with a permitted use and open display
associated with a permitted use.
0 Subarea FI - Permitted uses to include eating and drinking places. Conditional
.. uses to include outdoor seating associated with a restaurant and drive-in facilities
associated with a permitted use.
0 Subarea F2 - Permitted uses to include uses permitted in the SO, Suburban Office
District.
- Subarea F3 - Permitted uses to include administrative, business and professional
- ---. 0
-----,-- offices as defined in CC, Community Commercial District, veterinarian offices
)
'-.,j
-~-,-"
_.~. ~~-,-'""
-Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - May 19, 1994
Page 9
and eating and drinking places. Conditional uses to include drive-in facilities
,-,
-- - ~-"-' '-- associated with a permitted use.
o .... ,.c~~. The center will be framed by a three-foot evergreen hedge with three-foot stone pilasters
spaced 60 feet apart. Street trees are proposed to be planted 60 feet on center within the
right-of-way, which is a reduction from the current development text, which states street
trees are to be planted every 50 feet. Staff can support this modification with the
'___ applicant's agreement to plant large street trees, as defined in Appendix E, Group A of
r- --- the Planning and Zoning Code.
.-- 0-- The pavement setback has been proposed to be reduced from 35 feet to 30 feet and the
building setback has been proposed to be reduced from 75 feet to 50 feet. No
'.... . justification for this reduction has been put forth by the applicant.
..'.._-'- --
0 The center will be oriented to the west, which is emphasizing the intersection of
Perimeter Loop and Avery Roads over Perimeter Drive and Avery Road. This change
necessitates a traffic study.
0 Phasing is not addressed in the text.
() : The front elevation of the retail center has changed dramatically since the last review.
Staff supports the current proposed front elevations and believes that it reflects the level
of quality and architectural statement considered crucial for this site. The applicant is
proposing an English architectural theme, with the facade well-articulated into smaller
units. Individual storefront facades are presented in three basic styles, with varying
architectural styling and rooflines. This approach breaks the center's facade into smaller
units. However, the applicant has not indicated the slope of the roof and its elements.
A detail of the canvas treatments on individual facades should also be submitted.
0 Front elevation exterior materials are proposed to include brick veneer, stone veneer,
.. -- stucco, wood shake roofing and fabric awnings. The rear elevation exterior material is
proposed to be stucco. Staff recommends enhancing those portions of the rear elevation
that are exposed to public view with repetitive treatments that further break the long
facade. These treatments might include brick or stone veneer. The rear roofs are not
depicted in submitted drawings, relative to materials and treatment. Staff recommends
that rear roofs be compatible to the front roof, due to their visibility from adjoining
locations.
"", O' .~ The front and rear elevations and service areas of the 8,400 and 12,600 square-foot retail
, .; ~ structures are not illustrated, and screening is not indicated along each structure's rear
-'- -'-~~'elevation. Staff is concerned that these rear elevations, which are clearly visible to .- .. -
'.' traffic entering the northern entrance, coupled with the abutting service drive, will
present an undesirable entry to the center. The applicant should provide a detailed
solution to the design and functional issues.
__ 0-- The rear elevations of the retail center and flex/office structure, as viewed from the
south, appear to present another undesirable entry and view into the center. The
.- .... applicant should provide a screening solution.
0 ..~. The pedestrian space is a crucial component in the retail center, providing areas for
.. public interaction and softening of a traditional retail environment. The applicant is
providing three major types of pedestrian space (sidewalks, grocery store plaza and
secondary plaza). Landscape plans for each area are necessary for Staff review and
.: _ ". approval.
"'''~'
-- -~- ---
- ~'--,- -"'--- - -..----,---.-,
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - May 19, 1994
Page 10
0 Sidewalks - Per retail center plan, sidewalks vary in depth from 10 feet to 26 feet
---
(of which 11 feet is under cover), excluding the pedestrian space outside the
-- -- grocery store entrance. In some locations the 10-foot sidewalk is covered by a
_n_._.__" ._
five-foot awning. This spacing appears appropriate, particularly given
comparative measurements (Dublin Village Center sidewalks are 15 feet deep,
'____'n_ with about 10 feet under cover in many locations; sidewalks at Mill Run retail
'-.------.- -- center in Hilliard range from 5 feet to 15 feet deep (with nine feet under cover);
___'___'_n___'.. and at Kingsdale Shopping Center, sidewalks were 17 feet deep).
0 Grocery Store Pedestrian Plaza - The pedestrian plaza proposed outside the ,~
grocery store extends about 52 feet from the front facade, which includes a 30- ,
. - ...- foot recessed entry. For comparison purposes, the pedestrian space in front of ....
- '------. -. Michael's retail store at Dublin Village Center is 38 feet by 52 feet and the
pedestrian space in front of the AMC Theater at Dublin Village Center is about
96 feet in depth.
0 Secondary Pedestrian Spaces - Secondary pedestrian spaces are proposed at each
end of the retail center. - Staff- continues to support these spaces as excellent
additions to the pedestrian environment. These would be appropriate spaces for
outdoor seating associated with restaurants.
0- A site plan with landscaping and typical street furniture should be provided for a typical
-.
pedestrian sidewalk and for the grocery store pedestrian space. Staff does not
recommend outside storage in the pedestrian space, including grocery carts and retail
goods, unless a conditional use permit has been approved by the Planning Commission.
The development text is recommended to be revised to incorporate this provision, which
nunn.. - has been applied to Dublin Village Center.
-- - on----- A border of evergreen hedges is proposed along the retail center's pedestrian space,
further defining that area and separating pedestrian space from the parking lot. Staff
strongly encourages enhancing this feature of the pedestrian experience within the center.
.'.;. - ; , Staff recommends incorporating a row of street trees along the pedestrian sidewalk. Also,
-. --
-pedestrian scale light fIXtures (10 to 14 feet in height) should be considered to provide
- -, : a pleasing, and more marketable, commercial environment during night time hours. A ~
-' -", landscape detail for the hedges and street' trees should be provided for Staff and .)
Commission review and approval.
, :_ O}~-o:.The flex-office structure has not changed since the previous submittal. The applicant
~
-. --::. _c- -.,~:-.:,-, should submit architectural elevations (at the minimum schematics), phasing plan, .._, -- - -,-, -
"-;~' ,: temporary screening plans for the retail center and a revised development text to
correspond with this information.
0 Signage will require further definition. When the Perimeter Mall was approved, a sign
--------- -- package of identical signs for the mall and all outparcels was also approved. Generally
_,U ,.,__ _.~ by Code, ground signs are limited to 50 square feet per face, with a limit of two faces
, -,.- per sign. Maximum overall height for ground signs within Perimeter Center is 8 feet
- - above the top of the adjacent curb. Ground signs are to be rectangular in shape and to
-- -- follow general design guidelines incorporated into the development text. In addition, the
current text provides for one project identification sign located adjacent to SR 161, with
- ~,.,--- -- a maximum area of 300 square feet per sign face (with no more than two faces) and a
.. ~_._>---
-- ~;,;~: ~:.:.:... maximum height of 20 feet as measured from the SR 161 top-of-pavement. Relative to
-
-- . -------->
'.-..--"/
.,,- _,_u____._,_,_
._.-..~
, Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - May 19, 1994
Page 11
the revised development text, the level of detail is not as exact as the current text, as per
the following:
0 Main Identification Signs for Retail Center - The text proposes that main
identification signs for the retail center will be located at Perimeter Drive and
Perimeter Loop Road (no quantity is stated). The proposed dimensions of main
identification signs are 300 square feet of total sign face per sign on a four sided
sign. The area of the sign base shall not exceed the area of the sign face. The
proposed maximum overall height of each sign is 25 feet above the adjacent street
-r --,--, curb. In the opinion of Staff, these signs do not enhance the architectural ----
statement of the retail center. Both signs should be reduced to only two sides,
~ and otherwise comply with Code.
0 - - US 33 Sign - The text does not address another main site identification sign at US
33~ Staff opposes the provision of all three main identification signs, and
recommends deleting the US 33 sign from the current development text.
0 Grocery Store Signage - As depicted on the elevations, but not discussed in the
development text, a 336 square-foot wall sign, which includes a logo is proposed.
The wall sign exceeds height, area and logo requirements, and the wording "Big
Bear" is shown on the four-sided primary signs.
0 Retail Center Sign Package - The sign package for the retail center and for all
individual store fronts should be presented as a unified approach. A series of
complimentary treatments are recommended that enhance and support the center's
architecture. Each package should be comprised of a uniform sign band
(background), and uniform lettering relative to size, type and colors. The three
additional retail structures should also meet the sign package requirements of the
retail center.
0 Flex-Office Structure - A sign package for the flex-office structure was not
submitted. However, the treatment should provide a standard sign band
(background) and limitations on the size, type and color of lettering.
0 - Additional Signage - Site identification signage standards for all other parcels in
,"" Subarea F and E has not been addressed. The applicant has discussed revising
the existing outparcel signs, which were designed to coordinate with the mall.
~ - -. . - . Staff supports discussing potential modifications and recommends maintaining the
- 50 square-foot limit per sign face and encourages new design and materials.
~ __n-:- ~ - 0 ---''0 A traffic signal needs to be installed at the Perimeter Loop and A very Road intersection
- -~-_.-. -
'-- .-
-. to support this center. A traffic study should be prepared by the developer addressing
the sequence of signals from Post Road to Shier-Rings Road, due to the projected traffic
flow resulting from the retail center. The study must also consider intersection geometry
- at Perimeter Loop Road, striping and the traffic island. Recommended improvements
-
_. ~--_.
should be installed by the developer.
0 The main entrance to the retail center on Perimeter Loop Road should meet the alignment
requirements of the development text. The text requires aligning intersecting drives if
a minimum l00-foot off set cannot be met. For the applicant to retain the entrance in
the current location, the closest service station drive (on the southwest side of Perimeter
Loop Road) may require relocation further east.
, 0 A detailed landscape plan of the entrance feature at Perimeter Loop Road should be
i submitted for Staff and Commission review and approval. Likewise, a site plan of the
'-.~.-/
....'-
-
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - May 19, 1994
Page 12
- pedestrian plaza at the grocery store entrance should also be submitted for review.
Bollard lighting should be provided along the curb of the plaza to protect pedestrians.
In addition, the traffic aisle in front of the plaza should be 36 feet in width to permit two
lanes of traffic and one lane for loading and unloading. Pavers that complement the
center's architecture should be utilized in this area (and at the Perimeter Loop Road
entry) to enhance both the aesthetics of the center and safety of the customers.
0 The applicant has not addressed public utilities serving the site. Conceptual drawings for
water, sanitary sewer and stormwater should be submitted with these documents for
- ~-_.- review and comment by Staff and the Commission. Utilities presently exist on site, but .~
are expected to require relocation to accommodate this change in site plan and building ,
I
pad location. ..,
0--- The development text requires a great deal of rewriting to meet code requirements.
0 The developer should install "no parking" signs along Mercedes Drive to ensure
unobstructed traffic flow in the service drive to this development.
STAFF RECOl\1MEl\'DATION:
Staff recommends disapproval of the applicant's request for rezoning of 33.393 acres at
Perimeter Center to permit a retail center, two commercial outparcels and flex-office structure.
The applicant has made very significant progress in addressing the site plan and architectural
goals of this site. Staff strongly supports the progress to date, but cannot recommend positive
action on the application until several issues relative to the Composite Plan and development text
have been addressed. While the applicant has stressed the importance of obtaining zoning for
the retail center portion of the project, the importance of comprehensively addressing Perimeter
Center should be addressed at this stage.
Remaining Deficiencies:
1) Subarea F3 should be created for existing uses at the eastern portion of the subarea
(credit union, veterinarian and restaurant) and the text and Composite Plan should be
revised to address this subarea and its related development standards. ~
2) The development text should be revised to address the following issues: -J
-' a. Separate sections should be prepared for each subarea and a fourth subarea (F3)
should be included in the text.
- --- b. The gross square footage of the retail center must be clarified. . ,-----'.
c. Permitted uses and conditional uses should be modified based on the above
considerations, for each subarea.
d. The setback reduction proposed for Perimeter Drive should be justified.
e. A maximum lot coverage of 70 percent (per code) should be incorporated into the
text.
f. Circulation standards regarding curbcuts should be revised to include City
Engineer approval of any final configurations.
g. Outdoor storage of materials, supplies, etc. "except for a garden center which
may be free-standing or part of a larger retail operation" should be deleted from
Storage and Equipment subsections. These should be regulated as Conditional
Uses.
, ~ -.......-.
. --- ------
.-
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - May 19, 1994
Page 13
h. The location of the three-foot continuous hedge should be clarified to include all
roadways (public and private) and the proposed planting plan (subject to Staff
approval). Street trees should be large trees from Appendix E, Group A.
i. Signage should be revised based upon the above considerations, and a full signage
package should be submitted. Detailed standards comparable to the approved text
should be incorporated into the proposed amended text, such as illumination,
design, materials, etc. Design illustrations are strongly encouraged. Any
-- -- . - variations from the approved text or standard Code provisions should be justified
~ ..-.----------- by the applicant.
~ j. The text should be revised to address all additional items discussed herein.
3) Landscape plans should be submitted for Staff review and approval of the temporary
.___h_ --.- screening of the rear elevation of the retail center, pedestrian plaza at the grocery store
entrance, secondary pedestrian space at the ends of the retail center, entrances at
Perimeter Loop Road and Perimeter Drive, typical section of the three-foot hedge and
stone pilaster treatment, screening of the rear elevations of the 8.4 K and 12.6 K
structures and the rear of the flex/office and retail center structures, and typical sidewalk
section at the retail center.
4) Architectural elevations should be submitted for the rear elevation of the retail center
showing revisions that break-up the facade where it is most visible to the public,
conceptual elevations for all sides of the three retail structures associated with the center
(8.4 K, 12.6 K and 25 K) showing compatibility with the retail center, elevations for the
flex/office structure showing compatibility with the retail center, and conceptual
elevations for the two restaurant outparcels.
5) Plans should be submitted to provide for the longstanding deficiencies in the overall
development to be completed. These include the bikepath on Perimeter Drive and the
Avery Road and SR_161 buffering.
6) Traffic issues, including submission of a traffic study acceptable to the City Engineer,
need to be adequately addressed. The safety of the central entry on Perimeter Loop and
successful resolution of traffic impact and circulation are needed.
.~
Bases:
... 1) , The technical requirements of the Composite Plan have not been satisfied under the
requirements of Section 1181. 09.
- __~-=- 2),-:~ The traffic safety and adequacy of the circulation system cannot be assured as required
-- -......
----,--- _.-
by Section 1181. 09.
3) Elements such as signage, landscaping, screening, phasing, pedestrian spaces, strategic
views, entry features, rear elevations, secondary roadways, treatment of dumpster and
____~ice areas, etc. have far greater potential for negative impact in a "strip" form of
retail than an enclosed mall. The qu~ty assurances of a mall concept have yet to be
-.adapted for this revised form of Perimeter Center.
'.--::
-
-
-
-: i
- "..../
. . ---
-.
-
~.... cou.'\Gtl'S }U.R'l"S\t.U JU)
" ~..-..- ~~ 5-- 'C'
\ " ~ .w
\\ ,\ ..., .....
~ taNGS la)
...
..
j lanlo J'Lia SOtnl
~ - - ".. ,.' .. .... ..
i
I
Ill,)( - SSDJl! I
\
AVI ~
i
--
i
I
,
!
I
.' COEPOBA.Tl c:c.~ I
.,:
.'~ _ PB
.
p
Jm:GS RD
\
. c
..-.... II: !
:-_'~
4; . .~: "'. .~
-- '
....:-
:..;/;.". . .
.:"A ... COLUI'
,.J::.~,*. ...
~{~::'- .'. .~~; .~: ",,"'.
"
0" .. .'~~~~
',- ,,; -"
-....
~..:.~.....i: ~"'..~
.~..- .... I COlUKBUS
~.. . .-. I
........
;;jo.j.:-..
'1 rJ
_A . .;'" ... ..--_..
...,_.. ",,""-l~_,~ .....- ,
. '.;....
~ - .-- ~~~Xi. I VASHINGTOt-l '
",,<-U''-lr:.,.nN ~,,::~.{;..;;~., TV? ~
".~~"";'-;.'. . -. -. :;::;-\
--
~--
z
,0
-
z I
PUD
.J
\
R\ \ s:>
\ L1
R peo ~c\ \
\
~- -- ~ - \
\
SITE \
-'
.
\
-,
- \ R
, ~
\
---.--~ ~
-
\ p..
~
,"""
\
'- \
\ -----
\
\
\
R-'~6
, .,
'~\
,
\
\ ----
\
...-~--
--
- ~_'\a "-
, r---- \ ~
\ \
.-J -
~ L---- ----, .Kezomng APPUca on- -~~..._'
,
\- Z93-005
, Perimeter Center MaIl rJ'
\ \--
r.---- \ P Subarea., F -.
\ A~
.
'.
~
. i
--. I
I '.
1 ....
.1 .'
j ~~.
. t.~
. :~:
.,
.,.
;....
- ;. .("
D '~.,
" . : ;.
.. . . . : " ~
", .: " ~
. I .~:
.....
..
~'\....
;...
>.
f
::t
:.{
);.
.~.
;; "
.;...
..
"
. :~:
~
i
;~
".
.~
(
i
:
0
C
OJ
r
-
Z
""'-
-0
- 0
--.-,-.- .. ,
en
-i
iE7] :0
~ 0
)>
0
en
-i
C
CD 0
~
z -<
CD
-= CD '
Co. "
0 ~
" ~(/) !
.,...;...-t( c .
~1'1 rr ;:
..r > ~
!i'" ~
(II. 8,
5.' QJ . ,- ..-
.31 ~ ~ tt
~ ~ ~ .-
: :J i ~ . I
~ ;...... : !!
..-
'"""- -- . -",~,,,,,
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - May 19, 1994
. Pa 7
and Co mission with regard to an endorsem nt of the higher density. There are more options
available modify a lower density product, b ger setbacks, greenspace, site planning, etc.
.. A trade-off tween a more expensive architec re, by breaking up the buildings, changing
rooflines, etc. some of the materials is being r iewed. The applicant's proposed building
is brick and wood 'ding. Will the Commission consi r partial vinyl siding as one of the trade-
offs for improved ar 'tecture?
u_Mr. Fishman was willing t consider a trade-off of materials, ut mounding, heavy landscaping,
r _ ots of water or lots of dorm , etc. as was the case with Ash on Apartments would be good
pIes of creative architectu
"
-0. Mr. uh said that if the developer ted this density, he needs to b more creative and show -' ._-,-
the Com . ssion how to make this densi attractive. A trade-off of mate . als could be accepted.
If that cann t be done, the Commission w have to require more green sp . If the developer
desires this d sity, he needs to show a bett roposal.
Mr. Sutphen said e outparcels needed to be d mented. Mr. Ferrara said tli
totally integrated. Sutphen said the drive-throu issue must to be resolved.
Mr. Sutphen did not want see any large masses of aspli t parking. It should meet Du
Code. Mr. Rauh said that if parking seems to be needed, ere should be less units allow
the greenspace requirement to 8 met.
~ ---
2. Rezoning Application Z93-005 - Amended Composite Plan and Development Text -
Perimeter Center Mall - Subarea F
-
Vince Pasidero presented this case. This rezoning application includes revisions to the site
plan, architecture and development text for Subarea F in Perimeter Center under the Planned
Commerce District. The site is 34 acres to include a 120,000 square foot unenclosed retail
.c: center, including a 72,000 square foot grocery store, 46,000 square feet of additional retail space
.- . in three detached structures, two commercial/restaurant outparcels totalling 3.5 acres and a
100,000 square-foot flex-office structure.
- --.-- .. ----_..,-
Mr. Papsidero said the applicant has spent a great deal of effort on the architectural approach
to this center. Staff feels the applicant has responded to the Commission's concerns. However,
there are still a number of issues regarding the development text. Under the PCD, the
composite plan and the development text together serve as the actual zoning documents for the
--- pioject. The development text must be clear and accurate in response to the Code requirements.
Mr. Papsidero said Staff recommended an informal review at this stage, but the applicant is
requesting formal action at this hearing. Given this, Staff recommends disapproval of this
: rezoning application as submitted. Mr. Papsidero said that the applicant had been notified in
.writing as to the revisions needed in the development text. The text remains incomplete.
.,_'U ,_
--, .---
- -,--._'.,
- . .
-.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - May 19, 1994
Page 8
Mr. Papsidero said a pond/fountain feature was included on the new plan as well as a three-foot
evergreen hedge around the project site with stone pilasters and street trees. Staff felt the
architecture clearly responded to the goals of the Commission to create a unique pedestrian
environment with much variety in architecture. The pedestrian surface is a mixture of paver and
concrete. He said signage for the existing A very Road outparcels and other small users in the
development was a concern. The existing sign package did not communicate well. The
applicant is proposing anew, clearer design. Staff supports this revision to the text.
Mr. Papsidero said the Staff letter to the applicant lists ten issues not yet addressed in the May _.~
18 text. They deal with permitting conditional uses by subareas, addressing subarea F4 which ..J
is already developed. This is a rezoning all of Subarea F. Further details are needed on
. " landscaping and architecture in the text to guarantee the quality level for the whole subarea, not
just the retail center, and the level of landscaping for all pedestrian and other areas.
Mr. Papsidero said project signage was unresolved. The current text permits a 300 square foot
sign for all of Perimeter Center along US 33/ R 161 at old Wilcox Road. In addition, the
- revised text proposes two 300 square foot pylon signs for the retail center. Staff supports
, signage which is designed for the site and which is more consistent with the Code.
Staff is recommending disapproval, Mr. Papsidero said. Under the PCD, there are nine distinct
areas to be met, and currently this project does not meet five of those. Staff believes the issues
could be resolved in the text, but revisions have not been submitted in a timely manner and
could not be reviewed for this meeting. Respectfully, Staff recommends disapproval.
_ Mr. Sutphen said he felt it is unfair to the Commission hear this application now as the
,information was just received at the meeting. The issue was too important.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked for Code citations for the bases of approval in a PCD. Mr.
Papsidero cited them.
. .,. Mr~ Kranstuber did not understand the criteria; the Code is too general. Mr. Kranstuber said ~
, ' the big picture was that whether it is a project wanted for this community. If so, it should be .J'
approved at this meeting.
- "'-'-~'-- --
Mr. Papsidero said Staff did want this as a project for the community.
Mr. Kranstuber said procrastination caused the City to lose the mall proposal due to the sewer
ban in 1990, that he expected Staff to work these issues out with the developer. If tabled and
--'the'project is lost~ no service is done for the Community.
Mr. Rauh said it seemed that Staff and the developer had been working the issues out but all of
them were not complete. He said it did look attractive.
Mr. Sutphen said he wanted to vote in favor of this rezoning, but since all issues had not been
resolved, he could not. He was frustrated with both the Staff and the developer. He felt Staff
.-' did a good job, and he put the burden on the developer.
.-
-
. t "."
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - May 19, 1994
Page 9
Frank Kass, of Continental Real Estate Interests/Park Development Company, said Staff and the
developer had never worked better or longer on any of his other projects over the last ten years.
He recognized the problems involved in the change in the project for the community. He
thought the Commission wanted a "knock the lights out" center, and so they have spent six
weeks on the aesthetics of the presentation, and they revised the text too late. Mr. Kass said
the problem with the process was that no one trusted developers in this community. He
requested approval of the rezoning with Staff to work out the details. Among the details was
egress and ingress and alignment with the BP driveway one way or another. He thought this
-,... could be worked out with Staff and that all ten of the issues were similar in nature.
....... Mr. Kass said they were willing to put in the deed restrictions that all the buildings will look
like the center shown (outlots, etc.). He said he did not want to lose Big Bear because of
_- delays. He asked for a chance to work it out with Staff. Mr. Sutphen said Council would like
to see this project complete without numerous details to be resolved by them.
Ben Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, said that there was a disagreement between them and
Staff. He said 80 percent of what was included in Staffs letter had been addressed in the text
delivered this afternoon. He gave a brief history of the Perimeter Mall dating back to 1988.
He said $5M was spent to develop the plan, to install the roads and utilities. Along with the
Riverside Hospital, the previous developer of this site Planned Communities vastly improved
A very Road to the bridge. Mr. Hale said the deal with the City was for certain developer
installed improvements. If other things were needed such as other traffic signals, the City would
take care of them. He said a traffic study was requested to see if another light at Perimeter
Loop Road were necessary. The road improvement money has been spent already.
Mr. Hale said when the. sewer ban hit, the developer had already spent ~SM on infrastructure.
When they lost the loan to build the center, and the deal fell apart. The McKitrick's asked
Frank Kass to develop this sensitive area for them.
r Mr. Kranstuber asked if the text of only subarea F were being amended. Mr. Hale said yes.
Mr. Hale said Staff had not yet had sufficient time to review the latest amendments to the text.
..... The issue of the seventy percent lot coverage still remained, but everything else was resolved.
- .__ Mr. Papsidero said signage issues and text issues concerning conditional uses were unresolved.
::..... '~-".
Mr. Fishman asked how this could be approved if these critical issues were unresolved.
Mr. Hale said the center identification sign and the size of those signs were unresolved.
-
Mr. Fishman asked if Staff agreed with the latest text received. Mr. Papsidero said no, not
completely, and the same is true for the site plan. Mr. Fishman did not know how it could be
approved without resolution of the issues.
Mr. Kranstuber said they were technical issues except for the sign issue.
~
--
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - May 19, 1994
Page 10
Mr. Hale said on the architectural side, feedback was very important to them. They would try
to resolve the thousand of minor issues in this complex project if the big picture was okay.
Mr. Kass felt signage should not be an issue at this time. They would give up a major sign on
Rt. 161, but they wanted to make sure that they know what they are getting.
Joe Sullivan, of Sullivan, Gray, Bruck Architects, said Staff had given good input and worked
~-=-~~'Yell with them. He said it would be more than strip center. Mr. Sullivan said in the site plan
- _~_U1~ facade was broken down into varying depths of shops, the width of the walk was introduced ~
without a canopy, in some places awnings were placed in lieu of the canopy, pitched roofs and
more pedestrian scaled elements were included. Scored concrete and pavers were included in ..."
- the revised plan and a hedgerow along the outside edge so that it tends to feel more like a street
rather than a parking lot. They tried to capture the old "small town" feel in the design. Mr.
Sullivan said buildings were separated rather than having everything continuous._ He said the
large entry feature included three fountains with a hedge and stone pilaster detail that unified the
entire site and gave an architectural element to screen the parking.
. Mr. Sutphen asked if the flag poles shown on the rendering were planned. Mr. Sullivan said
they would develop as part of the detail. He said benches would be along the pedestrian walk
area and streetlamps. Signage will be of the old style with gold letters on a dark painted
background. Gooseneck light fixtures will shine on them to lend a much richer image. Rather
than a simple aluminum storefront, they have committed to detail with raised panels, a character
found on a more historic style, Williamsburg kind of storefront.
Mr. Sullivan felt the Big Bear Store signage proposed was appropriate for the scale of the
building.
- Mr. Sullivan said if approval were granted, more attention could be taken to develop this idea.
. He said the other issues could be addressed and worked out later.
.. - Ralph Halloran, a Post Road resident, congratulated them on the plan. He asked for details on ~
.. the stormwater detention. He said the two lakes on the property were had overflowed even J
- before the apartments were built. They were too small. .Mr. Halloran said another detention
~
- u _ pond was needed on this property. Staff promised several years ago to make the two existing
- ..__m
,.. ponds either bigger or construct another pond. He said pieces cannot continue to be approved
-
without dealing with the stormwater as required in the Code.
- Mr. Halloran suggested that a 28 foot piece of property, north of Post Road at the end of Wilcox
--
- -- Road, owned by the City, would make a good bikepath in front of the development to join with
- -- the bike path along Indian Run Park.
-
Randy Bowman said Margarita's Restaurant and Crown Eurocars, in Perimeter Center, were
=- -~ required to provide onsite detention in their parking lots. Both sites are part of the overall
. master stormwater plan for Perimeter Center as previously approved by the City. The center
.. will have onsite detention in the parking lot also. Mr. Bowman said he was comfortable with
..=.. this stormwater management plan.
-------
-
--_.._.._..~ ~,,,'-'-
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - May 19, 1994
Page 11
Bob Hughes, speaking for the Perimeter Business Association, said they were in support of the
development and would like to see it approved.
John McDonald of Crown Motor Company repeated Mr. Hughes comments and requested that
an agreement be reached at this meeting.
Jeff Dortman, Real Estate Specialist for Big Bear Stores Company, said they had been
.. Committed to the location since 1988. They will put in a state of the art supermarket. Since
r __1988 the plan for the store has changed. . The interior of the store will have a "market square" _.
where all the service departments are included in the first part of the shopping trip.
-- Tim Kelton, of Ruscilli Real Estate Services, Inc., representing the 125 undeveloped acres to
the east of Perimeter Center, said he wants the Commission to approve this rezoning.
Randy Palmer, Trustee of the Muirfield Village Civic Association, said the association supported
this development, for convenience shopping and enrichment of the tax base.
Mr. Fishman asked if the Commission could approve this application pending Staff working out
the text. Mr. Banchefsky said it had been done before on PUDs and other types of zonings.
If Staff cannot resolve issues, they can be returned to the Commission for disposition. The
Development Plans will have a much narrower scope of review similar to a fmal development
plan in a PUD. But the Commission could by agreement with the developer have those
unresolved issues brought back at that point. In other words, the Commission could expand the
scope of the development plan review. Either option is workable.
Mr. Sutphen asked for Stafrs preference. Ms. Clarke responded that this developer and his
design team had put forward a terrific effort. The power that comes to the Planning
. Commission in a PCD comes through the zoning phase of it. She has heard from many within
. the community that if not a mall, the replacement project needs to be just right. She expressed
r cOncern that all their effort was spent in the design of the building, but not enough time was
spent on the text. The text will govern this plan for many years, and it is always possible that
,
\.. -: this project might not be built for whatever reason. Under the PCD regulations, she reminded
:-:"" the Commission, their authority and discretion is limited. The Staff has reviewed the site plan
-_-::_~ and pointed out several problems. They have not been addressed. If the Commission wishes, -------
_ Staff to work on these issues and come back at the June Planning Commission meeting, or they
will only return if they are unable to come to terms.
- Mr. Fishman was concerned that the proportion of the Big Bear Store sign was planned to match
--- the size of the building. He said he would like to see the Bear deleted from the sign because
it did not match the character of the shopping center.
Mr. Hale said there were only three issues that they did not agree with Staff. The Big Bear
Store sign on their building, the two pylon signs, and the seventy percent lot coverage issues
remained unresolved at this time.
)
- ___n
-
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - May 19, 1994
Page 12
Mr. Kass said the biggest of the three issues was the seventy percent lot coverage. He said the
seventy percent should be seventy percent of the original Perimeter parcel, not a portion of it.
He said the Big Bear Store sign needed the Bear included on it. Mr. Fishman asked if Big Bear
were flexible regarding the sign. Mr. Dortman was told in 1988 that 80 per square feet was the
maximum allowed by Code. He wanted the signage to be visible from A very Road. He said
he would work with Staff on the signage issue, but they wanted to include the Bear.
Mr. Sutphen said the signage issues were similar to those in Dublin Village Center.
----,---- ._~
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the seventy percent lot coverage issue. Mr. Papsidero said
currently the maximum lot coverage requirement for commercial development in Dublin was
C:~~ seventy percent and Staff recommended that figure be applied to this development. It would
apply at a tax parcel basis based upon a building permit application.
. .. Mr. Kranstuber asked for a definition of a lot. Mr. Papsidero said it was any piece of ground
oJ} which a building permit is filed. Any of the outlots cannot seventy percent lot coverage
which is structure, parking, or any impervious surface. For instanceJor the retail center, it will
be on its own separate tax parcel and as it is developed, that piece of ground cannot have more
than seventy percent coverage in concrete and structure. Thirty percent will need to be
landscaped.
Mr. Hale said the seventy percent regulation was not in existence when this development was
first approved.
_ Mr. Kranstuber said the site was exposed from all sides and that the office hid the back side of
the mall.
- . Ms. Clarke said a reasonable thing to do would be to review the approved mall plan and see
what kind of lot coverage was enforced then.. She did not know that it was at eighty percent
now. It might be appropriate to accept something greater than seventy percent lot coverage if ~
it was previously approved.
,
..J
..:L Mitch Banchefsky said the text was an open item and suggested that a motion state that it is to
c __......:c: Q~~orked out between the applicant and Staff, and ifit cannot, the Commission would have the
- --.---
final say when it was presented again.
Mr. Fishman said even if it were worked out, he would like to see it come back to the
Commission. Ms. Clarke asked for what purpose. Mr. Fishman said he was concerned about
. -- the signage and the entrances. Ms. Clarke asked if agreement were reached with the developer
. and the Commission did not like it, did they want the right to override it. Mr. Fishman said
yes.
Mr. Fishman understood there were three conditions to be resolved. Ms. Clarke said since the
final text had not yet been reviewed, Staff did not know.
-/'
- --~--- . __, __'nO
--
~u~___",,____,,_'''~'_' ' .----~--=-'~,~~'~-~--.--
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - May 19, 1994
Page 13
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher made the motion to approve this rezoning application on the condition
that the text can be resolved between the applicant and the Staff and the signage shall come back
- for approval by the Commission. Mr. Ferrara seconded the motion.
,--~._-- --~,,'-" --- ,-,-,,-_..
~. L_
Ms. Clarke asked if the Commission wanted Issues #1-6 as follows to be resolved.
--, ....-.
1) Subarea F3 should be created for existing uses at the eastern portion of the subarea
-~-.c-.- -- (credit union, veterinarian and restaurant) and the text and Composite Plan should be
~ r .'n'_ ---------revised to address this subarea and its related development standards.
2) : The development text should be revised to address the following issues:
.... a. Separate sections should be prepared for each subarea and a fourth subarea (F3)
.______h...._ should be included in the text.
- b. The gross square footage of the retail center must be clarified.
.. "- c. Permitted uses and conditional uses should be modified based on the above
-
considerations, for each subarea.
, d. - The setback reduction proposed for Perimeter Drive should be justified.
J..'-:." , e.' A maximum lot coverage of 70 percent (per code) should be incorporated into the
text.
'. f.- Circulation standards regarding curbcuts should be revised to include City
Engineer approval of any final configurations.
g. Outdoor storage of materials, supplies, etc. "except for a garden center which
may be free-standing or part of a larger retail operation" should be deleted from
Storage and.Equipment subsections. These should be regulated as Conditional
-----,- -- Uses.
u h. The location of the three-foot continuous hedge should be clarified to include all
- -- -----
roadways (public and private) and the proposed planting plan (subject to Staff
approval). ,- Street trees - should be large trees from Appendix E, Group A.
i. Signage should be revised based upon the above considerations, and a full signage
t- ...~ : ~' :' package should be submitted.. Detailed standards comparable to the approved text
- '. should be incorporated into the proposed amended text, such as illumination,
". design, materials, etc. Design - illustrations are strongly encouraged. Any
-, .-
- . variations from the approved text or standard Code provisions should be justified
.... by the applicant.
-. -,_. ._._- j.-:.-::..i The text should be revised to address all additional items discussed herein.
. ''';;;'4_' --~---
~:: -,.- Landscape plans should be submitted for Staff review and approval of the temporary
.~ screening of the rear elevation of the retail center, pedestrian plaza at the grocery store
entrance, secondary pedestrian space at the ends of the retail center, entrances at
- Perimeter Loop Road and Perimeter Drive, typical section of the three-foot hedge and
- .--.~- - stone pilaster treatment, screening of the rear elevations of the 8.4 K and 12.6 K
.
- -- '---- structures and the rear of the flex/office and retail center structures, and typical sidewalk
<Section at the retail center.
, 4) Architectural elevations should be submitted for the rear elevation of the retail center
- - _'u ._.._ showing revisions that break-up the facade where it is most visible to the public,
conceptual elevations for all sides of the three retail structures associated with the center
--. -".---,', - (8.4 K, 12.6 K and 25 K) showing compatibility with the retail center, elevations for the
: - --."-
-
-' '- - -_...,---,-,_..
- ~---- .'.,
.- -,---..-
;
-
,,~=,
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - May 19, 1994
Page 14
flex/office structure showing compatibility with the retail center, and conceptual
elevations for the two restaurant outparcels.
5) Plans should be submitted to provide for the longstanding deficiencies in the overall
development to be completed. These include the bikepath on Perimeter Drive and the
Avery Road and SR 161 buffering.
6) Traffic issues, including submission of a traffic study acceptable to the City Engineer,
need to be adequately addressed. The safety of the central entry on Perimeter Loop and
.-.--.. successful resolution of traffic impact and circulation are needed.
--~~,- .~
Mr. Ferrara said yes.
W"
.. - Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher amended the motion to include that the Staff recommendations of #1-6
also be worked out and if they cannot be worked out between the applicant and Staff to their
satisfaction, the application will be returned to the Commission.
~. Ferrara said everything submitted was received at the beginning of the meeting was part of
the official record. Mr. Banchefsky said that was correct.
Ms. Clarke said the drawings had not been reviewed yet by Staff. She said the front elevations
showed pennants around the buildings which the Sign Code did not permit. Mr. Ferrara said
they would be addressed when the signage was reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Kranstuber said if Staff worked out something not consistent with the drawings shown, it
would be a problem.
Mr. Fishman asked about the type of shake roof planned. Mr. Sullivan said the shakes would
De of a heavy texture, not specified at this time. Samples of the material will be presented later.
Mr. Ferrara seconded the above motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr.
Rauh, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. ~
Ferrara, yes. (Approved partially, 6-0, with signage reserved)
,
~
-. ----- 3. Rezoning Application Z94-003 - 2870 Martin Road - SportMart Inc. ----'-
Ben Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, requested this application to be tabled until June 9,
1994.
. -- Mr. Rauh made the motion to table this application and Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion. The
.. . vote was as follows: Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; Ms. Chinnici-
Zuercher, yes; and Mr. Kranstuber, yes. (Tabled 5-0)
- '- -..~
-.
J
J
- -----
.-
-~----
~
~~"''',-"~,"",'"',,,~--,-"~,,.._. ',,--",...'.-" -
., RECORD OF ACTION
DUBLIN PL~~1JNG AN"]) Z01\1JNG C01\11\1JSSION
February 10, 1994
UiY (:F r!lliJ.i'\
- .1'" -- ---- ' _ ___ ._..._. _.__ u _
......
.
.The Planning and Zoning Commission took no a~tion in the application below at its regular
meeting:
10. Infonnal Discussion Z93-005 - Amended Preliminary Development Plan - Perimeter
Center ?\{all - Subarea F
Location: +31.874 acres located between Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road.
Existing Zoning: peD, Planned Commerce District (perimeter Center Plan). .
Request: Review of revisions to the text, to permit an unenclosed strip shopping center at
Perimeter Center Subarea F, PCD, Planned Commerce District under the pro\1sions of
Section 1181.09(d).
Proposed Use: Retail shopping center of 150,000 square feet in a strip design and two
commercial outparcels totaling 12.07 acres plus one commercial/restaurant outparcel of 1.65
acres.
Applicant: Muirfield Drive Partners Continental Real Estate Interests/Park Development
. Company, c/o Jeffrey L. Brown; Attorney, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, OH
43215.
REStJLT: It was the consensus of the Commission that construction of an enclosed mall would
,.,.. not be required. - . There was further consensus that a MasterPlan for Subarea F is
~ needed and that the design needs to reflect the special nature of the A very Road
"'- gateway. . AdditionallYi the design should be sensitive to, and compatible with the
- -.---- . existing Perimeter Center developments.... The Commission stressed that the
- -.. development sho)Jld be truly outstanding and reflect the community's traditionally --,,_. - ,- ---- -
high standards.. The design should not reflect a traditi.onal strip center.
STAFF CERTIDCATION
-
.-
- .----
- I / ~l/&
::- Virfj Pap~icf'erot AICP
- .. _ Semor Planner
-
- __"'n'___ _ .
=: ---,-
- - '.---.-, .~)
- - -- --~-_._,
.:. )--.-:-. _.'_._~--
,.- Rezoning Appl1catlon
Z93-00S .'
-----,-
Perimeter Center Mall
Subarea F . .
~ History
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes - February 10, 1994
Page 27
- , 6) That the method f payment for the $50,000 cont . ution toward the Cramer se er
\
extension by r olved prior to submission of the mal Plat for Section 3,
Council; and
7) That the F' al Plat be retitled "Heather Glen,
Mr. Cofti agreed to the amended conditions the Staff Report.
--- ~-----
_.,---,--- ---
Mr. tphen made the motion to accept t -----~
bove conditions. I
.~
r. Kranstuber, seconded the The vote was as folIo s: Mr. Ferrara, yes; Mr.
Peplow, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes. r. Rauh, yes; Mr. Kranstub , yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher,
yes; and Mr. Fishman, yes. Approved 7-0.)
. .
~ . 10.' Infonnal Discussion Z93-027 - Amended Preliminary Development Plan - Perimeter
Center ~fall - Subarea F
Vince Papsidero introduced this informal review of revisions to the site plan and text for Subarea
F in the Perimeter Center Planned Commercial District. No vote is being requested at this time.
He gave a brief history of the + 34 acre site. It is a very crucial commercial site that plays an
important role in the quality and character of Dublin. Mr. Papsidero said the site was zoned in
1989 to include a 250,000 square foot enclosed mall that included a 60,000 square foot grocery
store, exterior parking, etc. Construction was delayed initially because of the sewer connection
ban, and shortly thereafter the developer lost the financing.
., Mr. Papsidero said the applicant now proposes a 150,000 square foot retail center with a 72,000
. square foot Big Bear grocery store, a large parking lot and two restaurant sites. No other
commercial uses are designated. Two office buildings are being proposed between this center ~
-and the credit union, veterinarian ~d Margarita~s Restaurant. - He said the structure is oriented .J
:.. to the west, toward Avery Road and ig'nores Perimeter Drive., Mr., Papsidero showed an
elevation of the exterior architecture of Perimeter Mall, as previously approved by the -' ..--,...-
_ Commission and the proposed shopping centeruelevation which features brick and a green --------
- ....._-
standing seam roof.
Mr. Papsidero said the site is important from commercial, visual and aesthetic standpoints. Staff
feels this proposal reflects current market trends but serves a different function than the original ,---'._---'-_.
center as approved. Mr. Papsidero said the site had potential and adequate land for a larger
retail center than is proposed. The text does not include standards or elevations for review.
Mr. Papsidero said four letters h~d been received in support of the proposal from adjacent -,-.....
property owners: ,Bank One, State Savings, Crown Eurocars and Dublin Retirement Village.
Mr. Fishman said he was bothered because no :Master Plan was submitted. He felt the original ,,--,_... -
high standards should remain intact even if the development is changed. He said that before he --. .--- .-
.u_____. _ __
'''-- voted on any minor change in the developer's concept, he wanted to see a complete Master Plan ---..-,.-J.", -
which shows exactly how the entire site would be developed. --
Rezonmg ApplicatlOn
Z93-00S ..,_,__n__'_
Perimeter Center Mall
Subarea: F
Hi~torv .~
- ." , '''~' ~~ ,","',~,..;o..,'..'_~.,_,_" "..,.-_..--"',_..'--~,~-~---..
,Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
:Meeting Minutes - February 10, 1994
Page 28
Mr. Papsidero said the request is generally a reasonable one. It was important to demonstrate
the inter-relationship of all the adjacent properties. This would be consistent with the original
plan for a single development with a unified architectural palette, and integration of uses. Since
it is such a dramatic change, he said a detailed plan was needed.
Harrison Smith, representing Continental Real Estate and John McKitrick, said $5.5 million in
infrastructure was invested in this site five years ago. He recognized this area as a Dublin
"",... landmark and said many local residents want service on this side of town. He said he could not
, -Hproduce the "whole" picture. The first stage will be presented with real projects only.
Mr. Fishman said it would have to be the most beautiful center in the state because the original
~ concept was the most beautiful mall in Ohio. Other neighbors in the development (1\1ercedes,
the banks, and the veterinary center) went to great lengths to match the mall and its quality.
. .
J\1r. Smith said they would do all they could.
Frank Kass of Continental Real Estate, said he would not promise the most beautiful center in
Ohio, but they will do a very beautiful center that will be a nice entryway feature. The type of
mall as originally zoned has been a financial failure across the country. He said Worthington
Square is such an example. He said City Center upgraded forever the previous mall image.
Mr. Kass said this center will be similar to that at Frantz and SR 161 (Dublin Plaza) but built
up to standards for the year 2000. The center will not look like a mall, cannot be a mall. He
built a similar center in Centerville, Ohio. The building will be brick on all sides with great
height. Its materials will convey a residential character. There will not be one specific design.
It will be a community center, not a mall. He said Cookers and the Pacific Club have discussed
sites here. Tuttle Crossing Mall 'will be only 2 miles away and large anchor stores will go there.
Mr. Kass said if he is going to be held to unreasonable standards for a strip center, because of
",.. the five year history, he preferred to withdraw early rather than discussing for several years.
, Mr. Kranstuber said he did not believe the City, would hold Mr. Kass to a mall just because it
...
was approved that way five years ago. The economic argument was acceptable to him. He said
.- . ~!1~ was concerned about the exposed site and the'dumpsters being visible. Mr. Kass said
screening will be done. He felt the entry view coming off A very Road was most important.
Mr. Fishman did not like the mass of blad.10p in front of the Big Bear. Mr. Kass said this
parking lot is smaller than the original mall. He said they will meet all landscape requirements.
Mr. Fishman asked if a lake and bridge 'similar to that in Centerville, Ohio could be built at this
site. Mr. Kass said if there was water there, they would.
Mr. Kranstuber s~id the City was looking for something unique for visitors to see.
Mr. Sutphen asked if brick like on the Perimeter Apartments would be used. Mr. Kass said
Staff had told him to use brick.
t .. ...
--Y . -
Rezoning Application
Z93-005
Perimeter Center Mall .
Subarea F
-- History
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes - February 10, 1994
Page 29
" Joe Sullivan, of Sullivan, Gray, and Bruck Architects, Inc., said the brick had not yet been
i chosen, but it would be compatible with the existing neighbors. He felt the strip center would
be better than a mall aesthetically. The character will be refined after feedback.
Mr. Fishman said Dublin residents expected something extraordinary at this site. He did not
want to see a Big Bear store that looks like all the others. There was considerable discussion
and general consensus that something very special, unique, with very high design was needed.
- Mr. Smith said the original rezoning only stressed the aesthetic emphasis on A very Road. ,....
Mr. Kass invited the Commission to visit the CentervilIe site and observe its features. Mr. Kass .....,'"
'said they would investigate an entry feature. Buildings could match those previously built.
Mr. Peplow suggested softening the mass of parking with.1~dscaping.
Bob Hughes, of Ohio Central Credit Union, wanted the developer's plan for the entire site. He
said the entrance had been shifted off of Perimeter to Perimeter Loop, a lesser street.
Sherrie Ridenour, of Perimeter Veterinary Hospital, said the original plan had blacktop all
around, and the new plan does show cross access. She felt it changes the drive-by value of her
property. She does not want to see apartments across from her hospital.
Mr. Kass said that wrapping the buiIdfngs around is not realistic in the marketplace. The retail
,marketability faces west; the marketability facing west and facing east is now known. Perhaps
a large user will want it. He believes it will be offices.
Mr. Kass felt a large drugstore in this location would be helpful.
Mr. Fishman thanked Mr. Kass for his presentation. ...,
.,)
11. Discussion - C e Re,'ision of Chapter 1189 - S.gns
_. ----~-- - ---. --
. ..:- Bobbie Clarke uggested a subcommittee of the om mission to work with Staff 0 resolve
several code . sues remaining on the proposed r 'ision of the sign ordinance. f hopes to
present it t City Council for adoption within days. Ms. Clarke said the re sed sign code
was not ore lenient or strict, just much cl er and deals with several unad essed issues.
., . Mr. S hen and Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher lunteered to be on the subcom ttee. Ms. Clarke
.
-
sugg ted Becky Saylor, with six year experience on the Board of ing Appeals, as an
ad tion to the subcommittee. [Ms. S 'lor later declined and Thomas cCash of the Board of
ning Appeals accepted.]
.
--
-- The meeting adjourned at 12:45 a.m.
. Respectively submitted,
-- ~~Jet.= Division s~
.
=' <--~) .Kezonmg Appl1canon
Z93-005
- _.' ..,. ..,. ,.
- -.'''--- Perimeter Center Mall
Subarea F
History --
,=--....__'"'._'m'~ ......~ ~.. ~^'"'~~ "'-~~~~~~~~'."~-- ""-''''.~~--''''--~'~--~~,
- .-.-
C I T Y 0 F 0 U 8 L I N
Department of Planning & Development
,
-'- ----.
_.-- -
- .r ----.
.,...
_:RECORD OF ACTION
. DUBLIN PLAh~ING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVE~~ER 8, 1991
The Planning and Zoning commission.took.-tne following action in the
- rezoning application below - at: its:: regular. meeting:
3. Rezoning. Application _ c Z91-011,'-. Revised " composite Plan,
Perimeter Center
Location: 31.9 acres' located" on the south side of Perimeter
Drive and to the north of Perimeter Loop Road, approximately
450 feet east of Avery Road.
Existina zonina: PCD, Planned Commerce District. Perimeter
Center plan, Subarea F.
Reauest: PCD, Planned Commerce District. Revision of adopted
Composite Plan for Perimeter Center by changes to text
------ - entitled "Perimeter Center Subarea Standards" for Subarea F,
Retail Center.
prot>osed Use: Retail development without enclosed mall.
Atlt>licant: . PC/McKitrick.. Limited' Partnership, c/o Jack
. Brickner,' Planned Communities,. Inc.,~ 110 Northwoods Boulevard, :
suite B, Worthington, Ohio 43235. ..
f"!'"
. MOTION: To table this . application,~-; and ',:. this .... includes. the
w applicant's consent toi. "'Tai ve. the~ 60-day .time limit.
- -- VOTE :- 6-0
~
- - - .----.--..--.
- RESULT: This application was tabled.
- -~--_.
- ~--_.._-
_. ~--_.~-
Director
..
--
---
-_._- -------.-- ~. .
.. KezoIlJ.IigAppncation
_.--
-~-_.-
. - ----- Z93-00S - -
..- ,.
Perimeter Center Mall
Subarea, F.' - .- . ~ ~ .. -----
. History .
.---- 674.761.65;,:;' . . .- .
5137 Post Rd. Suite "02 Dublin, Ohio .(3017 FAX 761.6566
---
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting ~inutes - November 7, 1991 .
Page 10
3) The appl' ant shall dedicate right-of-w along Cosgray Road (40'
from c terline) consistent with the pected update of the
Circul tion Element of the Commu . y Plan;
4) The Inal alignment of the street e tension to the east or sou
d_ ---_._---~- etermined by the City Engin er; ~
be
5) ere the text does not addre s specific alternate standa s,the
tandards in the Code shall a ply; '4,_..
6) Figure 4, Landscape Plan, s all be corrected to indicat Street Tree
Program and Perimeter Bu er graphics properly;
The pedestrian pathway ystem shall be subject to
approval of City Counc' ; and
Road right-of-way an setbacks are to be worke out with staff.
Mr Fishman seconded the mot' n: The vote was as folio s: Mr. Campbell, yes;
. Geese, yes; Ms. Stillwell, es; Mr. Leffler, yes; Mr. Ishman, yes; and Mr.
ranstuber, yes. (Approved -0.)
3. Rezoning Application Z91-011 - Revised Composite Plan - Perimeter Center
-..
-
Mr. Bowman said the Commission has two deliberations. The applicant will have
to convince the Planning Commission that an enclosed mall is not economically
_.- . feasible and that the alternative is of equal quality and meets architectural and site
. .: design requifements that the mall addressed~' Staff suggests tabling this issue to
improve the architectural design. . .
~
<-. Mr~ Mack said the engineering issues are the same for the. mall or. the strip center. <.J.
-- ._~J Mr. Banchefsky said the legal position is set forth in the memo which was . -.
- ;
- '.-,: distributed to the Commission.' He said the applicant submitted the proposal for
.; Subarea F in good faith and that he took every reasonable step to build this
enclosed mall. He was a victim of the EPA connection ban, and there were some
changes in economic conditions locally and nationally. If the applicant is
- successful in convincing this Commission that the enclosed mall is not
economically viable, he would be entitled to a rezoning. . He said discussions have
been held with Mr. Teaford, Steve Smith, Ben Hale, and it is agreed that this
. rezoning requires more than simply deleting the enclosed mall requirement.
Mr. Joel Teaford, Vice President of Planned Communities, said that in 1988, the
PCD was adopted and a half million dollars was spent on construction drawings of
- - the mall and another half million dollars was spent putting in the water and sewer.
......_~------ In late 1989, Aetna, who had agreed to fund this mall, became unable to 90.S0.---_-.----..----
Rezoning Application --- -- -
Z93-00S
Perimeter Center Mall
Subarea. F
Hi~tnrv -
-~ "--'~""-""-'----~- I ~~-..-_---~~-- ^ ~~_,____..C~"~__,,_~~_
.---, Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes - November 7, 1991
Page 11
The expectation was that City Center stores were going to put their second stores
in mall such as this one. With the exception of The Gap, none of the stores have
done this. No one is financing enclosed malls as the country is 25% overbuilt with
them. Worthington Square Mall is no more than 70% leased now. Big Bear was
r ---to be one of the anchors in this mall. After the sewer moratorium, Big Bear had - --------- ---
difficulty with financing because it had been subject to a leveraged buyout. Big
,'. Bear's credit seems to have improved enough to build their store. The first phase
'. would be Big Bear plus 10-12 shops. .The second phase would have a large anchor
. store of approximately 100,000 square feet. There are some outlots to sell in this
area. The same kind of materiaJ standards as in all of Perimeter will be used in this
mall; Parking and landscaping on the Avery Road. side will be the same. . He asked
for"guidance from the Commission and staff.
Mr. Geese said he is supportive of this.
Mr. Dan Cline, architect, displayed a plan of phase one which is Big Bear and
15,000 square feet of additional retail space. The second phase of a 100,000
square foot anchor store plus 20,000 square feet is not shown. Initially, three
types of bricks which were chosen for the mall, and three others for the outlot
buildings. The lightest of the mall bricks was chosen with a darker accent brick.
The brown banding starts one foot off of the grade and four foot on center. A
five-foot module of white aluminum on the store front will be used. At 17 feet
" there is a sign band and the signage will be restricted to individual, red can letters.
- Dr. Sherrie Ridenour, Perimeter Veterinary Hospital, said that at the time she
r contracted for her land, there was no indication from the developer.that a mall :
\ '-. might not be built and that financing might not be available~"' She said she first saw'.
....... 'the developer's drawings this week;' The strip center is not close to having the .
- -.:..~rc:~itecture of the Mercedes dealership.-. She said that the change to a strip center "--~-'--
."~: depreciates the value of her land and building; according to her appraiser. . She said
<'t her building is' more than just a business, it is an investment in the land, and there
are better looking strip centers on Frantz Road.
Bob Hughes, Ohio Central Credit Union, said only a month ago when closing on
their site, that this was to be an enclosed mall. What is now being shown as
outparcels would be its parking lot. He thought he was buying a lot in a major
retail center and wants a larger scale.
Mr. Teaford said he has never threatened a lawsuit. The Dublin Villager printed
that Planned Communities was probably not going to build the enclosed mall last
year.
--- .-/ Rezoning ApplicatiOIC-- - -----
Z93-00S
Perimeter Center Mall
Subarea F
History
- '--- -. -. ~ . ..
--" Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes - November 7, 1991
Page 12
Ms. Stillwell asked what is the difference in developer cost between an enclosed
mall vs. a strip mall. Mr. Teaford said the strip costs 1/3 and 1/2 as much. Jack
- Brickner, Planned Communities, said the original enclosed mall cost $70-$80 per
square foot. The strip center would be about half of that expense. The
infrastructure (the roadway and underground utilities) is in place. -- -..41\
" Mr. Leffler said he would like to see something more imaginative than straight line
.'_ buildings because this is an anchor and an entry to Dublin. He referred to
Attachment A of the application which appears to be the rewritten Subarea F of
. the original text. He said it stops at item Ewithout addressing many other areas.
Mr. Campbell said the proposal for the original enclosed mall was spectacular.
What replaces the enclosed mall should be very close in style and architectural
_~ imagination because the outparcel owners are relying on that.' It is not fair to them
. to accept standards less than what they were required to meet.
Mr. Kranstuber said that the devel0per should have talked to the outparcel owners
about their plans. He said the City of Dublin and Riverside Hospital funded
two/thirds of the Avery Road widening, but would they have done this for a Big
Bear strip center? He said Dublin relied on those promises in rezoning it and
spending money for roads, and outparcels relied on this mall by locating there.
This enclosed mall would have defined Dublin, and the- proposed strip mall is
. disappointing. He suggested waiting several years until the economy improves. . ---
- .~. Would this have been rezoned for a strip center~ and would the residents on Post,
. Road have supported this strip mall for Big Bear and perhaps K-Mart?
,-,.
-'.~: Mr. Fishman said an enclosed mall and a strip mall havecditferent characters, as do ..I'
- ~~ the tenants of these malls. K-Mart creates a different character than an enclosed
- .:...::. mall with Marshall Fields, he would not support it. People can spend the day in an --, -- --- ---' -----_.-----
,cenclosed mall but would never do that at a strip mall.' Mr. Teaford said the Big
- _:: Bear was always there.' Mr. Fishman said he would still not be supportive of it
because it is a different use and of a different character.
Mr. Kranstuber asked if the Big Bear could be built now? Mr. Teaford said the
extra stores would be needed to make it economically viable. Mr. Kranstuber feels
Central Ohio is over "strip centered", but people will support quality. Mr. Teaford
repeated that tenants are moving out of Worthington Mall.
Mr. Geese said the discussion time for this application has been far exceeded and
asked for a motion.
Kezonmg Appl1canon --
- " ...;'
...-- Z93-00S
, Perimeter Center Mall
Subarea F ..--- - .-.--
History
--- . .. .
-
. I
","~~~-,-._->~.> . ~'">~---
......- , D.ublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes - November 7, 1991
Page 13
Mr. Bowman said he would like to get input from City Council on this issue. Mr.
Campbell said he can live with a strip mall that has architectural imagination and
style. Mr. Kranstuber will not accept anything less than an enclosed mall. Mr.
Bowman said he would get the minutes to City Council as soon as possible.
r' - --..-
Mr. Leffler made a motion to table this application, and this includes the applicant's
It _c.... _ consent to waive the 60-day time limit. . Ms. Stillwell seconded the motion. The
", vote was as follows:' Mr. Geese, yes; Mr.' Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr.
.- Campbell, yes; Mr. Leffler, yes; and Ms. Stillwell, yes. . (Tabled 6-0.)
,4. . . Corridor Development District CDD91-009 - Village Square Shopping '.
Center - Josephine's
Lisa Fierce resented this application d said the applicant wants t locate a
7,900 s are foot restaurant in the Id Cardinal Foods tenant spa at Village
Square hopping Center. They ar requesting approval of parki , signage and
facad changes under the provi ons of the Corridor Develop nt District. The
80 CJ of Zoning Appeals (B granted a parking variance I t month. The
a Iicant will stripe 45 addi onal spaces along the east si of the center without
hanging any' circulation tterns of the site. The BZA o granted a sign variance'
allowing two 40 square oot walls signs, 21 feet high n the west and south
'- ..;: elevations.. The sign ill match. the accent striping f the center (Indian Red).
'. . The proposal is to ake a number of facade chan s atong the south elevation
f"" ..' the building whic includes new windowsithree. ew_exit doors and optional rk
; .., green awnings ver the windows.:-Josephine' may. request some outdoor. d' ing -.'
"". .:. . in the future. Staff thinks that this applicati is in compliance with the C D
'.. provisions d is consistent with the Com unity Plan and is recommend' g. .
approval ith the following conditions:
That the conditions imposed b the BZA continue to apply; d
That the optional awnings b added to provide a finished pearance to the
south elevation.
The applicant is in agreemen
Mr. Fishman said he is n happy with the sign varianc . He asked if P&Z can
approve it without the gn variance. Mr. Banchefsk said if the Commission
approves this applica on, there will be two signs. r. Fishman asked if both signs.
can be seen at the ame time 7 Scott Dale, archi ct, said yes. Mr. Fishman asked
.-- why the BZA gra ed a sign variance for two s' ns. Ms. Fierce said the BZA felt
Rezoning Application --------
Z93-005 -
Perimeter Center Mall
Subarea F
-. History
Minutes of Meeting, March 9, 1989
Dublin Planning and Zoning Co~~issicn
Page 6
.~~.~ 3. Development Plan - Perimeter Mall
Ms. Clarke presented the following information about the development
plan:
-The site contains 33 acres within the 107 acre Perimeter site zoned
PCD, Planned Co~erce District. It is located between Perimeter Drive
and Perimeter Loop Road between Post Road and U.S. 33/S.R. 161 to the
east of Avery Road. It will be bounded on the west by Avery Road, on ---
__the north by Perimeter Drive, and on the east and south by Perimeter ---- ----~
Loop Road.
-Phase I of the shopping center contains 206,000 square feet. The ,
..~:;center includes Building 1, a 136,000 sq. ft. mall for retail and "
~-_._- -- - -~--
restaurant uses and a 60,000 sq. ft. Big Bear grocery store, and
. Building 2, a separate 10,000 sq. ft. building, will repeat the same
architecture and materials and will house Society,Bank and other retail
tenants. . The bank itself has a three-bay drive~thru.. Later phases will
. add several restaurants, a retail strip. center and an expansion of. the
_parking lot.
-The required 50-foot building setbacks. have been maintained and the -
, parking areas are setback with landscaped.frontages at a minimum of 30
feet in width.
-The mall is 52 feet at the tallest point and features a very large
. skylight roof feature. The materials include a lot of brick veneer of a
red/brown tone, the roof is to be a dark grey/green asphalt, and the
stucco exterior on the upper section of the building is to be a medium
grey color.
-The proposed parking areaS are in excess of the requirement for the PCD
zoning. Phase I will have 1,310 parking spaces, and the outlying areas
for Phases II and III will also include parking lot expansions which
exceed Code requirements. The parking lot has access from eight
. separate driveways from the public streets that are spaced at least 250
.., feet apart. The lighting. in the. parking. .lots. is in conformance with the' :
- text. The lighting, as sho,""D in the< development plan,. will be a maximum
height.of 28 feet. ~
:' -Bike paths will be extended. to. the mall' as: approved. with the Final Plat J
for Perimeter Center Mall.
. ..' -Signage for this proposal is being: demonstrated with Phase I. It
- ____'.:. includes a freeway identification sign' to. be a. maximum of. 20 feet tall -
. ',c and 300 sq.. ft. in area to be located at the intersection of. Wilcox Road
-.'., and U.S. 33/S.R. 161,. a project entrance sign on Perimeter Drive and the
one on Perimeter Loop Road, and two project entrance signs on Avery
Road. Materials for these signs include glass block, slate, and curved
----~ brick walls. The mall tenants, with the exception of the two
------------- -.------
restaurants, will not have any outdoor signage. The strip center
tenants will have individual letter-type signs, internally illuminated
against a brick panel on the building. The Big Bear sign has been
reduced considerably and is close, if not in compliance, with Dublin's
. Code requirement.
-The Post Road buffer is to be 60 feet wide consisting of mounding and a
variety of shade, evergreen and ornamental trees and will be constructed
-with Phase I. In working with the developer on the multi-family piece,
_~. the Post Road buffer is being reworked slightly. The Avery Road
"- _/ treatment (to be installed on both sides of Avery Road) will also be
installed in its entirety. The area along U.S. 33/S.R. 161 will have a
------. WLl., M Afr~~~~=_='=:==~~'
Subarea F Rewiring Appffcatio..n:;:.:ta:'~ r
. . History
Z93-00S
......_. __ _"'_ _,...._ _...~ - ....._,.-_.. .0-.;"-,,,--- ......
t .,,"",,"~,~._,.....,. ~ ,,_._....,.~._- "<.-,-~.,.'.'~
Minutes of Meeting, March 9, 1989
Dublin Planning and zoning Com~ission
Page 7
~ continuous mound and be installed from Avery Road to Wilcox Road with
this development.
-Many of the service areas will eventually be blocked or screened by
other buildings. In the meantime, the applicant will install temporary
mounds of six to eight feet in height and add landscape materials.
-staff finds this plan generally to exceed the C~de requirements and the
stipulations of the zoning text. Staff is recommending approval subject
to two conditions:
~r 1) Screening of mechanical units, dumpsters, truck wells and milk
cooler; and
'-- 2) Submission of final landscaping plan for the area around the
building.
Mr. Al Lupton of Richard Trott & Partners,-.the architect for the
_ . project, presented slides_ of_. the interior and. ext~rior of the mall model
along with renderings of. the grand court,and food court areas. The
model of the mall and the proposed materials palette was also
demonstrated at the meeting.'
. Mr. Jim Burkhart of James Burkhart &. Associates,. the Landscape Architect
, for the project, demonstrated the' proposed: .landscaping with slides and a :
plan board. He stated that the perimeter landscaping will be of a more
traditional style, and the mall area will be highlighted with extensive
landscaping providing year-round color. Mr. Burkhart demonstrated the
landscape plan representing the screening between the residential
community and the mall. Mr. Amorose expressed concern about the
failure rate of Eastern ~~ite Pine trees. He stated that at previous
meetings he had suggested that they be eliminated from this plan as well
as on the Riverside Hospital project. Mr. Burkhart stated that these
pines could be eliminated, but he did not feel they would be a problem
because this project will be irrigated. Mr. Amorose also expressed
. concern' about. the use. of Flowering Dogwood, .trees along . Avery Road .'. Mr. -
r- Amorose did not have a recommendation:. for: replacement trees,' and Mr.
Burkhart stated that it could be worked out with staff.
t
""" . . Mr. Grace asked how the rooftop mechanicals will be'. screened. . Mr.
.' Lupton stated that there is a parapet..wall: on the facade. itself. If the
- -.-':..,:mechanicals are visible from S.R..161/U~S..33,'a .facade can be built on
u. __..____ ___
the roof to screen them.
Mr. Berlin moved to approve the Development Plan for Perimeter Mall
subject to the following conditions:
-
1) Screening of mechanical units, dumpsters, truck wells and milk
cooler;
-
2) Submission of final landscaping plan for the area around the
-- building; and
-
3) Substitution of landscaping materials to be worked out with staff.
-=:
-. .The motion was seconded by Ms. Rausch, and the vote was unanimous in
-
"- _.:.>:...-' favor of approval. -------
'~ezoning AppllcatlOn
----.--..- . Z93-00S
Perimeter Center Mall . -.- -
Subarea F
. -"""" t-tGl.lllH I)bA)"'II~ . i History
.. .
Minutes of Meeting, ~arch 9, 1989
Dublin planning and zoning Corr~ission
Page 8
~. Mr. Ben Hale, the attorney representing the applicant, expressed
- agreement with the terms of approval. He and Greg Comfort outlined the
proposed timetable for completion of the roadways. The interior
roadways should be started within two months. The Avery Road
improvements will probably require an additional month because land must
be acquired by the City from two individuals alo~g Avery Road. The
roads should be in by approximately September..
- 4. Informal Development Plan - Perimeter Mu -Family .----~
Ms. Clarke presented --I
~The site is 19.423t acres loca .on.the north. side- of proposed
Perimeter Drive and the wes ide of Wilcox Road. .. It is immediately
north of the Perimeter_ M- si te. ",'hich is zoned. ~CD, .Planned. Commerce
District. _ To the nor.... are proposed'- single-family.' lots __with.. frontage on
the south side of st Road. '. Single-family~ residences' on . the north side
_ of Post Road a zoned R-l.. To the west7 is; an out-parcel of the.
Perimeter M- PCD anda.vacant.three-acre.parcel.that'is still zoned
LI, Li d Industrial..
.-The ject site, described as Subarea'Gof the Perimeter Center,
z .ed R-l2, Urban Residential District, and does not actually r ire
plan review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Due to t number of
commitments made in connection with the overall zoning, developer
has agreed to treat this like a planned district for ~ iew purposes and
there is a text that applies to it.
-The proposal is for 189 multi-family units~ a xture of 144 garden-
type apartments, 45 townhomes and 96 garage aces. It is intended to
serve as a transition zone to the single- amily area to the north. The
gross density is 9.7 and the net dens is 10 dwelling units per acre.
The maximum building height cannot ceed 45 feet.
-. -Along Perimeter- Drive; pavement etbacks:. will' be~ 30:.feet.and' building
. setbacks will be 50 feet.;. Al other public' rights-of-way . pavement
_. setbacks will be 25. feet. a building_ setbacks: will- be, 50 feet. The ~ .
" plan. includes'a. 60-foot andscape'.:buffer." along. the-.proposed"single-family j .
. lots to the north. ,."",
. . ..-Emergency acces s provided: onto; Wilcox. Road as well.as' onto' the bike
- route.----------..
. ; ,..A lake ru the site: which will be. used as. a water feature and
_. will ha e much. of. the retention. from this . site. and the Perimeter Ma
site The balance of the storm water will be detained in a dry ba
p ned at the southwest corner of Wilcox and Post Roads.
-A community building and pool are proposed as private amenit' s,
the applicant is proposing to use these amenities to fulfi the
parkland dedication requirement as permitted by Code.
-The text relating to Subarea G states that "natural be
used on the project. The developer has discussed . h staff the
possibility of using some not-quite-natural mat aI, i.e., vinyl
siding, for long-term maintenance and upkeep the building.
Otherwise, the plan appears to be consist with the text.
} Mr. Joe Sullivan of Sullivan, Gray, at & Bean Architects, representing
:-",.c/ the applicant, outlined the prel' nary master plan demon.....Xewnmg'".Apphcatton ---.----
layout of the project~ Mr. Su ivan presented elevation! Z93-00S ... _u__'~'
Perimeter Center Mall
~I' Subarea F ,. ::
. l\CAlI o.s nL1lnY\O~rt. I History ,::;. -
- 'fI, r, ......
"-<~~--~_..~-~,-~~.'''''''''~~",''';"-~'~'----'-"-"-"'-'
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
!
I
i_,
1:1$ .." t I
fl;i_ .....~_.. -- ..CnAn
~ I . . ...... - -=-==.--- ---- -- .."'-....
~ J r-----.'..-h.. -. -'h~\'ii-':.:
I : I; d
I '11 J .r.:,
" I J '.::'
-- 1"1 .
.~ 1'1 t.
~-. !~ 1'1' j
;= 1',1 _ .
......... .. _I? I'l' '.
~. - - 'n ,'j li---- .-----:.":"."=""'~~-
. I, " H
11.11 f
'" . -.-. - I . .
... '-'.. I~ 'I
- r II
. I} I . -- -
. /1111
i. / I:,
f ,/ 111
, / ',I
lit
II.
. ~ .. Iii'
J II" ,
... t5 III
'. ~> II If'
!; I': I
i:t: III
. I I
: "
I:': I'
.1',
-,- . - ,. ""--'
. .
...
.
h
. ..
n
=s
~ f
,- . t ,
ffi -
\-,. I 0 [ILJ : !
! -
- ~
> - .-
.. ----- · . - i i ~ - ..-- \------
I J ~ r i: ~ .
:.-1 J.
'-~.""" , --...... I'
i _
~--L I ·
. .f ~
i ~.
i .- I
' '-.
f I
f : (\tALL ~ A-r~\16.o .
-
F .~! -c.-C~f'f J . I
:;: i ..:.::... ~ ~ i I t I . ..-----.--- _ _.. ..
- ~--- ~ ~ ' i: f . Rezoning Application -. -- --
.... .-' ~- o~ .: I
~.. i( = Ii I Z93-00S -
~. i--. 0 ~ I III ~. Perimeter Center Mall .- - ."
!n i~~. :. Subarea F " .
I .~-- I .
. !- , '.. History I
-::-;.;:_._ ~..;::;;:-..:_..-~.-._-...1f1' . _--. .... ._._ .. I __.~_._. ...~:.;;_:_:_..-:_:...._~_:_-.! ::::-P--::":::::"~'.~._.....
'. i
:..-; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
. . .' I.
, Minutes of Dublin City Council Heeting Meeting ~.. \
. ~: --.~--- : ::_==---I-[,~;o;o.:-rIl,.ns_<....~...~-ol>o'!'- -'-- --r-~---:==:=_=-:.. :-:: ---.:--- - -.-...-. . !.~: '. I .
--\ \ Heln Huch 27, l~89 19_ ~: .
'. . .. -0= .__.__._______.____.... .-___... ..-.-.. . - I .,' .
. - .. --.--... -oo .
. .
.: Page Eleven ~~ . '.
}. :~ .-'
" ;0. t;"
.~ Hr. Strip moved t approve the Preliminary Plat - er Glen , "
. Hr. Ja~ko~ski s _onded the motion. , :
j Vote on the tion - Hr. Sutphen, y~s; Hayor Roza ski, yes; Ms. Maurer,
)'es; Mrs. ' ng, )'es; Hr. Strip, yes; Mr. Janko~ i, yes. ~1\J
-c . ~-- Request for Approval of Final Plat - Perimeter Center Hall ..,..._
Hr. BO"'lllan had the follo~ing comments: ',' , J
1. This site ~as reviewed by Council last month. .
2.. It is 103 acres located on the east side of Avery Road between .
U.S. 33/161 and Post Road. j: .
3. The site is zoned PCD. :.
4. The site includes all the land between Avery Road and Wilcox Road , _
,,'ith the exception of one parcel at the 'corner as well as a .
residential lot located a little further. south. " Both of these .
loti are zoned LI. <. ~
S. Both Staff and the Planning Commission. recommended 'approva1 of the .
plat with the following conditions: .
A. Street lighting to be installed by the developer consistent ,-
~ith City standards.
B. Setbacks to be indicated on the north side of Perimeter Drive .
and corrected at the intersection. .
C. Provisions to be made for the payment of park fee in
conjunction with residential portion.
D. Timing for installation of all the landscape buffers and I
perimeter treatments to be indicated. t
E. All engineering comments in the Staff Report dated March 9, " ,
1989. ~
F. Addition of a bike path along the east side of Avery Road,
with the side~alk becoming a bike path on the south side of
Perimeter Drive into the front of the Mall. . ~'.-.
With regard to the above conditions, Hr. Bowman said that Staff is
still working with the developer regarding the park_ land dedication
issue. :.;
He said that the construction of the streets will begin probably '.: ~ ·
.in April and that the construction of the Center will probably begin ;~- J.'
in the late s\.lllllDer when the road is completed. :,'(. . ..
He noted that all engineering' comments have been incorporated. r..
t :.~ .' y
- Mr. Bowman said that there "'as. discussion regarding the bike path. '" . '. ~_'
He noted that there is a strip of land well east of Post Road and
.,.. . -- --.-~- Aver'! Road that comes out of Indian Run Meadows and then intersects -~--"-.
. Post Road. '., ~
;' . Hr. Bowman said that Hs. Jordan proposed that that be the linkage ~
; froll the Indian Run Meadow bike path over to Perimeter. The Planning <~,' ;.
_ Commission preferred that the bike path be located along Huirfield ,::
: Drive as it is extended. The developers would then take the bike .
. path all along the souther side of Perimeter Drive so that they could ...:..... ,,~
- either access through Post and Wilcox Roads with a path or they could ;; . . .
come down Muirfield Drive, Avery Road to Perimeter Drive. " .
He said that Staff would suggest a compromise; take the bike path
across the stream to Post Road. He noted that they had examined ;
the intersection details of Perimeter Drive; that the problem ~ -
with Perimeter Drive is that there is a free flowing turn movement; .;.
that it is a very dangerous intersection point. ..
He said that the major construction would be for the bridge to get :f :
people from Huirfield Drive to Post and Avery Roads, details could ~; .
then be worked out when Suf f can see the actua 1 functioning of the i~ "i
roadway and can revIew all of the aspects_of_the ~ike qathli . 'I' .
. Kezomng ^PP cation ~."', :
. Z93-00S ".
_ r
_ _ _ Perimeter Center Mall ~. '
Subarea' F ~ . ,
History ~i" .' : I
_._._~._,,;(}.;._._ .. _. _.>> __._..... ..... _... ... .... ......_ ~.. 00- ... ...,.;......... ..... ....,.. ~'1~;,-~:...;., ...:...
~....~ . -'---^"--~~~---' .---^.-_.~~."',.."..~-~-~~~~~~~~~"---
'.
. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS .'
. ,
,.'
Minutes or Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting ~;
:;...... :'. -:(
II. . "
.00 . . ."'= O::~'~-'I"':""'==--:""_"'" -.=:7 -I ~_:-- ".::.:- - . - .:' -' -: C' ." 0 ::"'::~==. r-- c.--:. Mi
-. . ....:
.,:t '.
I .~
-~ ... : Helti March 27, 1989 l~_ ._ ~r .....
......
....-- ---.--.... -- - -:="~'':- =:...=......=.~"':"~-=::...-r-.:.........:.::-=-==.:- - -=--- ~~:' .' l
:;~ l'=--~---_.' ------
, 'r.
Page Twelve ~. ::: J
,.
, -- '-- r . .':'1
~.
'1/. i.-
. .\
.- . Mr. Sutphen mentioned the bike path along Coffman Road which i; .'
suddenly stops and people are forced out onto the road in order to ;: "
. ----~- be able to access Coffman Park. t'; :i.
~---~~----- r. r
Mr. Bowman said that staff was concerned, due to the turn movement at ~: . .;..
Perimeter Drive, that people will not be able to cross that inter- L ;
,,- - (:
',i section safely to get to the south side of Perimeter Drive. He also ,. '.
1.'.:
: said that the City will insure that bicycle traffic will be able to , . .~.';
,-
',,- cross over Indian Run Stream. ..
,
.--.----- ;.
Mr. Bowman Bowman suggested that an option might be to close Post and :;--.. '.
Avery Roads so that bicycle traffic could go to Wilcox Road and get ~: <1
. to the Center in that way. ~:> .
.'
Several Council members commented that people, especially children, ~::
will take the shortest route to a destination. /,;-
~..~
ii-'.
Mr. Terry Andrews of Planned Communities said that they would put the (: . '.
.;" .
0 --'. .,
bike path in the way that Council desired. He also said that they 'il
.Jo,. .., '.
, . agreed with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, but that !;.. :-,.
H. "
'- if Council should want to modify that recommendation that they ~.~ -
1:,.0. 4
would be agreeable to said requested modification. r~.-t
'. Mr. Bowman again said that the intersection detail should be studied ~;: .
before a decision is made. l-
Following additional discussion Mr. Strip moved to approve the Final .~ '.
'.
Plat - Perimeter Center Mall, subject to a satisfactory approval of a '.
I ,I'.
bike path by Council not more than 60 days hence. "
Hrs. King seconded the motion. ....':
Vote - Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Jankowski, yes; Mrs. King, yes; Ms.
Maurer, yes; Mr. Strip, yes; Mayor Rozanski, yes. .-
Request for Bed Tax ,
Kiwanis . .
..
Mr. Jankowski that the written recommendation of the Finance ~; .
\,
CODllllittee was general, the Committee was in favor of the .-:. "
"
proposed pr . ct, but wanted more specific information as to how the' 0
c ,
. $50,000. would be spent.-
".
r Mr. n Smith, representing the Dublin Kiwanis, said that a plan was
" eloped approximately two years ago to develop' a park systelll along , 0
" '.' ,"
- the Scioto River. . He reported that the firs~ phase was begun la - '.
year, the development of a park in the Old Dublin Spring area' hat- (.~ :
- : they had spent about $30,000.00 on an area which has a $70, .00 0.. "I.' .
___ _ __-. value, using a great deal of volunteer labor as well as tribution. i.. ,.
- . . "
of materials, etc. frolll individuals. :1. ;
....
Mr. Smith said that the Kiwanians were requesting .,
~~. ,
bed tax funds to finance the second phase of th roject - the develop- .-
ment of. blacktop walkway paths frolll the brid south along the east o. .
side to approximately Martin Road along t marsh area which would . . ,
'.
, be on City-owned ground. He noted that ey would also like to tie '.
- ---. ----- - -
in, somehow, to the park area that M Chambers is developing. ,
,.
It was noted that signage would placed to identify plants, trees, ,.
-r. ,
.- etc. ..
~- o'
; Mrs. King commented that s felt that the Dublin Sprin park area is ;~ . "'
" ,..
. one of the most beautifu sites in Dublin. , o.
-- "---- --------- Mr. Smith-said that t plan to continue to develop that area.
", . , ;r,
. o.
- ~ It was noted that had been agreed that parking would be available :':'.
~- -- at the adjoinin office site on weekends. ';
.- - . - - - '..
.- - ~ ---------------- --- Rezomng Application
-- --- -~---
0_- _____ __
,J , Z93-00S
. eo \
Perimeter Center Mall :
..- --------- Subarea. F
, .. History . . ....-
- , ., :
. - .'.l. _e. .".. ..~_~::". ~.. II
- , ~ --' - . ..- ... .. ..ce.- ., ...~ .. ... .- ... '"; _0 f' ' .0;.... .'_ :. ~ _-J-' .;-_: : !~~ ... :t'.":.~ .:~... _: .
--.
..... lA'. ~.. ". ..._" "". .., :'. '. ,_"_ . . .
." ~ <', '_. .,.-.. ."~" '.' :.~..... :.,:......,~..;.j.-..:''1'...;'; .r;..........,. .;.,...... .--
,. ' .
~ r.n~'~;}t!1i? '"'~f~'~$;~~:j~?i~~~ ?';;':W'??"C~;>i<J:~'''''~~~:;';;l~~~~Fi ~
~~l::t ~( ". ' . ' ':'..::". '. .. ~. .' -..< :'.~. ~
::: I'" -~.. . -' . 4' z e' " ~
,~. .. . , . \ I ' :
. . CJ' ~ .
I ". .' .
. '. ,. .
.' . .
, H CEJ
. : 11
. I: '.
l~ .
_ v I
eo :'r :
.A\
; di ~
~
.-. .-.......-
F ," P' .
m m
~. r .. ~
00'
2 ~
I
. I
,
-
'.
.-@
..
'.
-. ~.'
--- '..
..-
J
.
- ----
, ,
. .
.
," . -' ~
. . f\J\' . :. _ . .--
r I 0
I .1 \
; I'
. .
\ ;",' :El ~:t I >' I .----=-'------- .----.--
. lB' ~ ~ i;i ! . \ :': Rezoning Application
~. 'illl ~ i" ii' Z93-00S
'-.~ ~jt "'.. IIII .
~ p t~'.: :... ~1'I' '. ~," /"'il . II . Perimeter Center Mall
.~ '2'1' . . . , ,.11 . ~
~_. i." , . , .': '1., ] . Subarea F
~ ' :: l.t:~"< .... ..... ..,.:k::>.-:.... '. \:'J .' . . l):~\';, . '. \ .:; .
~~ I . ~"~~:J::.,.";:'~+"";.1.'w;-4'<::'\..'C.! r"'........;;;i1-:.~....~'\.4.~~'-" .~:::..;!:..~ . .. : .i: ' History
. .::---...__v. ...""'.... ..,..":.", _.",,,,, ....... ...~. ... .~~~~...:.:...~'r~;- ", .. ..
---
-",.,_....
!"iin'utes of Heeting, June 9, 1988
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 6
" application with the
-- Mr~ Amorose 'ing
; conditions:
1. mechanism to be determined to going to Council;
2. Ian at time of
3. Ent feature design and street t ee spacing and species
w. h Landscape Planner at Final evelopment Plan.
treet tree planting to be do e according to the Landsca as
--~--
r ovm trees.
Reiner seconded the motio and the vote ~as as folIo' : Mr. Berlin, yes;
... - Ms. Rausch, yes, but noted at she is unhappy about_ co 8ition #4; Mr. Jezerinac,
yes, also noted' that he is ot in agreemen t- \d th cond. ion #.4; Mr.' Amorose, yes;
Mr. Geese, yes; Mr. Rein , yes; Mr. Grace, yes.
. .
~ 3. Rezoning Application 287-010 - Perimeter Mall
Ms. Clarke showed the Commission slides~f the' subject area. In.doing so she pointed
out areas that ~ere proposed for~various_land~ses; R~l residential and offices uses
along Post Road; office, laboratory and research uses. in the eastern' interior portion;
and commercial, multi-family and institutional uses on the western half.
She told Commission both interior road~ays over to Wilcox Road would be completed as
part of the first phase of development. Staff has been working with two traffic
engineers on the traffic concerns of this application.
Land Use - Freeway Frontage - uses to be suburban office and office, laboratory and
research limited to buildings of two stories in height or more.
The main commercial' area will be on 35 acres ~ithin the. proposed roads.. Sub Area E
along Avery. Road contains most of- the commercial outlots."'. .Most of the zoning text.
is devoted to wording that is to standardize: architecture on the lots: to accomplish'
.~ a consistent residential look; to soften the.entry.along Avery .Road.. The eastern
t Post Road frontage ..'ill have SO and OLR uses only~ . The:.westernoportion ..rill have'
single family. Area C has the most variety- of. designated. uses.-including SO, OLR
and some Industrial use.
-
----
Ms. Clarke then highlighted some recent- textchanges."~. Changes ..'ere made to increase'
a bike path commitment and.also_to make' the. text. consistent with the submitted plans.
Ms. Clarke also pointed out that the plan also addresses pedestrian circulation by
including sidewalks.
Overall the zoning accomplishes many goals:
-
1. It proposes compatible land uses; gets rid of industrial uses!
2. It greatly reduces traffic on Post Road.
3. The plan provides a consistent landscape buffer along Post Road to be installed
with the development.
4. It fulfills the thoroughfare plan by building two-thirds of the proposed east/
. west road between Avery and Coffman.
~
J 5. Applicant has agreed to work with Dublin in accomplishing needed capital improve-
~) ments on Avery Road. Staff recommends that Dublin and the odevelo~r ~gree on__a
plan that builds the road in a final form. Rezonmg App cation
Z93-00S
Perimeter Center Mall
Subarea :-
-.. l'~'Zot'\'~~ History
- -- ~ ._-----~--- -... .....". .:...- . -- - .- ~. .
..
Minutes of Meeting, June 9, 1988
Planning and Zoning Com~ission
Page 7
.-....\ Ms. Clarke advised the Commission that the new PCD zoning district was unlike the
-
. ; PUD in that it does not afford the same latitude in reviewing final development
plans. If there are to be provisions that are appropriate they, should be included
as part of the rezoning.
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
l. That the developers resolve transportation issues prior to zoning, including
agreement to dedicate right-of-way, timing of roads, cooperation with bikeway
extension over U.S. 33, funding of an agreement upon improvements. ~.
2. That architecture of retail component will be unified and coordinated with the ,
out parcels.
3.' That all necessary corrections be made to text. and plans prior to Council, "
including additional information on multi-family area.
4. That timing is determined for landscaped buffers, . and landscape- .materials are
coordinated bet"..een projects and ....ith. Dublin' s_Landscape Planner at Final
. Development Plan.
Mr.' BO"'Iilan then addressed the Commission.
Staff has been ,,'orking closely ,,'ith' two: traffic', engineers over the. last month, and
have considered several alternatives to the street system in making the project work.
The major assumptions/constraints are:
1. The uses proposed are much safer than the Limited Industrial uses that are now
permitted on the site.
2. The area is already developing and in need of a co:npleted roadway system.
3. All plans were to de-emphasize Post Road.
After having gotten into the studies, staff found that:
1. . Given the high peak volumes - primarily. due to the proposed office traffic -
there has to be t....o access points:. onto' Avery Road .(Post has..already been :
eliminated).
2.:-. Modifications ,,"ill have to be made, to:.the;. existing. Avery_.Road: interchange. ~.:
3. ... The. I-270/U.S. 33 ramp is approaching': capacity.
Alternatives suggested: J
- ---~ b-;- Bending Avery Road into the site,- hooking on Muirfield Drive.
-- ~
2. Traffic circles.
3. Service roads.
4. A second interchange on Perimeter Drive.
At an earlier meeting ,,'ith the P & Z subcommittee, Staff ,",'as asked to explore this
interchange alternative. On the face, the proposal looks inviting; however, Staff
does not recommend this alternative because of the follo,",'ing reasons:
1. Its cost far outweighs its benefits.
2. It requires the A.v.ery, ~Qad' Interchange to be completed at more expense.
3. It is simp~y too close to the Avery Interchange to eliminate weaving problems
and other traffic conflicts.
4. The interchange transfers the potential problem to Perimeter Drive which in
the long run may have a greater traffic volume than Avery Road.
I 5. It represents an additional pedestrian and visual barrier.
'. . Rezoning AppliCation ------~~
I
".---~/
Z93-00S
.- -.. -. --
Perimeter Center Mall
Subarea. F
IQtnr"7.......: ~,_ History
.....
W=,,'..o.. ..."..-..__' ,. _. ""'~_'.>,_.~.Lr""" _
Nbutes of 1'1eeting, June 9, 1988
Planning and Zoning Co~ission
Page 8
~
If Dublin is to be extravagant ,,'ith its road",'ay dollars at all, staff would strongly
recommend that the City work toward providing new outlets over the limited access
barriers.
The study done by Wilbur Smith and Associates indicates that an extension of Coffman
Road over U.S. 33 down to the proposed interchange of Tuttle would draw as much
as 35 percent of traffic from I-270. This proposal achieves two things: 1) it
draws traffic from Avery Road; and 2) it helps relieve congestion at Frantz Road
~ and the I-270 interchange. Staff strongly recommends that this overpass be con-
structed and will strongly pursue this recommendation with Council.
, As to the growth of Dublin beyond the present corporate. limits. in the north, Staff
believes that:
1. The O'Shaughnessy Bridge becomes more important.
2. A road",'ay system as an alternative to Huirfield Dri ve. must be planned and
implemented to direct traffic av:ay from our.. existing' access points' and to
new access routes or underutilized access areas:
-Hyland Croy and the Post interchange for example.
.-New interchange on U.S. 33 west and north of Dublin.
-More bridges over the Scioto north of Glick Road.
To summarize, Staff believes that:
1. The roadway system in this application has been vastly improved since the
Commission last saw it.
2. The new traffic improvements that we will deal with as part of the Riverside
Hospital application improve the traffic flow of this application.
3. This solution is adequate and practical in the sense that effective, long-term
improvements to the Avery int€rchange to U.S. 33 can be implemented when needed
or budgeted.
4. Dublin must pursue the Coffman extension.
. 5~ Developer commitments to. improve' Avery. Road. shou1d.be::'.sufficient for a.number -.
" of years enabling Dublin to prepare the-long-term improvements.
."... Mr. Grace then asked }1r.. Bowman to: surnmarize~-the'~.various.traffic'a1ternatives "that' ..,
-were studied.. Mr. Bo...~an explained the. alternatives as.follows:
, 1. .. A new concept of rerouting Avery Road. so that- it. intersects_ .dth' Perimeter
- -; Drive., This greatly helps the large afternoon peak traffic: volume. - This ---------.-.-
_: .::.., - alternative. "'as found to be overly committal' if-the. assumptions are. "Tong.
:': Staff decided to keep to the existing roadway.
2. . A three-tiered loop for the afternoon peak.
3. A series of traffic circles around Avery Road.
- 4. A service road concept.
5. A ful1-blo"~ replica of the Avery Road/U.S. 33 interchange. This
alternative would require 28 acres with improvement costs above five (5)
million dollars plus land costs. There still would be signals on Perimeter
Drive. Mr. Bo"'~an said that he did not know how effective the solution would
be; however, the interchange would be of poor visual quality as an entrance
into this area of Dublin.
~ . -\ RezOning Application --.--
- Z93-00S
<
Perimeter Center Mall
Subarea F
(0(i1f 2b"';~) History
--
Minutes of Meeting, June 9, 1988
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 9
-
\ Mi. Grace asked Mr. Bo....mari to compare the Staff recommended plan with the inter-
.-.,
, change alternative. Mr. Bo~~an said that the recommended plan has an access to
the Riverside Hospital site directly across the northern Avery interchange ramp.
This will eliminate left turns into Riverside Hospital at the first northbound
signal from the interchange.
By an area analysis of traffic, Coffman Road extension over U.S. 33 eliminates
the need for so many lanes on Avery Roao. If Avery Road were constructed with
the additional lanes under the assumption that the Coffman Road extension would ~
not be built. and then rhe e~~~nsion ~ere later made; the. additional lan~s
on Avery Road would yield a higher service level. ,~
. .The commitments within the limited access must be made as part of the Riverside ,
Hospital application. not the Perimeter rezoning. 'This does not. preclude longer
term improvements to the Avery interchange.
Mr . Jezerinac asked Hr. Bo~~an if he knew ~'ha t the service level of the inter-
change proposal was. Mr. BOw~an did not knew.
.Mr. Jezerinac asked Mr. BOw~an to describe level' of service E. - Mr. Bo~~an said
that the road would be at full capacity.'
In a discussion of accepted design levels. Mr. Jezerinac mentioned a conversation
he had with an engineer from Barton Ashman, wherein he was told that Barton Ashman
designs to service level C without being conservative or overly expensive. Mr.
Jezerinac said that service level E ~as failure, the lowest possible service level,
and asked if this is what we ~ant for our community? Mr. Bowman explained that the
situation was a function of land 'use. not traffic design. These proposed uses
generate a lot of traffic; we cannot make the streets overly large 'or cumbersome to
handle peak times.
. Mr. Grace asked what ,'Would bring' the' streets to level of: service C. Mr.
Bo~~an said that there was no practical traffic solution to bring it to level C.
Only a change in. land use would reduce traffic congestion. ,.,
Mr. Reiner asked if staff had asked. the: traffic:.engineer' to design to a higher ,.I
-. service level.- Mr.. Bo~'lllan said. that no other concepts seemed- practical.. The ,
-- .~-:-- high' afternoon peak did not:. justify: any: additions~ for the' 23 hours' that the road
-- -~._--
will work at service level E or better.
Mr. Reiner expressed concern that the Coffman extension may someday be congested
and of little use in moving traffic from Avery Road. Mr. Bo~~an said that he was
hopeful that the merger with Washington Township would give Dublin the ability to
plan and control land uses.
Ms. Rausch said that she was still concerned about growth in Union County and to
the north. causing added congestion.
Mr. Harrison Smith spoke on behalf of the applicants. saying that the facts of the
zoning are as follows:
1. The property is zoned. This application represents an upzoning. moving from the
bottom up. (reference to pyramid zoning concept)
2. The commercial zoning request reduces the peak tra.(f:i,.~_J:mP'act.!..... .Re~ail does not
affect the traffic movements in the morning. . Rezonmg Application -
7.93..005
Perimeter Cei.ter Mall
Subarea F
........ ~ --
~,~~..~~ .~~..-,,--- ~"'_. ","__~,,,,,,,,"""~u..'''''.~,~...._.~,._.u,_~,__,,.___~~,"_,__,,,,,,_,
. :H:i:nutes of Heeting, June 9, 1988
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 10
---. Mr. Smith compared the subject site to the Sa~~ill Road area. The intense
.,.
\ traffic area on Sa~~ill is five times the size of the subject site and 16 times
the size of the commercial area alone. He then made a comparison with the Lane
Avenue Shopping Center. Lane Avenue, like Perimeter, is similar in that it is
the disposable income in the area that makes it attractive, not so much the number
of people. Mr. Smith described what he believed to be the traffic situation at
Lane Avenue versus the Perimeter proposal. He said that Perimeter is not a
~-~atastrophe, but an opportunity waiting to happen.
r --Wrth reference to architecture, Mr. Smith said that since the applicants could
not articulate the proposed architecture in a text, they then agreed to give the
~ Commission full review power.
Mr. Smith detailed recent changes to the text as follows:
1- Page 3, paragraph 3 - loop roads constructed'~s,part of-initial phase.
Changes were made to create more storage and~to'permit-more traffic to get
in.
2. . Commitment- to construct bike path when required.
3. Landscape buffer to be developed.
4.. Change property owners name'in the text'to be the same'as:on the maps.
5. Clarification on exact function and, placement of sign age for out parcels.
}ir. Smith then read the revised portion of the text dealing with architectural
review. He added that the applicant proposes that the Planning Commission be
granted the right to determine what the non-commercial appearance in .certain areas
~~ll eventually be.
Mr. Smith then returned to the traffic discussion by referring specifically to
the Perimeter interchange alternative. He said that it would require a seven-
lane bridge over Avery Road and eight lanes on Avery Road. The cost would be
fi ve to six million dollars, not including. land costs. -. The major. disadvantage
of the interchange is that all the' traffic. must. use". the .ramp...ln. the A.M., all
400 acres including the hospital site must'.:use the'. same ramp; an accident would
."",. cause a complete breakdown because there. is no other. ~'ay in. :In. the P.M., the
problem would be even. worse;. all traffic:-mustusethe_'same ramp_ out. Mr. Smith
then sho~'ed. renderings of; what. the-: interchange: proposal would look like' versus
the non-interchange'alternative.:.c-There wasa'lengthy discussion of traffic over
'n_ the same issues and points' made previously. -..----.- -'
Mr. Mark Magalotti. of Wilbur-Smith-and:Associates:then' introduced himself and
explained that he had been hired by Riverside Hospital to prepare a traffic report.
Mr. Magalotti discussed traffic service levels. He told the Commission that the
definition of level of service has changed over the last couple of years. Refer-
ring to the Appendix of a report completed for the hospital, he said that the
level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay.
Level of service A - describes operations with very low delay, less than 5 seconds
per vehicle.
Level of service B - 5 to 15 seconds per vehicle.
Level of service C - 15 to 25 seconds per vehicle.
Level of. service D - 25 to 40 seconds per vehicle.
Level of service E - 40 to 60 seconds delay per vehicle.
- Level of service F - over 60 seconds delay per vehicle.
Mr. Magalotti described .level of service E at 40 to 60 seconds delay as being less
-than one cycle length of a traffic signal. He said this was acceptable by most
state departments of transportation, major cities and local communities. -
, Subarea - F. - - - Rezoning Application
(~ 20"",,) H'sto Z93-005
.- .. 1 ry Perimeter Center Mall
, ,
Minutes of Meeting, June 9, 1988 ,
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 11
-...
Mr'. Magalotti explained that the old version of the highway manual calculated level
of service on a volume to capacity relationship. Level of service C in the old
report is comparable to level of service E in the new manual. His report recommends
a design that achieves level of service E at the signalized intersections. It will
produce average delays of one cycle length of the signal which is considered to be
acceptable. '.
Mr. Magalotti then explained how the Coffman Road extension could provide an
additional level of service on Avery Road. In response to a question by Mr. Grace, ~
he explained the improvements to Avery Road that were recommended in his report.
-: Mr. Jezerinac questioned the validity of the. traffic'projections made in the Wilbur ........
._~---
Smith report.
- Mr. Reiner asked if cars would back up all the way' down the Avery Road ramp onto
U.S. 33/S.R. 161. Mr. Magalotti replied that the ramp would have new lanes to
help queuing. Also a free-flow, right-turn lane would reduce. stacking.
.
Ms.' Rausch asked about Dublin's abllityto'implement alternatives if the worst-
case situation arose. Mr. Magalotti said that an at-grade traffic solution has
an advantage over a grade-separated proposal in that the Edwards rezoning at Tuttle
Road already committed the first section of the Coffman Road extension. The
traffic capacity from the west to Tuttle Road is great.
Mr. Smith then told the Commission that he estimates the cost of needed initial
improvements to Avery Road at nearly one million dollars. Although he could not
commit to a dollar figure now, he said that if the City were able to supply
materials that the developers would do as much as they can. A private improvement
contract would make the money go much farther and would get results more quickly.
Mr. Smith agreed that he would not complete the zoning until they have actually
entered into an agreement with the City on the cost of the improvements.
Jim Stoycheff, a Dublin resident, questioned. the: applicant's'. ,,'illingness to pay '.-.
the cost. of. improvements to the roadway system. He' also: cited. an impact fee study .,.,
done by the law firm of Siemen,' Tarson and. Purdy, that: would require a 1,000 room
hotel to pay $914,000 in traffic impact. fees.... He said more must be done for Dublin. ..-...1
Mr~. Smith reaffirmed his commitment. to enter. into an agreement ,,'ith Dublin covering------
. the cost of. Avery Road improvements. . Dublin may say they are not.. going to contri-
bute, so our decision will be' pay or go away. Mr. Smith also 'pledged his help and
the help of his clients in approaching the State of Ohio to work toward solving
the problem.
Mr. Chris Cline of the Post Road Resident~ Association; Ms. Kathy Erickson of the
Hemingway Residents' Association; Ms. Karen Zent;trustee of the Indian Run Meadow
Resi~ents' Association; all spoke favorably of the proposed rezoning. -
Mr. Bob Foley o~ ~~ite Consolidated Industries urged approval so the roads could
be completed.
Mr. Bill Riat, on behalf of Newto"~e and Sullivan, Gray, Riat Architects, told the
, , . Commission that they are committed to do a good job on the multi-family portion of
,,-.J the site.
Jeff Wilkens of Discovery Systems spoke in favor of the rezoning. - --.--
Subarea F. Rezoning Application .--
lq ~ 2 ' HO story Z93-005
D~ 1 ""'c... 1 Perimeter Center Mall -
-..~-.,_._,-",._-,~-_...,~..,~.=.~,"~._,..._-'------- ~~^'-
~
Minutes of Meeting, June 9, 1988
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 12
-
Mr. Steve Rick, director of Construction and Real Estate of Big Bear Stores, said
\ his firm is a potential tenant in Perimeter Mall.
Vince Rakestraw, a Dublin resident, asked the Co~~ission to approve the rezoning
while the economy is still good.
Mr. Robert Albright, attorney representing Charles Snyder, an adjoining property
owner, spoke in favor and informed the Commission that Mr. Snyder will develop
r an L.I. use on his land.
\... Ms. Barbara Maurer, City Council member and Chairman of the Land Use Committee,
. informed the Commission that the. Coffman extension is on the approved Capital
Improvements Program. She also cited a list of Limited .Industrial' uses that
are now permitted on the site.
M~. Berlin moved to approve the application ~ith the' following conditions:
1. That the developers resolve transportation issues prior to zoning, including
agreement to dedicate right-of-~ay, timing of roads,. cooperation. with bikeway
extension over U.S. 33, funding of an agreement upon improvements.
~
2. That architecture of retail component will be unified and coordinated ~~th the
out parcels.
3. That all necessary corrections be made to text and plans prior to Council,
including additional information on multi-family area.
4. That timing is determined for landscaped buffers, and landscape materials are
, coordinated between projects and ~ith Dublin's Landscape Planner at Final
Development Plan.
Mr. Amorose seconded the motion and the vote ~as as follows: Mr. Grace, yes;
Mr. Reiner, no; Ms. Rausch, yes; Mr. Jezerinac, no, and noted l)he is not convinced
that E is the appropriate service level--it should be C, 2) he is not convinced the '.
reports are accurate,. and 3) the Coffman Road extension is needed. although it is
not part of this proposal; Mr. Berlin, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Geese, abstain
~ due to conflict.
,
" Mr. Jezerinac stated that Commission has a rule about not starting another case
. after 11:00 p.m. and made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Rausch seconded
the motion and the-vote was as follows: Mr. Amorose, no; Mr. Jezerinac, yes; -- .-.--- -- . .
. Mr. Berlin, no; Ms. rausch, yes; Mr. Geese, no; Mr. Reiner, no; Mr. Grace, no.
The motion being denied, the chairman called for a five minute recess.
4. r Development District -008 - Dublin Village Cente (Entrance
-- --'- - Identification/Si .s) ---
Ms. C rke e following information:
-Two ntry identification poin "'ere discussed. Location will be a sign
w. ch bears the copy "Dublin illage Center" to be locat d just off the Bank
e site. Location "B" wi be the creation of a media at F.ederated Boulevard
and Sa~~ill Road and cons ruction of a clock tower. s. Clarke showed the
Commission signs that h e been approved for ~1C Th ter and another Dublin
Village Center sign 10 ated in front of the Hunti oton Bank site.
- .. -~ - -- .
I -~Reroru.ng-ApplicatiOn - --.. ---~~=
. " , I
~._--' Z93-005
- ---. ----- -_.._~-
Perimeter Center Mall
Subarea F ~
Iq~ 2D~;I\"- History
___~_M'_"._'._._~~_ _.._--_._~_._--~,-,_.. ---------- ....-"_.--
.
~
-I
~
y
,/
.
_M._______ - -.----_._.,-- .
. _~ ___._d~__ .
-,--,;-,._...."...~~. .~,~~._._-
.
RECORD OF ACTION
, I
"
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 9, 1994
CITY OF DrBLI~
The :Planning and Zoning Comrmssion took the following action in the application below at its
r regularly scheduled meeting:
~-----_. -_._._-~-~-
-- CASE 2: Rezoning Application Z93-005 - Perimeter Center Mall - Subarea F
Location: 33.398 acres located between Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop
Road.
Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (perimeter Center Plan).
Request: Review and approval of revisions to the development text regarding
signage for Subareas E and F of Perimeter Center in the PCD, Planned
Commerce District, under the provisions of Section 1181.09(d).
Proposed Use: Retail shopping center of 150,000 square feet in an unenclosed,
strip design, a 100,000 square-foot flex-office structure, and two commercial
outparcels totalling +4 acres.
Applicant: Muirfield Drive Partners, Continental Real Estate Interests/Park
Development Company, c/o Jeffrey L. Brown,- Attorney, 37 West Broad Street,
Suite 725, Columbus, OH 43215.
MOTION: To approve this rezoning application based upon the Planned Commerce District
with extraordinary aesthetics and architecture with the following seven conditions:
1) That the development text be revised to incorporate the conditions presented herein,
submitted for Staff review and approval prior to scheduling the rezoning before City
Council for a second reading;
2) That a total of two main identification signs be permitted, not to exceed 15 feet in height
and 19 feet in width, with a maximum each of two sign faces, with a maximum area of
66 square feet per sign face, externally illuminated, with sign base materials matching
,...,. . the retail center materials and sign face materials and colors matching the retail tenant
_ materials and colors, and with one such sign located at the northeast corner of Avery
- ------ -- Road and Perimeter Loop Road and one such sign located at the Perimeter Drive
entrance to the retail center;
3) That grocery store wall signage, relative to sign face area, location, text, colors, and
materials shall comply with the elevation as approved by the Planning Commission.
- 4) _ _ That the Retail Center Sign Package be amended to state:
A. That all wall and projecting signage meet the City sign code relative to permitted sign
face area and that wall signs not exceed 16 feet in height;
. B. That each tenant store front be limited to one wall sign, one- projecting sign and one
awning sign. Wall sign faces shall not exceed one square foot in area for each one
lineal foot in store frontage not to exceed 80 square feet. Projecting sign faces shall
not exceed three square feet in area.
l C. That awning signs be permitted per code for property addresses, names of occupants
~/~ and year business established, should not state product names or lines, tag lines,
pictures of products, hours of operation or telephone or fax numbers, and provided
-. .-. ._-----
Page 1 of 2
-
.
DUBLIN PLAA~1JNG AA"'D ZOI\1JNG CO:MMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
June 9, 1994
""
I CASE 2: Rezoning Application Z93-005 - Perimeter Center :Mall - Subarea F (Cont.)
such signs are limited to one square foot in area and the color is complementary to
the awning and wall sign. Awning signs shall be limited to one square foot in area
or as approved by the Planning Commission as part of a development plan;
D. That gooseneck fixtures all be comprised of the same exterior finish and color,
subject to Staff approval; and
E. That the background color of wall signs, projecting signs and awning signs be
--.- selected from the approved existing Perimeter Center palette of trim colors or a ~
compatible color approved by Staff; ~
5) That the text for outparcel signage revised to state permitted lettering style, size and 'filii'"
- - colors, background color, and illumination;
6) That the following paragraph A(9) of the Graphics section on page 4 of the revised
development text be deleted:
For the purposes of this Planned Commerce District application within
Subarea F, the following definition for wall signage shall apply for
computing the allowable area of each wall sign, whether it be located
directly affixed to a wall or a canopy/marquee: 111.e allowable area of
wall signs pennitted under this PCD shall be that of the advertising area
of the individUfllletters and symbols as they are attached or affixed to the
building or canopy/marquee. The area of the sign shall be computed by
enclosing such sign with the smallest rectangle around each individual
word, series of words, numbers or symbols and thus detennine the sign's
area;
and
7) That the Graphics section for Subareas FI, F2, F3, and E be revised as follows:
No more than one ground sign shall be pennitted on any one lot or
multiple lots if devoted to one specific use or user, except that, for
buildings or uses having fromage on each of two public rights-ol-way,
two ground signs are pennitted. Maximum height above grade shall be ~
nine feet. When two ground signs are pennitted for a corner lot the total J
maximum. area of such sign faces shall not exceed 66.5 square feet. ...
Neither ground sign shall, by itself, exceed the maximum. allowable area
---- of 50 sqUflre feet for each face.
* Attorney for the applicant, Ben Hale, Jr., agreed to the above conditions.
VOrEL_~-o.
RESULT: This rezoning application was approved and will be scheduled for public hearing at
'-' City Council on June 20, 1994.
STAFF CERTIFICATION:
,
- ~
-.-..-- --_.-,------
Page 2 of 2
'-
---
,,'" ~ ,.........._..d.,~" ,_.~"".~~.,_~~.~_ (l~'ii
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - June 9, 1994
Page 4
I
CASE 2: Rezoning Application Z93-005 - Perimeter Center Signage
APPLICANT: Muirfield Drive Partners, Continental Real Estate Interests/Park Development
Company, c/o Jeffrey L. Brown, Attorney, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725,
Columbus OR 43215.
REQUEST: Review and approval of revisions to the development text regarding signage for
Perimeter Center in the PCD, Planned Commerce District, under the provisions
of Section 1181.09( d). The Commission recommended approval of the rezoning
on May 19, 1994, with the exception signage. The rezoning permitted a 119,400
'- square-foot unenclosed retail center, 46,000 square feet of additional retail space
in three detached structures, two commercial/restaurant outparcels totalling 3.5
acres and a 100,000 square-foot flex-office structure. The site is 33.393 acres in
size and is located between Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road.
UPDATE:
As noted above, Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed
zoning text and map amendment for Subarea F of Perimeter Center on May 19, with the
exception of signage. The recommendation of the Commission included the provision that Staff
and the applicant reach agreement on issues concerning the development text, prior to
forwarding the application to Council for final action. The recommendation included a condition
that signage be submitted for review and recommendation prior to forwarding to Council in
conjunction with the rezoning application.
BACKGROUND:
The rezoning request under the PCD District involves a Composite Plan and development text.
The Planning Commission has made its recommendation on a portion of this application. The
complete application will be returned to Council following resolution of development text issues
and a Commission recommendation on signage. The rezoning ordinance will be scheduled for
a public hearing and later for Council vote. A two-thirds vote will be needed to override the
Commission's recommendation. If approved, the proposal will again be reviewed by the
--- Commission under the Development Plan regulations prior to construction of any phase.
---" CONSIDERATIONS: ------
The following considerations focus exclusively on signage for Subarea F of Perimeter Center.
US33/SR161 Perimeter Center Sign
-. 0 One project identification sign is approved adjacent to US33/SR161, no more than 25 feet
- from the right-of-way, no more than 20 feet in height, and no greater than 300 square
feet in area per sign face. The sign is to be internally illuminated and two-sided. The
proposed text states that the US 33/SR 161 identification sign is to be deleted from the
text (Item 5(b) of the original Perimeter Center Subarea standards, dated February 9,
::- 1988) and Staff supports this change.
-
..
-
~J
"
v
-.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - June 9, 1994
Page 5
-- Main Identification Signs for Retail Center
0 ApJ>roved Text - One project entrance sign is approved each on Perimeter Drive and
Perimeter Loop Road and two project entrance signs are approved on A very Road. The
Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road project entrance signs are 106.25 square feet
in area per sign face and 19 feet in height. The Avery Road project entrance signs are
37 square feet in area per sign face, situated on a 215 square-foot masonry wall. The
base height is five feet.
o Proposed Text - A free-standing sign design is proposed, 23.5 feet in height, 16 feet in
- -- __ ______ depth and eight feet in width. Three sign faces are proposed, totaling 300 square feet .~.
in area (the submitted elevation indicates total sign face of 177.5 square feet). Two faces
are proposed to state "Perimeter Center" at 72.5 square feet in area and the remaining .,
.- smaller face parallel to the street, states "Big Bear" at 32.5 square feet in area. The
elevations do not indicate treatment of the fourth face. Two sign locations are proposed,
one at the northeast corner of the Perimeter Loop and A very Roads intersection and the
other at the Perimeter Drive entrance to the retail' center.
0 Staff Assessment
: .', Staffis concerned that the free-standing signs are excessively large, exceeding two stories
- in height. Staff supports the principle center signage at the A very and Perimeter Loop
intersection and recommends maintaining that sign at that location, but reducing its height
to 20 feet. Staff supports three sign faces on the Perimeter Loop sign, in conjunction
with the recommended reduction of the grocery store wall sign (as recommended below).
These sign faces should not exceed a total area of 180 square feet. Staff recommends
reducing the Perimeter Drive sign to a ground sign, with a maximum sign face of 75 feet
and maximum height of 10 feet. Two sign faces. for the Perimeter Drive sign are
supported by Staff. Sign lettering relative to the retail center should state "The Shoppes
at Perimeter Center" and gold lette~s and a dark background should be used whi~h
complements the retail center wall signage.
Grocery Store Signage
0 Ap.proved Text - The tenants of the approved enclosed shopping mall were not permitted ~
'.:' outdoor signage, with the exception of the grocery. store and two restaurants. The "
-.. ~~::' approved Development Plan from 1989 indicates that the grocery store signage "appears ..-
: ',' to comply with Code." Wall sign height appropriate with the architecture was permitted.
.. _d_~___ An elevation dated October 17, 1991 for the Perimeter Shopping Center indicated a ._---
grocery store wall sign more closely meeting the City's sign code, totaling only 64
square feet in area and 20 feet in height.
0 Proposed Text - The grocery store wall sign as proposed, includes the following text:
"Big Bear" and "Food & Pharmacy," and incorporates the company's bear logo (the Big --.--.- -
Bear text is comprised of four-foot letters). The sign face is approximately 362.5 square
feet in area and is approximately 26 feet in height. Wall sign lettering is approximately
.. 124 square feet (excluding the area encompassing the bear logo). The "Big Bear"
lettering and bear logo are proposed to be internally lit and finished in a red plastic face.
The "Food & Pharmacy". lettering is proposed to be externally lit, matching the retail
center signage package (gold letters on a subdued background).
0 Staff Recommendation
- -
_-.--+
-----
~
___'__.~'_',~.~..,..'.,.._O_".___________ v-..~ -,
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - June 9, 1994
Page 6
Under the Zoning Code, wall signs are limited to 80 square feet and 15 feet in height.
- I In the past, the City has permitted slightly larger wall signs as a part of a planned
district. The proposed grocery store signage is excessive, based on the City's sign code,
previous approvals for Perimeter Center and sign permits granted to similar uses over
time. Staff recommends one wall sign of 60 square feet for "Big Bear" lettering,
internally illuminated and in red letters, one wall sign 30 square feet for "Food &
Pharmacy" as proposed and the retail center free-standing sign at Perimeter Loop and
Avery Roads (maximum sign face of 37 square feet). The wall sign height should relate
I""'"" to the building's architecture and should not exceed the proposed height limit of 26 feet.
.... Retail Tenant Sign Package
.- 0 - "-- Proposed Text - The retail center sign package for individual store fronts presents in an
excellent illustrative manner, a variety of standard signage based on the width of
individual tenant spaces (16.6 feet to 50 feet). Proposed signage is comprised of one
projecting sign, three square-feet in area, one principle wall sign, and one awning sign.
Maximum sign height is 16 feet, which Staff can support given the degree to which wall
signs are architecturally linked to building fronts. Wall and projecting signs are proposed
to be comprised of "gold" letters on dark-colored backgrounds. Background colors are
to be selected from the approved Perimeter Center palette or an "approved compatible
or approved equal" color. Awning signage is to be painted on the fabric, with signage
colors compatible with awning fabric. All sign age would be externally lit with gooseneck
fixtures. Total sign area is proposed to be limited to one square foot per one linear foot
of store frontage, with a maximum of three signs permitted (one wall sign, one awning
sign and one projecting sign).
0 Staff Assessment
Projecting signs enhance the pedestrian environment of the retail center and build upon
the architectural character. Awning signage, if further limited in size and not backlit,
_ can also enhance the pedestrian and architectural environment. The applicant foresees
awning signage used for secondary identification (such as "Established 1990" or limited
.,..... . to street address). Staff supports this concept, but recommends additional limitation to
~, prevent sign clutter. Staff recommends maintaining the sign area limit of one square foot
" -. per one linear foot of store frontage, and recommends limiting awnings signs to one
""-
.. square foot in total area. Awning sign text should be limited to bearing only property
______~..;:.:,~ address, names of occupants of premises, and year business established, and should not -------
. ,-' state product names or lines, tag lines, pictures of products, hours of operation or
telephone or fax numbers. Relative to colors, Staff supports the proposal and
recommends that background colors for wall and projecting signs, and awnings be based
on the existing approved color palette. Relative to gooseneck fixtures, Staff recommends
- .- a single color scheme that would be compatible with the background color palette. In
_ addition, these signage schemes should be a requirement of all retail structures in the
'~.- center.
Outparcel Signs Within Perimeter Center and Along A very Road (Subarea E)
0 Ap,proved Text - Primary identification signage for outparcels is limited in the current
development text to one 50 square-foot ground sign, with no more than two faces per
sign. Maximum sign height is eight feet above natural grade. These signs are intended
- -.----- - -- - -- _.-
.-- . '''--'--~---~---
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - June 9, 1994
Page 7
to be uniform in dimension and style. They are identical. with a dark grey slate face and
mounted lettering.
0 Proposed Text - The proposed text is identical to the current text (including the 50
square-foot maximum sign area), except that the maximum sign height has been increased
to nine feet to that the stone base will be slightly higher in height (four feet) than the
stone pilasters (3.5 feet) proposed in the Perimeter Center hedge treatment. An
illustrative sign design has been included, which is intended to improve the "readability"
of the current sign design. Sign dimensions are five feet by 10 feet, with a stone base
of four feet by about 11 feet. However, standards are not proposed relative to permitted
lettering style, size and colors, background color, and illumination. ~..
0 Staff Assessment .~
. --q. Staff supports the proposed approach because it improves readability of the existing ...,'
signage, and recommends approval of the new sign height. However, the text must be
revised to state permitted lettering style, size and colors, background color, and
illumination. The provision of logos within these signs should be prohibited, given their
limited size.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the signage text for Perimeter Center with the following
conditions:
Conditions:
1) That the development text be revised to incorporate the conditions presented
herein, submitted for Staff review and approval prior to scheduling the rezoning
before City Council for a second reading;
2) That the Perimeter Loop/Avery Roads main site identification sign be reduced to
- 20 feet in height and that three sign faces be permitted, with the faces not
exceeding a total of 180 square feet in area. Sign lettering relative to the retail
center should state "The Shoppes at Perimeter Center" and "Big Bear" lettering
may be permitted on the smaller of the three sign faces, all three of which should
utilize gold lettering and a dark background to complement retail tenant wall ~
signage and which should be externally illuminated; .I
:~;. 3)~ . - That the Perimeter Drive main site identification sign be reconfigured as a ground
- .---.- ._--_._~----- . sign, with a maximum sign face of 75 feet and maximum height of 10 feet and
. .... . that sign faces be limited to two. Sign lettering relative to the retail center should
state "The Shoppes at Perimeter Center", externally illuminated and gold letters
and a dark background should be used which complements retail center wall
signage;
- -- 4) That grocery store wall signage be limited to one wall sign of 60 square feet for
"Big Bear" lettering, internally illuminated and in red letters, one wall sign 30
square feet for "Food & Pharmacy" as proposed and the retail center free-
standing sign at Perimeter Loop and A very Roads (maximum sign face of 37
.. square feet). The wall sign height should relate to the building's architecture and
--
should not exceed the proposed height limit of 26 feet;
- 5) That the Retail Center Sign Package be amended to state:
--
-
-
--
-
"'~-."-~-'----'-~-~-""~~---~-' .
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - June 9, 1994
Page 8
A. That all wall and projecting signage meet the City sign code relative to
~,
"' permitted sign face area and that wall signs not exceed 16 feet in height;
I
B. That each tenant store front be limited to one wall sign, one projecting
sign and one awning sign, the faces of which together shall not exceed one
square foot per one linear foot of store frontage;
C. That awning signs be permitted per code for property addresses, names
of occupants and year business established, should not state product names
or lines, tag lines, pictures of products, hours of operation or telephone
f"'" -~- - or fax numbers, and provided such signs are limited to one square foot in
. . _________u ~area and the color is complementary to the awning and wall sign;
~
I D. That gooseneck fixtures all be comprised of the same exterior finish and
'-
- -- -- -- color, subject to Staff approval; and
E. That the background color of wall signs, projecting signs and awning
. signs be selected from_.the~ existing. Perimeter Center. palette or a
compatible color approved by Staff; and
. 6) _0"., That the text for outparcel signagel'evised to state permitted lettering style, size
. . :-: and colors, background_color, and illumination, and to prohibit logos.
Bases:
1) The applicant has proposed a unique graphic package, with the noted
modifications, that complements the architectural character and pedestrian nature
of the development.
2) The signage provides a suitable and appropriate approach for graphics at this
important entryway to the City.
3) The signage meets the aesthetic goals of the sign code and the Community Plan.
...,
-- - ---- ------ -- .-- . ----
-
-
-
-.
--
-
--
'--
--
--
.- J
--
--
'"
..
C
II'
- ~
~
SITE
C:Ol.L')GtlS ~ U
---..~ 5~ ',f'
'. \ '., '\ .\ " ,,,- ..".
5'E!!3! 1UllGS 'fC)
.- ~ J'I.lcz SOini
-'--
~
",
.\'1
. .
I ~
~~
"~~..
~~ .
-..
",~
, ~G ~..
1il':~ PJ) ___ 9 C!'.c
-r",'. ........
.
.
, CDLUI'
\
~
" \ -
-.
- .
./.
d .. m : CDLUkr N
.. --.~_...
-. ..."j -_.';.' ....- ,
.. -'. ':'~.':..c;" ,
-. .--' ~i~~ VASHINGTDI-J ~
' .{:i;..;f.. ~ \?
" . IA(:l.:i!o.lf,TON ~'::i:{:;':<'. T':" ..::-.,,:.:;::-\
z ..--.. --
a -,---~
-
Z .jl ....U \;' I
. .- \ \ ~. ~
\, \., ? L R
\ .- ~
r ' . .
R Ll
-
.
i
Ll
. i R
i ...-.-i
\
~ ;
; .
\ ~-~
~ ;
-
i\
("".
I
, I \
..... ,
-r-
~\
..
\
\
\ ,
\
---
--'~
[ ,....---
~
-:-;.../ -
~J- t'...,\e
i
\
. .Kezomn '_ . '"',.:.--- --at.
.~ .
g Appfica on" . :-..~\." .
- ------ - --- .. Z93-005 .
\ \ Perimeter Center N .
\ ~-
\ . Subarea.. F - ~
/~
-. '-.__..._._-_...._~. ~ - y..-.-......--"...
-
- .
. i
I 0;..
......
I
.. 1 ~::
.1 t~:
i
, 'f:
, ~. I '!:;
., .
:;
.:.:;
;. ,{.
- ~- D .;..
. . ;-
.. . . . :.: =
", .: '.
. I ~
I t
I ...~
~.
i ::<
~ I
i .:~
kO .
I l-:. .
~ . ,
v
I I ~~ - .
. I ! .v.
. I .~
11 .~
7'
. .
. 'c'
t I ..
,.,
.~.
, J \ ~
l
".
1.
.1.
. j(
.t
<
,.
:
0 ;;
- :
C
OJ
r .
-
Z
-- ~
-0 .,
0 .. ..).
.
-- .- ./
(J) . /
. .
-I .
itj] .'
:0 :
. ~ 0
)> . ,
0 :
(J) .
-I I
I
C .
lJ:l i
i 0
% -< O'
lI> . .
lJ:l ,
.. ; -:.
0
j) C . .
. . ,
- t'r 0 .
--,; , .. i
l~1 r:r :: i I
.r> ;! I :
:;... ~
~ . .
f '! 01 .
tJ j ~ : It
iSDI ,-
S ::I ., :
f ~~: ' I
l! 7')
. - '.
-
-"^ -"""'.~."--"~"~-
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - June 9, 1994
Page 4
and the setback 0 offman Road needed to be increased. He said these were co mon items
for review and t e church should meet that standard
The motion as amended by Mr. Peplow to Ie this application for 6 (jays to allow
applicant t provide a cardboard model of th levations, and the plan t e redesign
Jerry enburger, Chairman, Church T stees Board, asked that
ys, to prepare the model and m with the neighbors to ad
- r ----.
. Kranstuber seconded the tion and the vote was a follows: Mr. errara, no; Mr.
I
& Sutphen, no; Mr. Peplow, ye , Mr. Rauh, yes; and Mr. stuber, yes. (Tabled 3-2.)
'-'
------.-
2. Rezoning Application Z93-005 - Perimeter Center Signage
Vince Papsidero presented this case. On May 19th, the Planning Commission approved the
rezoning of this site to PCD, Planned Commerce District, with the exception of sign age. The
site is approximately 34 acres located between Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road on the
east side of A very Road.
Mr. Papsidero said signage for Perimeter Center at US 33/SR161 in the southeastern quadrant
of the development, including main identification for the retail center, grocery store (wall sign),
retail tenant package for the center, and outparcel signage for Perimeter Center and uses along
A very Road (Subarea E) were to be reviewed. He presented slides of Big Bear signage in
various central Ohio locations for comparison to the proposal.
Mr. Papsidero said a 50 square foot sign on a stone base was proposed for the outlot parcels.
It would complement the pilasters located in the hedging throughout the project. The text
permits wall, projecting, and awning signage per store frontage. The wood signs will be
externally illuminated with gooseneck fixtures. The background color is proposed to match the
,.. current Perimeter palette, dark green, navy, or dark red. Black may also be included. The
i
,.lettering is to be gold-colored. Staff agrees to multiple signs but believes the awning signs need
more control.
-
-=--- ._--~-
Mr. Papsidero said the Big Bear signage was 364 square feet in area. Eighty square feet, 15
feet high is permitted by Code. The Big Bear lettering is four feet tall and will be visible from
over 2,000 feet, or beyond Avery Road (per visibility chart from the California Institute of
Technology).
- -_.--
Revised written conditions were proposed and distributed by Mr. Papsidero pursuant to
inf,!rmation received in the last week. They are as follows:
1) That the development text be revised to incorporate the conditions presented herein,
submitted for Staff review and approval prior to scheduling the rezoning before City
Council for a second reading;
~-
------
---..
-
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - June 9, 1994
Page 5
2) That a total of two main identification signs be permitted, not to exceed 15 feet in height
, and 19 feet in width, with a maximum each of two sign faces, with a maximum area of
66 square feet per sign face, externally illuminated, with sign base materials matching
the retail center materials and sign face materials and colors matching the retail tenant
materials and colors, and with one such sign located at the northeast corner of Avery
Road and Perimeter Loop Road and one such sign located at the Perimeter Drive
entrance to the retail center;
3) That grocery store wall signage be limited to one wall sign of 60 square feet for "Big
Bear" lettering, internally illuminated and in red letters, one wall sign 30 square feet for ....,-
"Food & Pharmacy" as proposed and the retail center free-standing sign at Perimeter
Loop and Avery Roads (maximum sign face of 37 square feet). The wall sign height ...)
should relate to the building's architecture and should not exceed the proposed height
limit of 26 feet, and that the Big Bear signage be accepted as proposed per applicant's
elevations presented;
4) That the Retail Center Sign Package be amended to' state:
A. That all wall and projecting signage meet the City sign code relative to permitted
sign face area and that wall signs not exceed 16 feet in height;
B. That each tenant store front be limited to one wall sign, one projecting sign and
one awning sign. Wall sign faces shall not exceed one square foot in area for
each one lineal foot in store frontage not to exceed 80 square feet. Projecting
sign faces shall not exceed three square feet in area.
C. That awning signs be permitted per code for property addresses, names of
occupants and year business established, should not state product names or lines,
tag lines, pictures of products, hours of operation or telephone or fax numbers,
and provided such signs are limited to one square foot in area and the color is
complementary to the awning and wall sign;
D. That gooseneck fixtures all be comprised of the same exterior finish and color,
subject to Staff approval; and
E. That the background color of wall signs, projecting signs and awning signs be
selected from the existing Perimeter Center palette or a compatible color
approved by Staff; ~
5) That the text for outparcel signage be revised to state permitted lettering style, size and J
colors, background color and illumination, and to prohibit logos.
____ 6)___That the following paragraph A(9) of the Graphics section on page 4 of the !evised ---"---.--~.
development text be deleted;
For the purposes of this Planned Commerce District application
within Subarea F, the following definition for wall signage shall
apply for computing the allowable area of each wall sign, whether
it be located directly affixed to a wall or a canopy/marquee: The --...._..__.~
allowable area of wall signs permitted under this PCD shall be
that of the advenising area of the individual letters and symbols as
they are attached or affixed to the building or canopy/marquee.
The area of the sign shall be computed by enclosing such sign with
the smallest rectangle around each individual word, series of
words, numbers or symbols and thus determine the sign's area,. _ ___ u
j and - -.
-J -.----- --
-- --- -.----.--
_ __'_'h _ ---.--.
---
. ,,- -"---_._.......,-"""_._~,,....."......._~"~~-~.._"-~.",. ._"._-".~._"'" .
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - June 9, 1994
Page 6
7) That the Graphics section on page 7 as follows be deleted:
Neither ground sign shall, by itself, exceed the maximwn allowable
area of 50 square feet for each face.
and be replaced by:
When two ground signs are pennitted for a comer lot, the total
maximum area of such signfaces shall not exceed 66.5 squarefeet.
{Condition #7 was amended later.}
Mr. Papsidero said the bases were as follows:
---~ --.- -.--
f"" 1) The applicant has proposed a unique graphic package, with the noted modifications, that
, complements the architectural character and pedestrian nature of the development.
',,"
2) The signage provides a suitable and appropriate approach for graphics at this important
entryway to the City.
3) The signage meets the aesthetic goals of the sign code and the Community Plan.
Mitch Banchefsky noted that since less than six Commission members were present, the Charter
required four votes for approval of a rezoning application.
Mr. Kranstuber asked if any variances were required for the PCD District. He was told by Mr.
Banchefsky that variances were not necessary in a PCD District. He asked if the signage
allowed was more than was permitted in any other area. Staff responded affirmatively.
Mr. Kranstuber asked if there were any danger of jeopardizing the sign code by allowing more
signage at this location than anywhere else in Dublin.
Bobbie Clarke said one of the purposes of a planned district was to provide flexibility for unique
characteristics to the site or development. In this case, she said, there was very specialized .
architecture for a strip center and the signs proposed were not typical shopping center signs.
All signs will have standardized gold lettering, illuminated by goosenecked flXtures, giving a
historic look. Since the signs will be visible from a shorter distance, more signage and graphics
- that can be read from the parking lot as well as to the walking public are consistent with
promoting a pedestrian scale and plaza. Staff feels this modification (permitting them several
;........ signs instead of the standard one per store) is appropriate. She said the Big Bear sign, in an
- _____ alternative, is a standard, plastic faced, internally illuminated sign which Staff feels should be - --~...
regulated the same as others in the community.
Mr. Kranstuber asked if the Big Bear was the sign which Staff felt the strongest about. Ms.
Clarke said yes.
---
Ms. Clarke suggested that the awning signage be limited to one square foot or as approved as
part of the development plan by the Commission. The Commissioners agreed.
Franklin Kass, of Continental Real Estate Interests/Park Development Company, agreed to delete
the 25-foot sign on the freeway. He questioned square footage calculation and did not agree
with the visibility chart. He said the Westerville and Hilliard stores had higher letters. He
- /
-----
--~~~~-.-,.'"",.-
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - June 9, 1994
Page 7
asked for credit for removing the freeway signage, reducing the monument signage by 25
percent, and for the quality of the wood signs and lighting.
Joe Sullivan, of Sullivan, Gray and Bruck Architects, explained several aspects of the signage.
Ms. Clarke said the mechanism for measuring signs was a key element of the Sign Code. It
does count all of the area between sign components. However, if only the square footage of the
components (and no space between them) of the Big Bear sign were measured, it would still
exceed the Code. Staff feels, however, that they should be measured as is regulated everywhere .~
else in Dublin. This sign is not different and should be judged by the same standards as others.
)
-- Mr. Kranstuber asked if the sign could be approved as proposed. "
Mr. Rauh asked to see the elevation plan indicating the signage and how it was measured. Mr.
Rauh asked if the "Bear" part of the logo could be eliminated. Mr. Kass said Big Bear had sent
a letter to him indicating that they were ready to quit the project.
Mr. Kranstuber said Mr. Kass had been through the signage issues previously in Dublin Village
Center and there should be no surprises here. Every merchant should be treated equally.
Ben Hale, attorney for the applicant, said this project was special and exceptions should be
made.
Mr. Rauh said by Code, a logo was not to be more than twenty percent of the total signage area.
Mr. Kass said it was actually 12.5 percent.
Colleen Hippenthaw, 5888 Northcliff Boulevard, said the center looked good. The height of the
Big Bear sign did not matter to her as far as appearance.
Dan Pifenburger, of Bank One, was concerned with the colors and lighting permitted by the text
for their stone signage. A new sign program has been established for Bank One. They are ~
. - proposing to use a fiberglass based sign decorated with 3M Scotch Cal decals, two layers, a .J
white layer and then a blue layer that exposes the white letters and numerals behind it. It is
. - --~ internally illuminated. In the daytime, the sign appears to be a fabricated metal sign, and at _ __~____n___'_
- night, the entire head portion lights up continually the entire perimeter of the sign. He said two
financial institutions should not have to use the same blue.
Mr. Kranstuber asked if the Bank One sign was bigger than the State Savings sign. Ms. Clarke
said no. She said the Bank One signage just proposed was not endorsed by Staff. No where
in Dublin is the background of a sign peimitted to be translucent. The verbally proposed
signage is also substantially different from the text proposal.
Mr. Sutphen asked if the Staff recommendations were accepted by the Commission, would there
be any concern with the Code. Ms. Clarke said a residential image was desired along Avery
Road when Perimeter Center was zoned several years ago. The signs must have identical gray
.-
--.----
. "_.~..~~,"-~.,.'_. .--_._--."-~"""" '<>;,.,.w,;."....."....,""."_,.,,_."~,_,..~~~.~ .. "-
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - June 9, 1994
Page 8
slate with chrome letters according to the current text. The name of the business and address
only are allowed on the sign.
Mr. Sutphen said the Bank One sign should be identical to the other signs on the outparcels.
Ms. Clarke said "Bank One" blue is not allowed by text. The proposed background colors in
the text are navy blue, dark red, forest green, and black. Any color can be used for the
lettering.
- ~ -- -.
f -Ms. Clarke asked if any of the recommendations of Staff were to be included. Mr. Kranstuber
f said yes. Ms. Clarke asked about the entry sign age. The Commission liked the entry signage
'"
'? proposed.
Ms. Clarke said the text needed to describe what the main identification signs were. She said
Condition #7 limiting the combined graphics area to two ground signs needed to be incorporated.
Condition #5(A-E) helps to establish what that program for the center is.
Mr. Hale said there was no problem with those new conditions and accepted all the other
conditions as listed below.
Mr. Kranstuber made the motion to approve this rezoning application sign package with the
following seven conditions:
1) That the development text be revised to incorporate the conditions presented herein,
submitted for Staff review and approval prior to scheduling the rezoning before City
Council for a second reading;
2) That a total of two main identification signs be -permitted, not to exceed 15 feet in height
and 19 feet in width, with a maximum each of two sign faces, with a maximum area of
66 square feet per sign face, externally illuminated, with sign base materials matching
the retail center materials and sign face materials and colors matching the retail tenant
r materials and colors, and with one such sign located at the northeast corner of Avery
\W. Road and Perimeter Loop Road and one such sign located at the' Perimeter Drive
entrance to the retail center;
_3L._ That grocery store wall signage, relative to sign face area, location, text, colors, and
materials shall comply with the elevation as approved by the Planning Commission. --
4) That the Retail Center Sign Package be amended to state:
A. That all wall and projecting signage meet the City sign code relative to permitted
sign face area and that wall signs not exceed 16 feet in height;
_. B. That each tenant store front be limited to one wall sign, one projecting sign and
one awning sign, the faces of which together shall not exceed one square foot per
one linear foot of store frontage.
C. That awning signs be permitted per code for property addresses, names of
occupants and year business established, should not state product names or lines,
tag lines, pictures of products, hours of operation or telephone or fax numbers,
and provided such signs are limited to one square foot in area and the color is
-- complementary to the awning and wall sign. Awning signs shall be limited to one
---
----
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - June 9, 1994
Page 9
square foot in area or as approved by the Planning Commission as part of a
development plan;
D. That gooseneck fixtures all be comprised of the same exterior finish and color,
subject to Staff approval; and
E. That the background color of wall signs, projecting signs and awning signs be
selected from the approved existing Perimeter Center palette of trim colors or a
compatible color approved by Staff;
5) That the text for outparcel signage be revised to state permitted lettering style, size and
colors, background color, and illumination;
6) That the following paragraph A(9) of the Graphics section on page 4 of the revised -... - ~
development text be deleted: i!
.!/
For the purposes of this Planned Commerce District application ''I'
within Subarea F, the following definition for wall signage shall
apply for computing the allowable area of each wall sign, whether
it be located directly affixed to a wall or a canopy/marquee: The
allowable area of wall signs pennitted under this PCD shall be
that of the advenising area of the individual letters and symbols as
they are attached or affixed to the building or canopy/marquee.
The area of the sign shall be computed by enclosing such sign with
the smallest rectangle around each individual word, series of
words, numbers or symbols and thus detennine the sign's area,.
and
7) That the Graphics section for Subareas FI, F2, F3, and E be revised as follows:
No more than one ground sign shall be pennitted on anyone lot
or multiple lots if devoted to one specific use or user, except that,
for buildings or uses having frontage on each of two public rights-
of way, two ground signs are pennined. Maximum height above
- grade shall be nine feet. When two ground signs are pennined for
a corner lot the total maximum area of such sign faces shall not
exceed 66.5 square feet. Neither ground sign shall, by itself,
exceed the maximum allowable area of 50 square feet for each ~
face. J
- - Mr. Kranstuber said this was based on a Planned Commerce District with extraordinary
- -.- - .-.. -----
- ---. iesthetics-andarchitecture. -.. - -----..-
Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Ferrara, yes; Mr. Peplow,
yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; and Mr. Kranstuber, yes. (Approved 5-0.)
- --. - -..-- --- .- ._--~--.._~
While waiting for a quorum, Mr. Rauh stated that the following rezoning application would
require four positive votes of the Commission for approval.
.~. -
--
.--- -..-.-.------.-
-
.. "~__""",,,,,",_,~"___"'"~M___"__'.'" ~ 'liT
DUBLIN PLANNING A!\'!)) ZOl\'!JNG COl\1MISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
:MAY 19, 1994
CITY OF nrBLI:\
r- The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action in the application below at its --_._._--~---
regularly scheduled meeting:
- 2.- - - Rezoning Application Z93-005 - Perimeter Center Mall '- Subarea F
Location: 33.398 acres located between Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road.
. Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce Distr!ct(perimeter Center Plan).
Request: Review and approval of an amended Composite Plan and Development Text
_ to permit an unenclosed strip shopping center, new architecture and materials, and related
permitted use changes at Perimeter Center Subareas F, J. and K, which are proposed to
be reconfigured into Subareas F, F1 and F2, under PCD, Planned Commerce District, ,
as provided under the provisions of Section 1181.09 (d)
Proposed Use: Retail shopping center of 150,000 square feet in an unenclosed, strip
design, a 100,000 square-foot flex-office structure, and two commercial outparce1s
.' totalling +4 acres.
Applicant: Muirfield Drive Partners, Continental Real Estate InterestslPark
Development Company, c/o Jeffrey L. Brown, Attorney, 37 West Broad Street, Suite
725, Columbus, OR 43215.
MOTION: To approve this rezoning application with the following condition:
That text issues, except for signage, be successfully resolved between the
r . developer and Staff. (Signage will be subject to separate review and approval
by the Commission.)
......
. *The applicant, Franklin Kass, agreed to the above condition.
~---'-'-"--' .._-._._-~-----'
VOTE: 6-0.
RESULT: This rezoning application will be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation
--- ~- for approval by the Commission.
STAFF CERTIFICATION BY:
~ 1)iMb~~ ~
-
.' Vince Papsidero, AICP
-
_. Senior Planner
-. - ------_.. -----. --.--. -----
-- ... - NOTE: If the text issues are not successfully resolved by the Staff, the~ ;~;:~er Center Man
Commission at a later date for final disposition. Subarea F
--- History
,
........._.,-~-^~..~.._-
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission _f"
Minutes - May 19, 1994
Page 7
and Commission with regard to an endorse t of the higher density. There ar ore options
available to modify a lower density produ , bigger setbacks, greenspace, site arming, etc.
A trade-off between a more expensive chitecture, by breaking up the b dings, changing
rooflines, etc. for some of the mate' s is being reviewed. The appli s proposed building
is brick and wood siding. Will the ommission consider partial vinyl si g as one of the trade-
offs for improved architecture?
Mr. Fishman was willing to onsider a trade-off of materials, bu ounding, heavy landscaping,
lots of water or lots of d ers, etc. as was the case with As rton Apartments would be goo
examples of creative . tecture. --~-
Mr. Rauh said th If the developer wanted this densi show
the Commissio ow to make this density attractive trade-off of materials could b ccepted.
If that canno e done, the Commission will have require more green space. developer
desires th' Clensity, he needs to show a better roposal. .'
" Mr. tphen said the outparcels needed be documented. Mr. Ferrara d they should be
to y integrated. Mr. Sutphen said drive-through issue must to be olved.
. Sutphen did not want to see large masses of asphalt parkin It should meet Dublin's
Code. Mr. Rauh said that if th arking seems to be needed, ther ould be less units allowing
the greenspace requirement t e met.
~2. Rezoning Application Z93-005 - Amended Composite Plan and Development Text _
Perimeter Center Mall - Subarea F
Vince Pasidero presented this case. This rezoning application includes revisions to the site
plan, architecture and development text for Subarea F in Perimeter Center under the Planned
Commerce District. The site is 34 acres to include a 120,000 square foot unenclosed retail
center, including a 72,000 square foot grocery store, 46,000 square feet of additional retail space ~.
~- in three detached structures, two commercial/restaurant outparcels totalling 3.5 acres and a vi
100,000 square-foot flex-office structure.
--_._~_. -
. . Mr. Papsidero said the applicant has spent a great deal of effort on the architectural approach
~ to this center. Stafffeels the applicant has responded to the Commission's concerns. However,
there are still a number of issues regarding the development text. Under the PCD, the
composite plan and the development text together serve as the actual zoning documents for the
project. The development text must be clear and accurate in response to the Code requirements. - ~._- --
Mr. Papsidero said Staff recommended an informal review at this stage, but the applicant is
requesting formal action at this hearing. Given this, Staff recommends disapproval of this
rezoning application as submitted. Mr. Papsidero said that the applicant had been notified in ---
=- -.--
writing as to the revisions needed in the development text. The text remains incomplete.
- ~--_. --.
--..-..
----------.
--
-..----.-.-
Z93-005
Perimeter Center Mall - -_._-----
Subarea F
History
---~
---. ,;..""",..~,"~,.,... ~.._...._~-,..-,- ~ - iil-j.-t'--
~ Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - May 19, 1994
Page 8
, Mr. Papsidero said a pond/fountain feature was included on the new plan as well as a three-foot
"' evergreen hedge around the project site with stone pilasters and street trees. Staff felt the
architecture clearly responded to the goals of the Commission to create a unique pedestrian
environment with much variety in architecture. The pedestrian surface is a mixture of paver and
concrete. He said signage for the existing A very Road outparcels and other small users in the
development was a concern. The existing sign package did not communicate well. The
applicant is proposing anew, clearer design. Staff supports this revision to the text.
Mr. Papsidero said the Staff letter to the applicant lists ten issues not yet addressed in the May
",... -----18. text. They deal with permitting conditional uses by subareas, addressing subarea F4 which
is already developed. This is a rezoning all of Subarea F. Further details are needed on
"'" _...2. landscaping and architecture in the text to guarantee the quality level for the whole subarea, not
just the retail center, and the level of landscaping for all pedestrian and other areas.
_ Mr. Papsidero said project signage was unresolved. The current text permits a 300 square foot
sign for all of Perimeter Center along US 33/ R 161 at old Wilcox Road. In addition, the
revised text proposes two 300 square foot pylon signs for the retail center. Staff supports
signage which is designed for the site and which is more consistent with the Code.
Staff is recomending disapproval, Mr. Papsidero said. Under the PCD, there are nine distinct
areas to be met, and currently this project does not meet five of those. Staff believes the issues
could be resolved in the text, but revisions have not been submitted in a timely manner and
could not be reviewed for this meeting. Respectfully, Staff recommends disapproval.
Mr. Sutphen said he felt it is unfair to the Commission hear this application now as the
information was just received at the meeting. The issue was too important.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked for Code citations for the bases of approval in a PCD. Mr.
Papsidero cited them.
.
r .,.: Mr. Kranstuber did not understand the criteria; the Code is too general. Mr. Kranstuber said
. "';i.. the big picture was that whether it is a project wanted for this community. !fso, it should be
'- approved at this meeting.
- - ~--------_._-- ------
. Mr. Papsidero said Staff did want this as a project for the community.
Mr. Kranstuber said procrastination caused the City to lose the mall proposal due to the sewer
ban in 1990, that he expected Staff to work these issues out with the developer. If tabled and
- - the project is lost, no service is done for the Community.
Mr. Rauh said it seemed that Staff and the developer had been working the issues out but all of
them were not complete. He said it did look attractive.
:=-
Mr. Sutphen said he wanted to vote in favor of this rezoning, but since all issues had not been
(- resolved, he could not. He was frustrated with both the Staff and the developer. He felt Staff
\ did a good job, and he put the burden on the developer.
- .---
-
Z93-ooS
~ Perimeter Center Mall
Subarea F
History
~
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission -
Minutes - May 19, 1994
Page 9
- , Frank Kass, of Continental Real Estate Interests/Park Development Company, said Staff and the
) developer had never worked better or longer on any of his other projects over the last ten years.
He recognized the problems involved in the change in the project for the community. He
thought the Commission wanted a "knock the lights out" center, and so they have spent six
weeks on the aesthetics of the presentation, and they revised the text too late. Mr. Kass said
the problem with the process was that no one trusted developers in this community. He
requested approval of the rezoning with Staff to work out the details. Among the details was
egress and ingress and alignment with the BP driveway one way or another. He thought this
- . --- could be worked out with Staff and that all ten of the issues were similar in nature.
- _ n _n__._____"
~
Mr. Kass said they were willing to put in the deed restrictions that all the buildings will look ~
~- ---- like the center shown (outlots, etc.). He said he did not want to lose Big Bear because of "'u
delays. He asked for a chance to work it out with Staff. Mr. Sutphen said Council would like
to see this project complete without numerous details to be resolved by them.
- . - ~n Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, said that there was a disagreement between them and
- - Staff. He said 80 percent of what was included in Staff s letter had been addressed in the text
delivered this afternoon. He gave a brief history of the Perimeter Mall dating back to 1988.
He said $SM was spent to develop the plan, to install the roads and utilities. Along with the
Riverrside Hospital, the previous developer of this site Planned Communities vastly improved
A very Road to the bridge. Mr. Hale said the deal with the City was for certain developer
instaIed improvements. If other things were needed such as other traffic signals, the City would
take care of them. He said a traffic study was requested to see if another light at Perimeter
- Loop Road were necessary. The road improvement money has been spent already.
-
- Mr. Hale said when the sewer ban hit, the developer had already spent $SM on infrastructure.
When they lost the loan to build the center, and the deal fell apart. The McKitrick's asked
Frank Kass to develop this sensitive area for them.
Mr. Kranstuber asked if the text of only subarea F were being amended. Mr. Hale said yes.
- :/; Mr. Hale said Staff had not yet had sufficient time to review_the latest amendments to the text. ~--
- - .,,:'.., The issue of the seventy percent lot coverage still remained, but everything. else was resolved. ..l
-- ~-. ,': Mr.Papsidero said signage issues and text issues concerning conditional uses were unresolved. - _._~-,-
Mr. Fishman asked how this could be approved if these critical issues were unresolved.
- Mr. Hale said the center identification sign and the size of those signs were unresolved.
.. - --~---
--
- . Mr. Fishman asked if Staff agreed with the latest text received. Mr. Papsidero said no, not
~ completely, and the same is true for the site plan. Mr. Fishman did not know how it could be
-
approved without resolution of the issues.
- .- --
"- Mr. Kranstuber said they were technical issues except for the sign issue.
-
=
-.-..
=- ;
.. )
- -
Z93-QOS-
-- . . Perimeter Center Mall
Subarea F
History
- .....
~ -.,"""",~,~~,~ . ,-",_.,-~ - rrli' ,
. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - May 19, 1994
Page 10
Mr. Hale said on the architectural side, feedback was very important to them. They would try
to resolve the thousand of minor issues in this complex project if the big picture was okay.
Mr. Kass felt signage should not be an issue at this time. They would give up a major sign on
Rt. 161, but they wanted to make sure that they know what they are getting.
Joe Sullivan, of Sullivan, Gray, Bruck Architects, said Staff had given good input and worked
~ well with them. He said it would be more than strip center. Mr. Sullivan said in the site plan
_ ~Q1~ facade was broken down into varying depths of shops, the width of the walk: was introduced - ..-.---
;tIA>.. without a canopy, in some places awnings were placed in lieu of the canopy, pitched roofs and
!
more pedestrian scaled elements were included. Scored concrete and pavers were included in
'r .":., the revised plan and a hedgerow along the outside edge so that it tends to feel more like a street --
rather than a parking lot. They tried to capture the old "small town" feel in the design. Mr.
- Sullivan said buildings were separated rather than having everything continuous. He said the
large entry feature included three fountains with a hedge and stone pilaster detail that unified the
entire site and gave an architectural element to screen the parking.
. : Mr. Sutphen asked if the flag poles shown on the rendering were planned. Mr. Sullivan said
they would develop as part of the detail. He said benches would be along the pedestrian walk
area and streetlamps. Signage will be of the old style with gold letters on a dark painted
background. Gooseneck light fixtures will shine on them to lend a much richer image. Rather
than a simple aluminum storefront, they have committed to detail with raised panels, a character
.found on a more historic style, Williamsburg kind of storefront.
--
- _ Mr. Sullivan felt the Big Bear Store signage proposed was appropriate for the scale of the
building.
Mr. Sullivan said if approval were granted, more attention could be taken to develop this idea.
- He said the other issues could be addressed and worked out later.
y""'" 'H'C: Ralph Halloran, a Post Road resident, congratulated them on the plan. He asked for details on
,.,;;. the stormwater detention." He said the two lakes on the property were had overflowed even
.... > before the apartments were built. They were too small. Mr. Halloran said another detention
- . .-:~'':::' pond was needed on this property. Staff promised several years ago to make the two existing ----.----
. ."":' ponds either bigger or construct another pond. He said pieces cannot continue to be approved
without dealing with the storm water as required in the Code.
Mr. Halloran suggested that a 28 foot piece of property, north of Post Road at the end of Wilcox
- --- Road, owned by the City, would make a good bikepath in front of the development to join with .-.~~
- --- the bike path along Indian Run Park.
Randy Bowman said Margarita's Restaurant and Crown Eur-ocars, in Perimeter Center, were
required to provide on site detention in their parking lots. Both sites are part of the overall
master storm water plan for Perimeter Center as previously approved by the City. The center
-' , will have onsite detention in the parking lot also. Mr. Bowman said he was comfortable with
:-
.
- ~_. this stormwater management plan.
- -
Z93-005
- _.-.- Perimeter Center Mall
Subarea F
History
-
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission .
Minutes - May 19, 1994
Page 11
Bob Hughes, speaking for the Perimeter Business Association, said they were in support of the
development and would like to see it approved.
John McDonald of Crown Motor Company repeated Mr. Hughes comments and requested that
an agreement be reached at this meeting.
Jeff Dortman, Real Estate Specialist for Big Bear Stores Company, said they had been
committed to the location since 1988. They will put in a state of the art supermarket. Since
1988 the plan for the store has changed. The interior of the store will have a "market square"
-where all the service departments are included in the first part of the shopping trip. ~
Tim Kelton, of Ruscilli Real Estate Services, Inc., representing the 125 undeveloped acres to j
""'ffI
the east of Perimeter Center, said he wants the Commission to approve this rezoning.
Randy Palmer, Trustee of the Muirfield Village Civic Association, said the association supported
this development, for convenience shopping and enrichment of the tax base.
Mr. Fishman asked if the Commission could approve this application pending Staff working out
the text. Mr. Banchefsky said it had been done before on PUDs and other types of zonings.
If Staff cannot resolve issues, they can be returned to the Commission for disposition. The
Development Plans will have a much narrower scope of review similar to a final development
plan in a PUD. But the Commission could by agreement with the developer have those
unresolved issues brought back at that point. In other words, the Commission could expand the
_ scope of the development plan review. Either option is workable.
Mr. Sutphen asked for Stafrs preference. Ms. Clarke responded that this developer and his
design team had put forward a terrific effort. The power that comes to the Planning
. Commission in a peD comes through the zoning phase of it. She has heard from many within
the community that if not a mall, the replacement project needs to be just right. She expressed
concern that all their effort was spent in the design of the building, but not enough time was
spent on the text. - The text will govern this plan for many years, and it is always possible that ~
~ -. this project might not be built for whatever reason. Under the PCD regulations, she reminded
.. -c the Commission, their authority and discretion is limited. The Staff has reviewed the site plan J
and pointed out several problems. They have not been addressed. If the Commission wishes, ----..---.
----St3.ff to work on these issues and come back at the June Planning Commission meeting, or they
will only return if they are unable to come to terms.
Mr. Fishman was concerned that the proportion of the Big Bear Store sign was planned to match
the size of the building. He said he would like to see the Bear deleted from the sign because
it did not match the character of the shopping center.
Mr. Hale said there were only three issues that they did not agree with Staff. The Big Bear
Store sign on their building, the two pylon signs, and the seventy percent lot coverage issues
remained unresolved at this time.
---
----
.,. -
... ,.. ~.'--_.. -- ,. M~ "',
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
- Minutes - May 19, 1994
Page 12
Mr. Kass said the biggest of the three issues was the seventy percent lot coverage. He said the
seventy percent should be seventy percent of the original Perimeter parcel, not a portion of it.
He said the Big Bear Store sign needed the Bear included on it. Mr. Fishman asked if Big Bear
were flexible regarding the sign. Mr. Dortman was told in 1988 that 80 per square feet was the
maximum allowed by Code. He wanted the signage to be visible from A very Road. He said
he would work with Staff on the signage issue, but they wanted to include the Bear.
Mr. Sutphen said the signage issues were similar to those in Dublin Village Center.
.; . Ms~ Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the seventy percent lot coverage issue. Mr. Papsidero said
currently the maximum lot coverage requirement for commercial development in Dublin was
seventy percent and Staff recommended that figure be applied to this development. It would
apply at a tax parcel basis based upon a building permit application.
Mr. Kranstuber asked for a definition of a lot. Mr. Papsidero said it was any piece of ground
on which a building permit is filed. Any of the outlots cannot seventy percent lot coverage
which is structure, parking, or any impervious surface. For instance for the retail center, it will
be on its own separate tax parcel and as it is developed, that piece of ground cannot have more
than seventy percent coverage in concrete and structure. Thirty percent will need to be
landscaped.
Mr. Hale said the seventy percent regulation was not in existence when this development was
first approved.
Mr. Kranstuber said the site was exposed from all sides and that the office hid the back side of
the mall.
Ms. Clarke said a reasonable thing to do would be to review the approved mall plan and see
what kind of lot coverage was enforced then. She did not know that it was at eighty percent
now. It might be appropriate to accept something greater than seventy percent lot coverage if
.""". it was previously approved.
\ . Mitch Banchefsky said the text was an open item and suggested that a motion state that it is to
. be worked out between the applicant and Staff, and if it cannot, the Commission would have the
. - final say when it was presented again. ---'-
Mr. Fishman said even if it were worked out, he would like to see it come back to the
Commission. Ms. Clarke asked for what purpose. Mr. Fishman said he was concerned about
the sign age and the entrances. Ms. Clarke asked if agreement were reached with the developer
and the Commission did not like it, did they want the right to override it. Mr. Fishman said
yes.
Mr. Fishman understood there were three conditions to be resolved. Ms. Clarke said since the
final text had not yet been reviewed, Staff did not know.
.-.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - May 19, 1994 ~
Page 13
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher made the motion to approve this rezoning application on the condition
that the text can be resolved between the applicant and the Staff and the signage shall come back
for approval by the Commission. Mr. Ferrara seconded the motion.
Ms. Clarke asked if the Commission wanted Issues #1-6 as follows to be resolved.
1) Subarea F3 should be created for existing uses at the eastern portion of the subarea
(credit union, veterinarian and restaurant) and the text and Composite Plan should be
.-.- revised to address this subarea and its related development standards.
2) The development text should be revised to address the following issues: _._-~_.~ -
~
a. Separate sections should be prepared for each subarea and a fourth subarea (F3)
- -- _. ->-- should be included in the text.
b. The gross square footage of the retail center must be clarified.
. c. Permitted uses and conditional uses should be modified based on the above
considerations, for each subarea.
d. The setback reduction proposed for Perimeter Drive should be justified.
e. A maximum lot coverage of 70 percent (per code) should be incorporated into the
text.
f. Circulation standards regarding curbcuts should be revised to include City
Engineer approval of any final configurations.
g. Outdoor storage of materials, supplies, etc. "except for a garden center which
may be free-standing or part of a larger retail operation" should be deleted from
Storage and Equipment subsections. These should be regulated as Conditional
Uses.
h. The location of the three-foot continuous hedge should be clarified to include all
roadways (public and private) and the proposed planting plan (subject to Staff
approval). Street trees should be large trees from Appendix E, Group A.
i. Signage should be revised based upon the above considerations, and a full signage
package should be submitted. Detailed standards comparable to the approved text
should be incorporated into the proposed amended tex~, such as illumination,
design, materials, etc. Design illustrations are strongly encouraged. Any ...-,
. variations from the approved text or standard Code provisions should be justified
by the applicant. )
--_______ J. : . .' The text should be revised to address all additional items discussed herein. f
3)"" Landscape plans should be submitted for Staff review and approval of the temporary ~--- ---
screening of the rear elevation of the retail center, pedestrian plaza at the grocery store
entrance, secondary pedestrian space at the ends of the retail center, entrances at
Perimeter Loop Road and Perimeter Drive, typical section of the three-foot hedge and
stone pilaster treatment, screening of the rear elevations of the 8.4 K and 12.6 K .
structures and the rear of the flex/office and retail center structures, and typical sidewalk
-'section at the retail center.
4) Architectural elevations should be submitted for the rear elevation of the retail center
showing revisions that break-up the facade where it is most visible to the public,
conceptual elevations for all sides of the three retail structures associated with the center
(8.4 K, 12.6 K and 25 K) showing compatibility with the retail center, elevations for the
-
",~__~~=-~,~"~_^~.."""'~'~,"""',o;.~"_~'<' ~,,~--, -_.....,~,.--._....-.,..;~.~... ~ .__,_"""""",~..,>..u,...,,_."_,,,",,,. ,,,.._,~<.~
. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - May 19, 1994
Page 14
flex/office structure showing compatibility with the retail center, and conceptual
. elevations for the two restaurant outparcels.
5) Plans should be submitted to provide for the longstanding deficiencies in the overall
development to be completed. These include the bikepath on Perimeter Drive and the
Avery Road and SR 161 buffering.
6) Traffic issues, including submission of a traffic study acceptable to the City Engineer,
need to be adequately addressed. The safety of the central entry on Perimeter Loop and
successful resolution of traffic impact and circulation are needed.
r- Mr. Ferrara said yes.
, Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher amended the motion to include that the Staff recommendations of #1-6
also be worked out and if they cannot be worked out between the applicant and Staff to their
satisfaction, the application will be returned to the Commission.
Mr. Ferrara said everything submitted was received at the beginning of the meeting was part of
the official record. Mr. Banchefsky said that was correct.
Ms. Clarke said the drawings had not been reviewed yet by Staff. She said the front elevations
showed pennants around the buildings which the Sign Code did not permit. Mr. Ferrara said
they would be addressed when the signage was reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Kranstuber said if Staff worked out something not consistent with the drawings shown, it
would be a problem.
Mr. Fishman asked about the type of shake roof planned. Mr. Sullivan said the shakes would
be of a heavy texture~ not specified at this time. Samples of the material will be presented later.
Mr. Ferrara seconded the above motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr.
Rauh, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr.
r . Ferrara, yes. (Approved partially, 6-0, with signage reserved)
, 3. Rezoning Application Z94-003 - 2870 Martin Road - SportMart Inc.
Ben Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, requested this application to be tabled until June 9,
1994.
Mr. Rauh made the motion to table this application and Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion. The
vote was as follows: Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; Ms. Chinnici-
Zuercher, yes; and Mr. Kranstuber, yes. (Tabled 5-0)
- -~-
--
...~
I ..
A\
,
~
J
,
-
~,",,,~.._"h_'_.,'..~_.'" _~~""~"'~'~'""d=.'~~~ .-.=-,."'-'"""".... .~ '" ~'.. " '-'1:_:_'J:,__-,'._)........11_
i 'jT-'i1!' - U,
.
DUBLIN PLANING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
July 7, 1994
CITY OF DUBLIN
.
r The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action in the application below at its
regularly scheduled meeting:
.. CASE 4: Rezoning Application Z93-005A - Development Text - Signage - Perimeter
Center :MaIl - Subarea F
MOTION: To disapprove this rezoning application as submitted on the three following bases:
1) The applicant has received a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission
on the original signage proposal and has received positive feedback from the Council,
prior to final action.
2) The proposed revisions de-emphasize the pedestrian environment of the retail center, by
incorporating signage that by design is oriented toward passing traffic on A very Road and
US 33, and that by design (relative to scale and illumination) is inappropriate to
pedestrian traffic.
3) The proposed revisions create two classes of communication within the retail tenant
space, which detracts from the uniformity of architecture and design intended for the
overall site.
-
VOTE: 4-0.
RFSULT: The motion passed denying the application as submitted.
The rezoning ordinance is scheduled for third reading on July 18, 1994. This
, portion of the request, relating to additional signage, is being recommended for
disapproval. The balance of the request has a positive recommendation.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
AS SUBMITTED 10 COUNCIL
2/f.:1I:11- FOR MEETING ON ..:z!Ji!g.H
-.-.-
_.
-.-.. - ---.--
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission -
Staff Report - July 7, 1994
Page 13
c'\
CASE 4: Rezoning Application Z93-005A - Development Text - Signage - Perimeter
Center Mall- Subarea F
APPLICANT: Muirfield Drive Partners, Continental Real Estate Interests/Park Development
Company, c/o Jeffrey L. Brown, Attorney, 37 West Broad Street, Columbus,
OR 43215.
REQUEST: Review and approval of additional amendments to the Development Text to
increase signage, as part of a the Planned Commerce District (PCD) plan -~
previously approved by Planning Commission on June 9, under the provisions of
Section l18l.09(d) of the Planning and Zoning Code. The rezoning permits a 1
119,400 square-foot unenclosed retail center, 46,000 square feet of additional "
retail space in three detached structures, two commercial/restaurant outparcels
totalling 3.5 acres and a 100,000 square-foot flex-office structure. The site is
33.393 acres in size and is located between Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop
Road.
UPDATE:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning for Perimeter Center on May
19. On June 9, Planning Commission recommended approval (with conditions) of the zoning
text for signage for Subareas E and F of the proposed Perimeter Center revisions. City Council
held a public hearing on the complete rezoning package on June 20 and is scheduled to vote on
July 18. The applicant is requesting this amendment to permit additional tenant signage within
the retail center. Staff recommends disapproval.
BACKGROUl\1J):
Under the current PCt> text (passed in 1988), an enclosed 250,000 square-foot retail mall is
required. The applicant has requested rezoning to permit a 119,400 square-foot unenclosed retail
center, 46,000 square feet of additional retail space in three detached structures, two
commercial/restaurant outparcels _ totaling 3.5 acres and a 100,000 square-:foot flex-office ~
structure. The applicant has also proposed a comprehensive sign package, with the following
elements: main identification signage for retail center, grocery store signage, retail tenant "I
signage and outparce1 signage for Subarea E. The site is 33.393 acres in size and is located
between Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road. -~- ~~~~
The rezoning request under the PCD District involves the Development Text that accompanies
the Composite Plan. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation on the amendment.
The application and Commission recommendation will be returned to Council. This signage
amendment to the pending zoning application will be forwarded immediately to City Council.
It will be considered on July 18 as part of the overall rezoning package for Perimeter Center.
A two-thirds vote will be needed to override the Commission's recommendation. If approved
by Council, the proposal will require site plan review by the Commission under the
Development Plan requirements prior to construction of any phase.
- AMENDED SINCE PUBLIC HEARING -JUNE 2.0,
~ 1994
- j
- .J -- - .
--
- --,'-~-'.:_-~"~'''~-~"-'" .~. ._..'....","-"--~-_.~..=-'~_.,~..'-'. Ii JiliJJ1lii1 'rIW'j(l"Tlii':til:;:' 1._1.'" l.-'-_'~-~"'~-;
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - July 7, 1994
Page 14
CONSIDERATIONS:
\ 0 Approved Signage - As previously considered and approved by Planning Commission,
the applicant has proposed the following signage (presented in summary - please refer
to the June 9, 1994 Record of Action):
0 Main Identification Signage - Two main identification signs were approved, not
to exceed 15 feet in height and 19 feet in width. Each sign is to have a maximum
each of two sign faces, with a maximum area of 66 square feet per sign face.
- Signs are to be externally illuminated, with sign base materials and sign face
I" __ __~______n _ }paterials and colors matching the retail center, and with one sign at the northeast -- -----------
corner of Perimeter Loop and A very Roads and one sign at Perimeter Drive at
,. the retail center entrance. Also, the US 33/SR 161 main identification sign has
- -- -, been deleted from the original text.
0 - Grocery Store Wall Signage - Grocery store wall signage was approved, to
include a red illuminated plastic bear logo and the wording "Big Bear" in four-
foot letters and a wood, externally illuminated sign with the words "Food &
Pharmacy", as presented. The total sign face area is 362.5 square feet.
0 Retail Tenant Signage - _ Tenant signage was approved, comprised of one
._. externally illuminated three square-foot projecting sign, one externally illuminated
wall sign not to exceed 80 square feet and one non-illuminated awning sign not
. to exceed one square foot in area without Planning Commission approval. Text
limitations were placed on the awning signage. Background color of projecting,
wall and awning signage are to be selected from the approved Perimeter Center
trim color palette (dark green, dark red, dark blue and black), lettering is raised
and gold in color and uniform gooseneck fiXtures for illumination. This signage
currently applies to the three separate retail structures, in addition to the retail
center.
0 - Outparcel Signage for Subareas E and F - The Commission approved outparcel
-.' sign age limited to one ground sign per use (except corner lots) with a maximum
- 50 square feet per sign face, two faces per sign, and with background colors
_ _. _ selected from the approved palette. Corner lots are permitted two signs,
. _ however, maximum sign faces cannot exceed 66 square feet. These requirements . -
. _ __~ apply to the individual users along Avery Road, the two restaurant outparcels on
y Perimeter Drive and the flex-office structure.
~ ..-_o___~_p!:oposed Signage Revisions - The applicant is proposing the following revisions: ---. -
::.. ------
0 .0. Main Identification Signage - The applicant has proposed deleting the main
- ( identification sign at A very and Perimeter Loop Roads. Also, the standards have
been reduced requiring the remaining main identification sign to match retail
tenant materials and colors.
- 0----- Grocery Store Signage - The grocery store signage has been revised by replacing -.------
- the internally illuminate bear logo with a "painted metal outline (color to- be
- determined)." The text does not indicate the size or location of the logo outline.
. A revised full-color rendering has not been provided.
-- 0 Anchor Tenant Signage - A new series of "anchor tenant" signage is proposed.
- Anchor tenants are "inline" tenants with at least 8,000 square feet and "endcap"
--
- tenants with at least 5,000 square feet (the "inline" and "endcap" users have the
- -- _. distinctive cottage-type facades). A site plan was not provided indicated these
;: . --'-
?
, "".-'- ---.-- - ---.,-----.
--
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - July 7, 1994
Page 15
locations, but staff estimates at least six such spaces in the main retail building
) and an unknown number in the adjacent retail structures. The wall sign standard
for these spaces is one square foot per one lineal. foot of store frontage, not to
exceed 80 square-foot. Wall signs are proposed to be internally illuminated,
plastic individual can letter signs.
0 B-Space Tenant Signage - A new series of "b-space tenant" signage is proposed.
B-space tenants, which comprise the balance of the retail space, are permitted the
same signage as previously recommended for approval by the Commission.
0 Information Signage - The applicant has added a new section to the signage
---.- ~
standards, incorporating information signage text from existing portions of the
Perimeter Center text, which permits information and directional signage, not to I
exceed three and one-half feet in height. .,
0 Staff notes that the graphics standards in the development text, as recommended for
approval by Planning Commission, do not provide for wall signs in Subarea F2 (flex-
office structure). The applicant may wish to consider wall sign age needs for tenants
spaces in the structure.
STAFF RECOMMEl\1JJATION:
Staff recommends disapproval of the applicant's request to revise the development text for
Subarea F in Perimeter Center. The applicant has received a positive recommendation from the
Planning Commission and favorable feedback from Council regarding the current sign standards.
The addition of internally illuminated, plastic can letter wall signs for numerous tenant spaces
in the center is excessive. Under the current text, these spaces have consistent, gold lettered,
externally illuminated signage that reinforces the pedestrian environment, which is the retail
center's design theme. Internally illuminated signage de-emphasizes the pedestrian environment
and can be expected to clash with the grocery store signage for attention. In addition, staff does
not favor the applicant's deletion of a monument "Perimeter Center" sign at Avery and
Perimeter Loop Roads. This sign is important as a communication device for all tenants with
externally illuminated signage.
Bases: ~
1) The applicant has received a recommendation of approval from the Planning ,I
Commission on the original signage proposal and has received positive feedback "
.--,.,--~_..- from the Council~ prior to final action. - .--- ---
2) The proposed revisions de-emphasize the pedestrian environment of the retail
center, by incorporating signage that by design is oriented toward passing traffic
on Avery Road and US 33, and that by design (relative to scale and illumination)
is inappropriate to pedestrian traffic.
3) The proposed revisions create two classes of communication within the retail
tenant space, which detracts from the uniformity of architecture and design
intended for the overall site.
-~.--.
- --~------_.- --- ..
---
- ". ~~- \ I ~ "~R~J~r-"
. \ ~~ pun .>,....rJ1Y' -;.
PlR ./' ~ R- ' .
,~ .
z P..L..B... P U i ~
. g :: ,,~
o . '; . 14 :
PL R-4.... ....,~ ,,~~: .
. - ~s:. ~f '~JD . >- .~ ':
z ....-1;' /R-2~ . r ( ~.l...
o. . \ ::I 'I I ~
::::> n . ,,\J;-'-' =- i PUD ' · ~III ~ Cl ~L~~ '_
. j~ \ 0 ~ ' l R~2'j)R'4 ~ oh l
'. ~~ ,- ~~ -=
f""~ . " \' PUD . A 'II
~ ! r ,,- --
~ ~- . \ ~ at ' ' ~ R
~\ ~ Irt 0 ";.1[ I ~ -. "'< "'-'"'" ~l, Ipuo /
:\. R ~ . IYf. .....-. 0--t ~ .
Rr- ~~ I "~; ,1 -. \,. ' ~~\i.i~" R-'", ~~ ~___ >'- ~
:\ v-.. ~ I '0 R-"\ ~ '. t ~
- ' .. \.' ",. fj'~
\ RI. ill'. '.z:i:''l ~ PCP ~~ PU --r= . .
/RI~~ R ~KO~~~~. ~
~ I \~ ,SITE.....,L,~ , ' u .' ,I ~I
"\ ~ ~--' ~~ i. ...... (~_
- ~ - j, - (--t::f
~ ~ -:-- - . , '. .F . ~ \ \. \ \~. :,1. cc . \.
>> - \ ~I-- ~,~ \__ffi L \}J, L puo _
j;B!...______~r. tl L..r; ~:::--- ' I p~l l ~
- r:. \ - , ,,~ '~I- IU .
NGS \ \ . I U CC.; ~ R . ::J RI Co .... . -- I '__. , _
..,c,.., /'. LI ~,~ SO ,. _ . LI _...~....~
:YlL(-'-::: - -rR 1..,E ,J AX ~ -1 ' ! v r
~~ i ~
~ J R fl - ..- . 1
,.- 1 .w.f.1 ~R .....-, --
..... - I P l R -' ./" OLR -
- - , _--C, ~"'. .,
.r:-" .of -. .....", ",.n .-I . . \1 P. R - 1 .
=-'f ,~- \ · '-- , -. ,- \ \..l mf ~ :'~'I~. I ~ \ :;> 1 ,s'
\t PUo., PLR .~Mw RII~\ \lI~
- I ~P I P l ""' '1
- ,... :..; R' so. \' I
· , ''''---- EU - / PLR ~DI ~ \ peD ,
- \", - ~ 11=. \ ..------1
~ . ~ . /1 R-~ \K- , . \ \ \
-~ ..L.." R-1B :\. It, -3- 1\-12 Y\\\\ .-,
- ~ \ Oft ~ _ ,,K' n "
- - '
\ \ \ N C ~ ~-f"'"'", ,v"cC -- ~. ..
=-.., - - 'R-"1~ \ ~' ,
~ ....J peo ~ \ \' \ ~
.. -1 \ .,
- - \
~ NonC, , .... \ - \ '
8 "S, \ \ ~ ~ t .~ezomn Appllcan ~
- " 0 ;; Z93-005A
~ ~ L~ ~ ~ Perimeter Cenler ~1 N
~; - - -EO Subarea E & F - Slgnage
. :- .\....---\
, B .~ :J \ ~
_' r R- '\ iJ l---"l:-II,..-'. .. ',' , ,
-.
a. . . .
i\J-):~!::~:,;;',: Jd~~~'" " ... .
::- :..~.:.:.
~. .. ..
. ...: ::.~ ::' .~';.
.....:"::.; :. .....:..
.... ," "....:- .:."
-' .
'-
~ .
.. "0\
,":p'-. ;
,if
~~dl;
:*,~.....,: ~ ~
i~i : ~ SITE
~H ; ~ ----- ,.
~~~
'\ ..--.
Ii '\ '" co' .' .. .
WI/l!11I ~ JU)
. " " .' .
t ", ,,-- .. . . .. . ·
.-' ~_.., ,. .~.,..,
-' .... ~.-'. ~ '1
. . . .
, ..... .. ,..c'.- ..... RD' . ' ~~ --
S7,."'{ S"J
. . . ." __ .= n.
" _ -- ',' " ,...
. PL" ,.'. t ..
\" '" . -- . ',' ,
1_ _.' ::l
~;r~{} ;t';'~-S:j~ff,.~'€!.<i', ;' .!i~,
~...._."::j.." Zl.lJ(-SHDRJ .;1...~I....;('....'!',.'~ . ..... .,\.-~.."
~ ',~!o;<;.".;~ .~~;,.;lt.",.,,"'>:".~..,.,~ I ..:.' ...~r.".~"t...-:.l'"... .
. ._..' .. ..c:",.,,-.'n;.~...-...... ,.."" ",.."............~..
,,,, .__ ~,. "'-"~" '.r""'i!;"~;' ;Ii · ,-1;=.,"'" -,
-,H'.' t.-, .' :,~";' "e:""..{,,",.d"'~ ~.".f'\: :::' -r;;fol;-:;'
~. ,.,.' .' _ .,..,"" .._.._'." _. ".' ....~,."- .~f'l....~.
_ ~';>>:' ::;~;~ ~R~~;1il~)i~'~ .' f;~~ ~~
'. . . ...... ,.. _..... ~.TRD' . ...... ~il 'l.~.....s,?.],,~ ...:p\'~~~..t~....".~
.. ~a-.. "., .....'..:..:. ..:: ..... . II I CUOI q... . '~,;'-l~;:r~~ ~~":-~..-"....
.' . '0, .~. ", ~.f":.'h..~,et ""=t::~:' ":J.~jt
. I ' !'I.' .,.,.-. .,.,. . .~ ;:c:....!..
~...... CT t:." .~.:,..i~ ."~ .!4iZ!:.:~1'
_. I' l . .I ..\).. .. '.1\': ".~'. ,...",l)t'':"'':1-..:.:,,1i!,"~'
R- ---:-,. ...... _;..;.......l..~: ..t~:r.......,,'~~~~:'
.: ezonmg Applica' ti'", ~'::.-:-:~~"~:'!:.:'i<t~.:
I on ..' 0".:_.
" ; Z93-00SA
-, , __ , . ,! Perimeter Center Mall ,'I'
. .' ...: Subarea E & F S' N
:. . . . ~' I'. - Ignage
. .. It.'"' ". ~ I '. -....
,- I~
.- --
=~~-"-"-----"-~-',,..>,.. . '^- ---.,~.... ~ .._.~ ~.
. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
. Minutes - July 7, 1994
Page 4
CASE 4: Rezoning Application Z93-005A - Development Text - Signage - Perimeter
Center Mall - Subarea F
Vince Papsidero said this is a reconsideration of the signage component of Perimeter Center
Mall rezoning for Subarea F. The public hearing on the rezoning was held at City Council on
June 20, 1994, and a vote is expected on July 18th. The Commission recommended approval
of the signage package on June 9, 1994, but the applicant has made some changes. The
r Perimeter Center rezoning includes a 120,000 square foot, unenclosed retail center, three
detached retail structures, two restaurants, and a 100,000 square foot flex/office structure. The
" sign package includes main identification signage for the retail center, grocery store, retail tenant
space, and outparcels.
Mr. Papsidero said there are two shopping center signs, at Perimeter Loop Road/Avery Road
and at the northern entrance. He said the application erred by requesting only one identification
sign. Both shopping center signs are still proposed and Staff supports them.
Mr. Papsidero said the proposed modifications involve the tenant signs. The June approval by
the Commission had up to 80 square foot wood signs, raised gold lettering, externally lit, on a
background of either dark blue, dark red, dark green, or black. Only Big Bear was to have
internally illuminated, plastic faced signage. The applicant now proposes that all "major"
tenants, generally above 5,000 square feet, whether end-cap or in-line spaces, be permitted an
80 square foot, internally lit, individual canned letters, instead of the consistent wood signs.
Mr. Papsidero said the Big Bear signage as recommended by the Commission is also proposed
. to be changed. The logo is an internally lit, red plastic sign as approved, and the change is to
have an unlit red metal outline in the shape of the bear. Big Bear had the ~ internally lit
signage approved by the Commission for the retail center.
In addition, Mr. Papsidero said, the liB" space tenant signage (all continuous store fronts, not
including the large cottage-type structures) would maintain the approved wood-type signage. He
'\.>i:, said the applicant is also requesting approval of information or directional signage, which is
subject to a three and one-half foot height limit. Mr Papsidero noted that no signage proposal
-.- had been submitted for the flex/office tenant spaces. Presently, only a 50 square foot, two-faced -----~- .
sign is permitted for the 100,000 square foot structure.
Staff recommends disapproval of the proposed changes. The internally lit signs will detract from
the architectural goal of the center and detract from the pedestrian environment. The applicant's
proposal was always clear that the Big Bear Store signage was intended to be ~ attraction
. point. Additional internally lit signage is a reversal of the proposal as submitted to the City.
- Mr. Kranstuber asked if Code permitted internally lit plastic signage. Mr. Papsidero said yes.
--
- Ben Hale, Jr., the attorney representing the applicant, said that some prospective tenants had
- specific sign requests. He said the applicant told Council that they would return to the
-.
- --- ~
.--
-- -
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - July 7, 1994 .
.
Page 5
Commission to amplify sign issues. Mr. Hale said the Development Plan review would include
these few signs for Commission approval. They will be integrated and architecturally
compatible with the building. He said they propose less signage than what was presented by
Staff.
Joe Sullivan, of Sullivan, Gray, and Bruck Architects, said they would not downgrade the
quality of the center. He said in order to secure anchor tenants (defmed as the end cap spaces
or in-line spaces greater than 8,000 square feet, and single tenant buildings), more visible
externally illuminated signage is needed.
-~
Mr. Sullivan said defining signage in the text before securing tenants was difficult for Staff. He ,
suggested returning to the Commission when the graphics and building design were determined '#
for the tenant. Mr. Sullivan said the applicant feels internally lit signage is appropriate.
Mr. Sullivan presented to the Commission a rendering of a -newly amended sign package for the
Big Bear store of which was not available for review prior to the meeting. Mr. Sullivan said
the rendering showed the signage modification for the two in-line anchors and the Big Bear store
only in this phase. He said the independent buildings, for single tenants, would want more
signage than just the externally illuminated signage. If Blockbuster Video became a tenant, an
appropriate facade would be designed and presented to the Commission with graphics for
approval. Mr. Sullivan said it would be consistent with the architecture of the center.
Mr. Fishman said this detracted from the neighborhood look of the center. He said he had
relied on Mr. Kass' statement that there would be only one plastic illuminated sign, for Big
Bear, when he voted for approval. He considered this a significant change since approved.
. Mr. Sullivan said they were trying to respond to the market.
Mr. Ferrara said hours were spent to resolve signage, as approved at the June meeting against
Staffs recommendation. He thought the lettering would be gold-leaf, not just gold-colored.
Mr. Fishman said this was not the first time an applicant attempted to persuade the Commission .~
with a beautiful plan, and then changed the proposal. He cited the clocktower as an example. .)
He liked the plan as previously approved although he had not supported illuminated signs for
-. - Big Bear. He favored a different concept be designed eliminating the illuminated signage. --~---_.
-
Mr. Sutphen said he also liked the previously approved signage better than this.
- Mr. Ferrara said praise and congratulations had been given to the developer previously for doing
an outstanding project and was dismayed that it was already being repealed and revised.
Mr. Kranstuber said this site, until rezoned is a mall site. The Commission agreed to a change
- for a high-end strip center, and then the Commission even went against Staffs strong
recommendation for disapproval of the sign package.
-
-:-
- Mr. Hale said the size of the signage was not being increased or changed.
-
-
-
-
-. .....-
~_._- -'~'-~"~~~""=-'~'-~~"""- ~"'.. ""'~. .M~ 1 '-"~~"""'"",,",,;:;':~'4~'" 'i'r~';
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - July 7, 1994
Page 6
Mr. Sullivan said the character of the center would not change. It will still be a pedestrian
center. They want the opportunity to bring signage proposals back to the Commission for
approval at the development plan stage, without revision of the rezoning ordinance.
Mr. Fishman asked if just the sign package had been reviewed by Staff. Ms. Clarke said it was.
She stressed that the sign package presented verbally tonight had fewer plastic signs than their
written application. This application was being amended on the floor.
~ Mi. Fishman disliked the precedent of plastic signs even for a few tenants; others would follow.
t . Evelyn Brown of 3888 Inverness Circle, said this application for signs was getting more
attention that the building materials for the Millco property at Bright and Sawmill Roads. Mr.
Fishman said they would be stone, cedar, and stucco. Ms. Brown said the time spent on the two
cases was not equal and it was unfair.
Mr. Hale asked for the chance to present architecturally integrated signage for the two tenant
spaces at the development stage to the Commission for approval. He did not want to start over
with text revisions (the rezoning process).
Mr. Kranstuber felt the Commission had gone to its farthest extent and would go no further.
Mr. Fishman said the Commission was impressed with the presentation and the externally
illuminated signs because it would look different from anything else in Dublin. He said plastic
signs would be out of place. He understood Mr. Kass to say that only Big Bear needed a plastic
sign. It was going to be a walking-type shopping center and would not need plastic signs.
Mr. Sutphen made a motion to disapprove this application on the following bases:
1) The applicant has received a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission
.'-' on the original signage proposal and has received positive feedback from the Council,
prior to fmal action.
, 2) The proposed revisions de-emphasize the pedestrian environment of the retail center, by
incorporating signage that by design is oriented toward passing traffic on A very Road and
- --..-. .
US 33, and that by design (relative to scale and illumination) is inappropriate to
pedestrian traffic.
3) The proposed revisions create two classes of communication within the retail tenant
space, which detracts from the uniformity of architecture and design intended for the
overall site.
Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Ferrara, yes; Mr.
Peplow, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; and Mr. Fishman, yes. (Disapproved
5-0.)
-
c-
o
-
-
-
---...,--..-..-----