Ordinance 100-14RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Leg Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
100 -14
Ordinance No.
Passed 20
REZONING APPROXIMATELY 2.9 ACRES, LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF PERIMETER DRIVE, BETWEEN
THE INTERSECTIONS WITH AVERY MUIRFIELD DRIVE
AND HOSPITAL DRIVE FROM PUD, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RIVERSIDE PCD NORTH,
SUBAREA A3) TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT (RIVERSIDE PUD NORTH, SUBAREA A3) TO
FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COFFEE SHOP
WITH A DRIVE -THRU. (CASE 14- 069Z /PDP /FDP)
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
of its elected members concurring, that:
Section 1. The following described real estate, (see attached legal
description), situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned
PUD, Planned Unit Development District, and shall be subject to regulations
and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the
Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments
thereto.
Section 2 . The application, including the list of contiguous and affected
property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, are all incorporated into and made an official part of this
Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance
there within.
Section 3 . This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the
earliest period allowed by law.
Passed this L14-4 day of 2014.
Ma - Presiding Officer
ATTEST:
01
Clerk of Council
I cityof Dublin
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090
Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager��
Date: October 9, 2014
Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director
Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II
Memo
Re: Ordinance 100 -14 — Rezoning Approximately 2.9 Acres, Located on the North Side
of Perimeter Drive, Between the Intersections with Avery- Muirfield Drive and
Hospital Drive, From PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Riverside PCD
North, Subarea A3) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Riverside PUD
North, Subarea A3) to Facilitate the Development of a Coffee Shop with a Drive -
thru. (Case 14- 0692 /PDP /FDP)
Summary
Ordinance 100 -14, a request for review and approval of a rezoning with preliminary development
plan for 2.9 acres to modify the permitted uses of an existing development text, was introduced at
the September 22, 2014 City Council meeting. Approval of the change would allow the
development of a coffee shop with a drive -thru. The site is located on the north side of Perimeter
Drive, between the intersections with Avery- Muirfield Drive and Hospital Drive.
First Reading Comments
Council members were concerned with the proposed stacking and circulation of the drive -thru and
requested additional information regarding the stacking of other existing area drive - thrus. The
following information was collected by Planning.
• The Wendy's restaurant located on Tuttle Crossing Boulevard in the City of Columbus was
approved with eight stacking spaces as required by the Columbus Code (eight stacking
spaces required for buildings with one order /pick -up window).
• In the City of Dublin, the Wendy's/Tim Horton's and the McDonald's on Perimeter Drive
were approved prior to 2000. In 2000, the City of Dublin Zoning Code changed to include
drive -thru stacking requirements. Prior to this Code change, Dublin used the stacking
requirements from the Columbus Code.
• Tim Horton's was approved with eight stacking spaces;
• Wendy's was approved with 12 stacking spaces (six required for each window if the
building has two order /pick -up windows).
• McDonald's was also required to meet the eight -space stacking requirement from
the Columbus Code and provided 14 stacking spaces with their final development
plan in 1995, which was disapproved by the Planning and Zoning Commission due
to concerns that the site was too small to accommodate the use. City Council
overturned the Commission's disapproval on appeal by the applicant on August 7,
1995.
Memo re. Ord. 100 -14 Starbucks — Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan
October 9, 2014
Page 2of2
The applicant for Starbucks has provided graphics (attached to this memo) illustrating the 12
stacked vehicles (shown in blue) in the proposed drive -thru for Starbucks and an additional four
vehicles (in red) all stacked within the site. Similar graphics include Tim Horton's and McDonald's
on Perimeter Drive. Both graphics for these restaurants show that vehicles are forced to stack off-
site at around it cars in the drive -thru and that any vehicles beyond that number are forced to
stack off -site.
The applicant has also indicated a willingness to require employees of Starbucks to park in the
northeastern parking aisle to avoid the potential for customers being blocked by additional
stacking.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application at the August 21, 2014 meeting
and recommended approval of the rezoning and preliminary development plan by City Council with
the conditions listed below.
All conditions recommended by the Commission related to the preliminary development plan have
been incorporated with this submission. The applicant has also addressed Condition 2 of the final
development plan as part of this submission. Condition 1 will be required to be met at the building
permit stage. The conditional use conditions will be required to be met as they occur.
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Conditions
1) That the applicant updates the traffic information provided to reflect more accurately the
existing uses within the Planned District, subject to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Final Development Plan Conditions
1) That the applicant revise the size of the menu board to 32 square feet prior to applying for
a sign permit;
2) That the evergreens screening the drive -thru be pulled back from the curb at least five feet
and that a plant different from junipers be selected, subject to approval by Planning.
Conditional Use
1) That this approval is only applicable to a coffee shop.
Additional City Council Condition
1) That the coffee shop employees park in the parking spaces in the northeast portion of the
site.
Recommendation
Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 100 -14 at the second reading /public
hearing on October 13, 2014 with the additional condition regarding employee parking.
Icity of Dublin
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090
Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager\AL
Date: September 18, 2014
Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director
Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II
Memo
Re: Ordinance 100 -14 — Rezoning Approximately 2.9 Acres, Located on the North Side
of Perimeter Drive, Between the Intersections with Avery- Muirfield Drive and
Hospital Drive, From PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Riverside PCD
North, Subarea A3) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Riverside PUD
North, Subarea A3) to Facilitate the Development of a Coffee Shop with a Drive -
thru. (Case 14- 069Z /PDP /FDP)
Summary
Ordinance 100 -14 is a request for review and approval of a rezoning with preliminary development
plan for 2.9 acres to modify the permitted uses of an existing development text. Approval of the
change would allow the development of a retail building with restaurant spaces and associated
patios. The site is located on the north side of Perimeter Drive, between the intersections with
Avery- Muirfield Drive and Hospital Drive.
Background
The 24 -acre Riverside PCD North was rezoned in 2004 to allow a mix of office, medical office,
daycare, retail and restaurant in three Subareas. The PCD has been under development for several
years and currently includes the Shoppes at Avery shopping center, Huntington National Bank,
Champaign Bank, the Primrose School daycare and medical office buildings.
The subject parcel is in Subarea A3 of the PCD. City Council approved a rezoning in January 2013
for this subarea for a new 14,000- square -foot shopping center with 126 parking spaces, allowing
retail and restaurant uses.
On June 6, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Commission commented informally on a request for
review and feedback for a Starbucks Coffee Shop with a drive -thru. Commissioners were
concerned about the impacts of the proposal on parking, circulation, screening and potential noise,
and suggested the applicant revise the development text to limit drive -thrus to certain uses.
Description
This is a request for review and recommendation to City Council of approval of a rezoning with
preliminary development plan to revise the development text for Subarea A3 of the Riverside North
Planned District to allow a drive -thru for a Starbucks coffee shop. Rezoning to a Planned Unit
Development requires approval of a development text to serve as the zoning regulation for the
development requirements noted.
Memo re. Ord. 100 -14 — Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3 — Starbucks Drive -Thru
September 18, 2014
Page 2 of 3
The proposal is a request to rezone 2.9 acres from PUD (Planned Unit Development District,
Riverside PUD North, Subarea A3) to the same district -- but creating a new PUD with standards
and regulations only applicable to this Subarea. No changes are proposed to Subareas Al and A2.
Development Text
Use
This development text modifies the permitted uses for Subarea A3. A coffee shop is a permitted
use within Subarea A3 of this Planned District; however, a drive -thru is explicitly prohibited in
this Subarea. The revised permitted uses and prohibited use sections of the development text
(Page 6) delete the drive -thru prohibition. Text has been added to permit one drive -thru as a
conditional use in Subarea A3, including an allowance for a menu board sign.
Preliminary Development Plan
This use is to occupy the easternmost tenant space, converting the previously proposed patio area
into a drive -thru window and lane. To accommodate the stacking spaces, the proposal eliminates
an internal driveway into the site from the east side and 14 parking spaces.
The drive -thru is proposed to be accessed from the north driveway into the site with drive -thru
circulation on the east side. A landscape island separates the drive -thru circulation from parking
spaces. Pavement markings will indicate the intended traffic flow for the drive -thru.
The Commission previously expressed concerns regarding the potential for vehicles stacking
beyond the 12 required stacking spaces. This proposal provides the 12 spaces; in the event
stacking occurred beyond this point, the parking spaces that would be potentially blocked are
relatively remote from the rest of the center.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application at the August 21, 2014 meeting
and recommended approval of the rezoning and preliminary development plan by City Council with
the conditions listed below.
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Conditions
1) That the applicant update the traffic information provided to more accurately reflect the
existing uses within the Planned District; subject to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Final DeveloQment Plan Conditions
1) That the applicant revise the size of the menu board to 32 square feet prior to applying for
a sign permit;
2) That the evergreens screening the drive -thru be pulled back from the curb at least 5 feet
and that a plant different from junipers be selected, subject to approval by Planning.
Conditional Use
1) That this approval is only applicable to a coffee shop;
Memo re. Ord. 100 -14 — Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3 — Starbucks Drive -Thru
September 18, 2014
Page 3of3
2) That should this drive -thru cease operating, the site will be required to be restored to pre -
drive -thru conditions within one year of the close of business or a new conditional use
application is approved by the Commission.
There was discussion at the Commission regarding development text language prohibiting fast
food and how this would apply to this application. Ultimately, the Commissioners decided that a
coffee shop is not considered fast food and the conditional use review provided sufficient oversight
to evaluate each drive -thru request in the future.
All conditions recommended by the Commission related to the preliminary development plan have
been incorporated with this submission. The applicant has also addressed Condition 2 of the final
development plan as part of this submission. Condition 1 will be required to be met at the permit
stage. The Conditional Use conditions will be required to be met as they occur.
Recommendation
Staff recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 100 -14 at the second reading /public hearing
on October 13, 2014.
PUD
----- _ R-1
PUD
R-1
1 4 POST RD
.s la P
PCD
p � R �MEr �m
1
m
Mr
s + r • • ry
vo
PUD � • • v
PCD
Ow PcD'
o �
PUD y
i-- 1 p
2
- i
o • •.
PUD
F
14- 069Z/PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ 0 150 300
Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
7 c l ity of Dublin Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks Feet
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive 4
01A
rmw we and
LON Ronne M=dl
SSW Dubrn. Ohio � 6. 236
Phone /100
F=6:441"'.'
Web 9'e: www.dubHn oh to
C
February 2009
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATION
(Code Sectlon 153.232)
1. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION:
❑ Informal Review ❑ Final Plat
(Section 152.085)
❑ Concept Plan [] Conditional Use
(Section 153.056(A)(1)) (Section 153.236)
[� Preliminary Development Plan 1 Rezoning ❑ Corridor Development District (CDD)
(Section 153.053) (Section 153.115)
El Final Development Plan
(Section 153.053(E))
❑ Amended Final Development Plan
(Section 153.053(E))
❑ Standard District Rezoning
(Section 153.018)
❑ Preliminary Plat
(Section 152.015)
❑ Corridor Development District (CDD) Sign
(Section 153.115)
❑ Minor Subdivision
❑ Right-of-Why Encroachment
❑ Other (Please Specify):
Please utilize the applicable Supplemental Application Requirements sheet for
additional submittal requirements that will need to accompany this application form.
II. PROPERTY INFORMATION: This section must be completed.
Property Address(es): 6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017 (Reserve "B" of Avery Place)
Tax ID /Parcel Number(s):
273-011309 -00
Parcel Sb:e(s) (Acres):
2.930
Existing Land Useroevelopment: Neighborhood support retail center
1 IF APPLICABLE, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
Proposed Land Use/Development: Modification to existing development plan to provide for a small building appendage and drive
through window on the East end of the existing building, as shown on the attached site plan
and building elevation drawing.
I Total acres affected by application: 2.930
III. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNFRtIR Pin mt—h d.mb w......a
Name (Individual or Organization): Centre At Perimeter LLC
1533 Lake Shore Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43204
Melling Address RECENED
C
(Street, City, State, Zip Code) 1 y - i34:�� POP
17 1AIA
Daytime Telephone: 614-488-4424
Fax 614488-0603 CITY OF DUB
Email or Alternate Contact Information: paulg@daimlergroup.com PLANNIN 11
pPleA
k
. ~ °, FILE COPY
IV. APPLICANT(S): This is the person(s) who Is submitting the application If different than the property owner(s) listed in part III.
Please complete if applicable.
Name. Centre At Perimeter LLC
•
Applicant Is also property owner yes❑ no❑
Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, ate): c% The Daimler Group, Inc.
Melling Address: 1533 Lake Shore Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43204
(Street, City, State, Zip Code)
Daytime Telephone: 614 - 488 -4424 Fax: 614-488-0603
Email orAlternate Contact Information: paulg@daimlorgroup.com
V. REPRESENTATIVE($) OF APPLICANT / PROPERTY OWNER: This is the Person(s) who Is submitting the application
on behalf of the applicant listed in part IV or property owner listed In part Ill. Please complete N applicable.
Name. Paul G. Ghidotti
Organisation (Owner, Developer, Contractor, eta): The Daimler Group, Inc.
Mailing Address: 1533 Lake Shore Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43204
(Street, City, State, Zip Code)
Daytime Telephone: 614.486-4424
Fax: 614.488 -0603
Email orAltemats Contact information: pauig @daimiergroup.com
Vi. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT or REPRESENTATIVE($): If the applicant is not the property owner,
this section must be completed and notarized.
the owner, hereby authorise
applicant or
to act as representative(s) in all matters pertaining to the processing and approval of this application, Including moding the project. I agree
to be bound by all representations and agreements made by the designated representative.
Signature of Current Property Owner.
Date:
Check this box If the Authorization for Owner's Applicant or Representatives) Is attached as a separate document
Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 20
State of
County of
Notary Public
VII. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City representatives are essential to process this
application. The Owner /Applicant, as noted below, hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the
property described in this application.
1 Paul G. GhidotU E the owner or authorized representative, hereby
authorize City representatives to visit, photograph and p"odee on the pro%rty described in this application.
Signature of applicant or authorized representative:
Date:
Pace 2 et 2
l
VIII. UTILITY DISCLAIMER The Owner /Applicant acknowledges the approval of this request for review by the Dublin Planning and
Zoning Commission and/or Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able
to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said Owner/Applicant.
1 Paul G. Ghidotti the owner or authorized representative,
acknowledge that approval of this request does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to
provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed t "aid Owner/Applicant.
Signature of applicant or authorized representative: I /' /f [I�..{ Date:
IX. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT This section must be completed and notarized
I Paul G. Ghidotti . the owner or authorized
_ representative, have
read and understand the contents of this application. The I ormation contained in this application, attached exhibits and other
Information submitted is complete and in all respects true a , W113irfect, to the of my knowledge and ballet
Signature of applicant or authorized representative: X Y/ Date:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
state of Ohio
County of Franklin
Notary
JESSICA CORRIS
Notmy public. Stele of Ohio
My Commhift Expose 12-042018
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Amount R Ived:, OO
Application No: , IO �q
P&Z Date(e): 2 I 1
P&Z Action: AjOrrove q
Receipt No:
Map Zone:
Date Received: 7 f 7 '
Received By: C
City Council (First Reading): , Z Z , ( y
City Council (Second Reading): I - 13 - fit
City Council Action:
Ordinance Number. 100 ILI
Type of Request I' j n � t/ • �(, �
N S, E, W (Circle) Side of: a ` De Ke—+e� 'Dave
S, E, 11� Circle) Side of Nearest Intersection:
Distance from Nearest Intersection: t / 000
Existing Zoning District: ,(�
1�
Requested Zoning District:
✓ups ) - — Peep. �•ee
Page 3 of 3
Centre at Perimeter LLC Anlication Statement:
Centre at Perimeter LLC ( "Applicant ") is fee owner of that certain 2.930 acre parcel of land,
having property addresses 6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017, and located within
Subarea A3 of the Riverside Dublin PCD (the "Property "). Pursuant to the Riverside Dublin
PCD, the existing land use character for the Property, and the surrounding vicinity, is
commercial.
Applicant proposes to provide for a conditional use and rezoning of the Property by making
minor modifications to the existing permitted uses as set forth in the development text for
Subarea A3 of the Riverside Dublin PCD, so that Applicant may alter the east end of the
Property's existing neighborhood retail building (the "Building ") and adjacent parking lot in
order to construct an approximately 229 square foot building appendage and an accompanying
drive -thru (the "Proposed Development ").
Applicant intends to construct the Proposed Development so as to lease the east endcap of the
Building to a coffee shop user (the "Proposed User"), which is a use that is desired, but not
currently available, in the vicinity. A coffee shop use in the Building is an amenity expected in a
commercial area, and compliments the uses and hours of operation of the existing Building
tenants, which currently consist of a sit -down pizza restaurant with store hours starting at 11:00
a.m. Monday- Saturday and at 4:00 p.m. on Sunday, and a carry -out bakery currently operating
Monday- Friday 9:00 -6:00 and Saturday 10:00 -6:00. Proposed User's current intended hours of
operation are approximately 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with 60% of Proposed User's daily revenue
typically being earned before 9:00 a.m.
As part of the Proposed Development, Applicant proposes to close the Property's eastern access
drive, so as to provide for a drive -thru lane with stacking for up to 12 cars. With sufficient space
for stacking, there should be no drive -thru stacking that extends into the private roadways that
surround the Property and therefore no negative impact to the surrounding properties.
September 26, 2012
DESCRIPTION OF R ESERVE "B" OF AVERY PLACE
ALONG PERINIETER DRIVE, WEST OF AVERY— MUIRFIELD DRIVE,
CITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN CO., OHIO
Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin in Virginia Military Survey 2999 and
3452 and being all of Reserve "B ", as shown upon the plat entitled Avery Place, of record in Plat Book
104, Pages 94 & 95, said Reserve "B" being a portion of an original 24.335 acre had of land conveyed to
Avery Perimeter LLC, by deed of record in Instrument 200304020095677 , all records referenced to the
Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio.
containing 2.930 acres of land, more or less and being subject to all easements and restrictions of record
and being all of P.N. 273 - 011309. Of said 2.930 acres, 2.210 acres is within Virginia Military Survey
2999 and 0.720 acre is within Virginia Military Survey 3452.
The above description was prepared by Kevin L. Baxter, Ohio Surveyor No. 7697, of C.F. Bird & RJ.
Bull, Inc„ Consulting Engineers & Surveyors, Columbus, Ohio, from an actual field survey performed
under his supervision in September, 2004 and verified in September, 2012. Basis of bearings is the plat
entitled Avery Place, of record in Plat Book 104, Pages 94 & 95, Recorder's Office, Franklin County,
Ohio.
Kevin L. Baxter
Ohio Surveyor #7697
' Os or 0.
I EVi
L .9 . 0'S-T E gvE` o
Page 1 of 1
12- 066/Reserve -B
Proximity Report Results
Proximity Report Results
10744"PLM61
The se1 1 m dMW4a was 160 feet
The Sekded Pacts was 273.011M.
To New a able 0049 tve, .1m
the dVayad ptdtm4y, woL down.
:ji Print Nndow
a DKLW PIOw mtY Report
Image Dale: Tue Jun 24 15:53:44 2114
Proximity Parcels
H Inc To copy this repot to anotw pogrom
1 Hold down the M mouse button over ft tWkt mner of the area you wag be get
2 Drag the mast W to eaten 0 mar of the dewed arts
3. let go of ft muse hulton
4. Select 10 Qapf hat the now bar
You on Oven Pasta to rapat Into ante appkatlen
Parcel Owner Name
Address
273 -012056 ANYTHING REALTY LLC
POST RD
273 -011547 BRINDLES LLC
6600 PERIMETER DR
273 -011309 CENTER AT PERIMERTER LLC
6510 PERIMETER DR
273 -011305 CHAMPAIGN NATIONAL BANK
6400 PERIMETER DR
273 -008208 DUBLIN OAKS LIMITED
7000 -090 HOSPITAL DR
273. 012135 JEK MANAGEMENT LTD
6425 POST RD
273. 011344 OSU EYE PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS LLC
6435 POST RD
273 -011303 PMDM -AVERY LLC
6695 15S AVERY MUIRFIELD
DR
273.011306 TRIPLET ROSE HOLDING CO LLC
6415 POST RD
o tww+aaby
mdgwF=
Page 1 of 1
http://64.79.95. 202 / scripts /gis _proximity_report_display.pl 6/24/2014
Proximity Report Results
Proximity Report Results
2140502/1492309
The Wxtlon dMarrc was 300 feet
The eelck0 naval was 273-011309.
To Wm a hole erg t 1s Neoh
wkhh the dap" praeln fty Save down,
itjjet Rmn
I
0 @10 A9ft?4 Y RIM
Proximity Parcels
kwt To W" thb report to a a0rr psaQam.
I held down as kh mane bumat ova the up4dt co of the area you want to get.
2 Drag 09 mane b the boarawle 1 oarrr of the dewed area
3 Let r of td mmse taalan.
4 sees Edo row fmm the menu ber
You ®n dwn page the report mm ana"M applate n
Parcel
Owner Name
Address
273 -012056
ANYTHING REALTY LLC
POST RD
273 -011547
BRINDLES LLC
6600 PERIMETER DR
273. 011309
CENTER AT PERIMERTER LLC
6510 PERIMETER DR
273 -011305
CHAMPAIGN NATIONAL BANK
6400 PERIMETER DR
273 -004286
DUBLIN GERIATRIC CARE CO
6430 POST RD
273 -008208
DUBLIN OAKS LIMITED
7000 -090 HOSPITAL DR
273 -011304
HUNTINGT0N NATIONAL BANK
6705 AVERY MUIRFIELD DR
273 -012135
JEK MANAGEMENT LTD
6425 POST RD
273. 000378
NORTHWEST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH PCA I
6488 POST RD
273 -011780
OHIOHEALTH CORP
7450 HOSPITAL DR
273 -011344
OSU EYE PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS LLC
6435 POST RD
273.012055
PERIMETER MOB LLC
6670 PERIMETER RD
273 -011303
PMDM•AVERY LLC
6695 -755 AVERY MUIRFIELD
DR
273. 007471
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA FOUN
6400 POST RD
273 -011306
TRIPLET ROSE HOLDING CO LLC
6415 POST RD
� tawneeq
!'�
Page I of I
http://64.79.95. 202 / scripts /gis _proximity_report_display.pl 6/24/2014
Image Date Tue kin 24 1 6-.13:25 2014
APPROVE n PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
RIVERSIDE NORTH
(Modifications for Subarea As— THE PERIMETER)
Subarea A - Post Road Related
For purposes of clearly defining and limiting uses that are permitted within Subarea A of
the Riverside Dublin PCD, three separate subareas are established. Each of these
subareas (referred to as subarea Ai, Az, and As) is identified on the attached Exhibit A.
Permitted Uses:
The following uses shall be permitted within each of Subarea Al, Az, and As, respectively:
Subarea A
a) Those uses listed in §153.026(A) -- Suburban Office and Institutional District - -of the
Zoning Code.
b) Financial service organizations and financial institutions (conditional use for drive -
thru bank); provided that all such organizations and institutions shall be located
only in Subarea A between Avery- Muirfield Drive and the access drive within
Subarea A which lines up with the western access to Avery Square (the Kroger
center) to the south of Subarea A (the "Demarcation Line "). The Demarcation Line
is depicted on the attached Exhibit A.
c) Daycare centers (including a preschool or any type of institution which provides
education to toddlers and children up to the age of 13 years old).
Subarea A
a) Those uses listed in §153.026(A) -- Suburban Office and Institutional District - -of the
Zoning Code.
b) Financial service organizations and financial institutions (conditional use for drive -
thru bank; provided that any such drive -thru that might be contained within a
structure located along Avery- Muirfield Drive shall be screened to the satisfaction
of staff and consistent with the Master Plan (defined below)).
c) Coffee shops, cafes, ice cream shops, bakeries, or casual or fine dining eating and
drinking establishments, specialty retail stores, bookstores, florists, stationary
stores, gift/novelty shops; or stores providing goods and services which support
office buildings or occupants of office buildings (e.g. copy shops, office
supply /equipment sales, delivery service providers, etc.) Subarea Az shall contain
no more than 11,000 square feet of area in total of those uses described in the
preceding sentence. In addition, one eating or drinking establishment within the
neighborhood retail center located within Subarea Az will be permitted to
incorporate an outdoor seating area, along the pond between the building and
Avery- Muirfield Drive, as part of such establishment; provided that such seating
51 Page
APPROVER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
RIVERSIDE NORTH
(Modifications for Subarea As— THE PERIMETER)
.rrr::trref�rrnnr a.Rr
area shall have a maximum square footage area no more than 15% of the interior
space of such establishment.
Subarea A s (as revised through Ordinance 01 -13, approved on January 28, 2013)
a) Those uses listed in §153.026(A) -- suburban office and institutional district - -of the
Zoning Code.
b) Casual and fine dining, eating and drinking establishments not to exceed a total of
11,000 square feet, except as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission;
retail stores, bookstores, florists, stationary stores, gift/novelty shops; or stores
providing goods and services which support office buildings or occupants of office
buildings (e.g. copy shops, office supply /equipment sales, delivery service
providers, etc.) or otherwise provide support retail services for nearby residential
neighborhoods. nrnV;d6d th ORM9 aG.t ,hI ;�h R;eR t s at Re t ime in 16ide a d, thri
c)_ Dining Areas with up to 2000 total sq. ft. of seating space within
Subarea A -3 that can be allotted to the various tenants to be administratively
approved by Land Use and Long Range Planning. Those outdoor dining areas
shall employ complementary amenities (fences, tables, chairs, flower boxes) and
must be of a black, wrought -iron design consistent with the patios which have been
approved for the area. Outdoor speakers are prohibited. The proposed patio
amenities shall be stored in a location that is not visible to the public when not in
regular use unless the patio furniture is all- weather material, set up for use and not
covered in any way, and weather conditions make the use of furniture possible.
d_) One drive -thru may be permitted as a conditional use within Subarea A3, subject
to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission in accordance
with Zoning Code Section 153.236.
Unless otherwise stated above. Al emithstanding any of the use lister- Sabo ee in aRY e
Subareas A. * r--Aa, none of the following uses shall be permitted anywhere within
Subarea A at any time: (i) auto service; (ii) auto repair; (iii) gas station; (iv) tire store, (v)
muffler or brake shop; (vi) car dealer or any other type of business which offers cars for
sale or resale; (vii) car wash; or (viii) fast food restaurant (with or without a drive - through
window). Furthermore, in the event any financial service organization or financial
institution that is located along Avery- Muirfield Drive desires to change to a use other than
that which is permitted under (a) -(c) of Subarea Ai, above, that new use shall be subject
to review and approval of the Planning Commission.
Density /Lot Coverage:
The density of each site shall not exceed 10,000 sf /acre. In addition, the total maximum
lot coverage for all of Subarea A shall be equal to or less than 65% for the overall
development and no individual site shall have a lot coverage greater than 70 %.
61 Page
APPROVED PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
RIVERSIDE NORTH
(Modifications for Subarea A3— THE PERIMETER)
Yard and Setback Requirements:
a) In 1988, the Riverside Dublin PCD text originally contemplated a large setback for
Subarea A along its Post Road frontage. In an effort to reallocate setbacks and
associated green space areas to reflect the nature and character of how all of the
neighboring uses have since been developed as commercial /institutional uses and
to adequately reflect the transitional nature of Subarea A from those same
surroundings, it is desirable to adjust and increase certain setbacks within Subarea
A (see attached Table A). The main goal of this reallocation is to treat the Avery-
Muirfield Drive frontage with special attention. As a result, a substantial parking
and building setback shall be created along Avery- Muirfield Drive and within that
setback a large pond with two fountains and a cascading waterfall shall be
constructed to more appropriately reflect the gateway nature of Subarea A in a
manner that is complimentary to its environs. With this reallocation of setbacks,
the following setbacks for Post Road, Avery- Muirfield Drive, and Perimeter Drive
are created:
Building Setback Pavement Setback
Avery- Muirfield Drive 85' 75'
Perimeter Drive 40" 20"
Post Road (east) 100' 40'
Post Road (west)' 100' 70'
b) Side yard setbacks shall be 15' for pavement and 25' for buildings. However, in
order to promote prudent planning and to encourage the location (or relocation) of
green space to more desirable areas, the planning commission may permit
pavement setbacks (and rear yard pavement setbacks defined in (c), below) to be
reduced to less than 15' (and even to a zero lot line situation wherein parking lots
of adjoining properties would be shared). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
neighborhood retail center proposed at the northeast corner of Subarea A which
is a single structure which is located in both Subarea Aland A2 shall be permitted
to straddle the Subarea Al /A2 line.
c) Subject to (b), above, rear yard setbacks shall be 25' for pavement and buildings.
Which is consistent with the current required setbacks less the additional right -of -way grant required.
2 Between Avery- Muirfield Drive and the Demarcation Line.
3 Between the Demarcation Line and the western boundary of Subarea A.
71 Page
A PPROVE P PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
RIVERSIDE NORTH
(Modifications for Subarea Aa— THE PERIMETER)
d) Total ground covered by all buildings shall not exceed 25% of the total lot area.
Parking and Loading:
a) Size, ratio, and type of parking and loading facility shall be regulated by Dublin
Code Chapter [153.200].
b) All sites within Subarea A shall comply with the City of Dublin exterior lighting
guidelines and will utilize "shoe -box" light fixtures with pole heights not greater than
28 feet from the grade of the parking lot.
Circulation:
Circulation within Subarea A and access to and from the adjacent publicly- dedicated
streets shall be provided for in accordance with the approved development plan for
Subarea A set forth in the Master Plan (defined below). Subarea A shall have no
direct access onto Avery- Muirfield Drive.
Offsite Infrastructure:
In order to promote improved traffic efficiency on Post Road, Avery- Muirfield Drive,
and Perimeter Drive proximate to Subarea A and in accordance with the November
20, 2003 letter from the City of Dublin (attached Exhibit B), all of the following shall
occur to the satisfaction of the City of Dublin:
a) Right -of -Ways
(i) An additional 15' of right -of -way shall be granted to Dublin along the
west side of Avery- Muirfield Drive.
(ii) An additional 10' of right -of -way shall be granted to Dublin along the
north side of Perimeter Drive up to the point at which the existing right -of -way is 100'.
b) Road /Infrastructure Improvements
(i) Payment of the proportionate cost (as determined by the City of
Dublin) for the improvements associated with the addition of an east bound left turn
lane on Post Road (west of Avery- Muirfield Drive) which proportionate costs relate to
additional traffic which will be generated by Subarea A as a result of the Post Road
access.
(ii) Payment of all costs associated with the addition of a left turn lane
from Post Road into Subarea A at the single access point on Post Road. The applicant
shall attempt to coordinate completion of these improvements with those required of
the church property on the north side of Post Road.
81 Page
❑12PRQ 'Fn PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
RIVERSIDE NORTH
(Modifications for Subarea As— THE PERIMETER)
'zPP � : vTV°vfn�° anP an Z eR i F l g
(iii) Payment of 25% of the cost associated with any future traffic controls
installed at the third intersection on Perimeter Drive (west of Avery- Muirfield Drive) if,
and when, such traffic control is warranted.
Waste and Refuse:
All waste and refuse shall be contained and fully screened from view by a solid wall or
fence as required by the Dublin Code.
Fences:
Other than as required for any daycare center located within Subarea Al, no fences shall
be permitted on any site unless otherwise approved by staff or otherwise required for
screening service areas, mechanical units, etc.
Storage and Equipment:
a) No materials, supplies, equipment or products shall be stored or permitted to
remain on any portion of a parcel outside a 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 as required by the
Dublin Code.
Landscaping:
a) Landscaping shall be according to the Dublin Landscape Code Chapter [153.130-
153.139]. In addition, landscaping treatment along Post Road shall be provided
within the Post Road setback and shall include a grass mound with a mixture of
ornamental, evergreen, and shade trees. The mound shall be contoured, natural,
and undulating in appearance and shall be broken up into sections of varying
lengths between 130' and 150' in length and with varying heights ranging from
three and a half feet to six feet in height. Landscape plantings shall be in
accordance with the Master Plan described in (c), below, and sample elevations
are included as attached Exhibit C.
b) In addition, landscaping along Perimeter Drive shall include a three and a half foot
contoured, landscaped mound with street trees planted 50' on center within the
right -of -way and planted within five feet of the right -of -way line.
c) In order to appropriately transition the institutional and residential uses to the north
of Subarea A with the fast food and strip center retail development to the south of
Subarea A, Subarea A will incorporate a large pond (with an appearance similar
to The Preserve at the southeast corner of Frantz Road and Tuttle Crossing
91 Page
ARPROVED- PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
RIVERSIDE NORTH
(Modifications for Subarea As— THE PERIMETER)
Boulevard) fronting along Avery- Muirfield Drive with a higher reflective pond that
will include a cascading water fall feature. This pond will be "well -fed" in the
manner approved by the City of Dublin. In addition, the pond will contain fountains
at the north and south ends along Avery- Muirfield. This frontage treatment will
provide for an appropriate gateway feature for vehicular traffic as it moves from the
residential development to the north south towards the SR33/161 interchange.
This overall landscaping plan for Subarea A will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Site Master Plan prepared by Faris Planning & Design and
approved by the Planning Commission (the "Master Plan ").
Traffic Calming:
Along the private, internal, east -west street that runs parallel to Post Road and Perimeter
Drive, traffic calming measures (e.g. textured pavement, raised tables, etc.) acceptable
to the City of Dublin shall be installed to slow the movement of traffic at the intersection
of the driveway that provides access from the Subarea A to Post Road.
Architecture:
Generally
The architectural design of all buildings within Subarea A shall be traditional in look and
feel and will be finished with natural materials. The particular architecture for all buildings
within Subarea A that will contain uses other than those permitted in §153.026(A) (the
"Non -Office Uses ") shall be consistent with, or complimentary to, the style of architecture
of those submitted as "conceptual" with this application (i.e. the small neighborhood retail
center and The Huntington Bank branch). The intent of the foregoing is that these
commercial structures have a residential feel and flare similar in design and feel to the
Perimeter Center development. The architectural design of all uses within Subarea A
permitted under §153.026(A) (the "Office Uses ") shall be consistent with the office
buildings proximate to Subarea A along Perimeter Drive and Post Road. In addition to
the foregoing, the following guidelines shall be followed:
Height
1) No Non - Office Uses shall have a height in excess of 28' as measured by the Dublin
Code (i.e. for pitched or hipped roofs, such a measurement shall be made to the
mean height of such roof). No Office Uses shall have a height in excess of 35' as
measured by the Dublin Code (i.e. for pitched or hipped roofs, such a
measurement shall be made to the mean height of such roof).
Hamim
APPROVER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
RIVERSIDE NORTH
(Modifications for Subarea As— THE PERIMETER)
Color Palette
1) Earth tones and muted /natural tones shall be required on all structures within
Subarea A so as to be consistent with those earth tone and muted /natural colors
of nearby structures. In addition, storefront colors for the neighborhood retail
center shall be selected from a palette of colors approved by the planning
commission as part of the development plan approval for that neighborhood
center.
Materials
1) Warm tone brick, stone or synthetic stone, cedar siding and trim, and engineered
wood composite material (e.g. hardi -plank or smartside siding and trim).
2) Specifically for Non -Office Uses, windows shall be residential in character (where
appropriate for the particular type of commercial use). Windows should include
mullions and muntins to reduce large expanses of glass areas. However, "store-
front" glass is acceptable and appropriate in service- oriented areas for Non -Office
Uses.
Roof
1) All buildings shall have a pitched or sloped roof (whether hipped or gabled).
However, for Office Uses, this requirement may be satisfied by partial roofs,
towers, or pagodas -- similar to that utilized at The Preserve. In addition and
regardless of whether a building is an Office -Use or a Non -Office Use, each such
roof may provide open areas to house and permit the functionality of mechanical
and other typical roof top equipment.
2) All structures shall contain roofing material consisting of dimensional asphalt
shingles, cedar shakes or shingles, or slate (whether synthetic or authentic slate),
all of which shall be in a color and style deemed appropriate by the planning
commission as compatible with the neighboring buildings.
3) The use of dormers, vertical vents, and other architectural treatments which
interrupt vast expanses of roof are encouraged for roofs on Non -Office Use
structures.
Scale
1) All structures within Subarea A should be of a size and character complimentary
with the existing nearby structures.
2) Structures should be designed to harmonize with the Master Plan.
111 Page
A PPROVE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
RIVERSIDE NORTH
(Modifications for Subarea Aa—THE PERIMETER)
3) Each Non -Office Use building must use articulated building elements, including,
but not limited to porticoes, dormers, recesses, and other such elements to help
break up the mass and bring each such building into a more residential character.
Wall Articulation /Fenestration
1) In addition to using building elements to articulate the building mass, individual
walls must be articulated with fenestration, pattern, or structural expression equally
on all sides of each structure.
2) With the exception to enclosed service corridors, all buildings shall have the same
degree of exterior finish on all sides. Other than for necessary service areas, blank
facades on the "rear" of any building will not be permitted, however, articulating
such facades with recesses, fenestration, fences, pilasters, etc. is encouraged.
3) The amount of fenestration should be balanced with the amount of solid facade.
Signage and Graphics:
All signs shall comply with the Dublin Sign Code -- [Section 153.150]. In the event
of any conflict between the Dublin Sign Code and this text, this text shall control.
a) Materials and Landscaping:
1)
All monument signs with a base located within Subarea A shall have an
appearance consistent with, or compatible to, that depicted on Table C
attached hereto.
2)
All monument signs shall have landscaping around the base of the sign as
required by the Dublin Code.
b) Dimensions of Sign:
1) Maximum area of sign face: 50 square feet per face, with a limit of no more
than two faces per sign.
2) Area of sign base (if any) shall not exceed area of sign face. The base shall
not be included in the overall area permitted for the sign face.
3) Maximum overall height: 8' -0" above top of adjacent street curb. Signs
located on grass mounds shall maintain conformance to 8' -0" maximum
height above top of adjacent curb.
c) Sign Graphics:
121 Page
APPROVE ^ PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
RIVERSIDE NORTH
(Modifications for Subarea As— THE PERIMETER)
1) Graphic identification shall be limited to the site user's name, logo, and
street number.
2) The area of graphic images such as logos shall not exceed 20% of the sign
face.
3) Street numbers shall be located in the lower corner of the sign face or base
nearest the right -of -way.
4) The maximum height of any letter or number shall be 16 ".
d) Quantity:
No more than one ground sign shall be permitted on any one lot devoted to one
specific use or user; except that for buildings or uses having frontage on two or
more public rights -of -way, two ground signs are permitted. In the event any lot
qualifies for two ground signs, those signs shall comply with the Dublin Sign Code
and shall consist of no more than 66.67 square feet in the aggregate.
e) Illumination:
All monument signs shall be non - illuminated or feature internally illuminated
graphics or back -lit graphics.
f) Setbacks:
The setback for all signage shall be no less than eight feet from the right -of -way of
any site consistent with the Dublin Code.
g) Traffic /Directional:
All traffic and directional signage shall conform to Section 153.152 of the Dublin
Zoning Code.
h) Sign Location:
Other than approved as part of the neighborhood retail center as described below,
no sign shall be painted or posted on the surface of any building, wall, or fence
(i.e. all signage other than for the neighborhood retail center shall be monument
signs). No wall murals shall be allowed. No roof signs shall be permitted, nor shall
any sign extend higher than the building.
i) Window Signage:
imam
APPROVED -PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
RIVERSIDE NORTH
(Modifications for Subarea As— THE PERIMETER)
Other than described below relating to the neighborhood retail center, no sign shall
be applied to any windows for the purpose of outdoor or exterior advertising.
j) Neighborhood Retail Center:
All of the following signage standards shall relate specifically to the neighborhood
retail center that will be situated west of the pond located along the west side of
Avery- Muirfield Drive, the following signage criteria is established:
1) Each tenant store front within the retail center shall only have the right to
install wall signage consistent with that depicted in the attached Table B
and only along the east and west elevations of the retail center.
2) All such signs shall not exceed a placement height of 15 feet.
3) Each tenant store front sign shall be limited to one wall sign and one
projecting sign along the western elevation of the retail center and one wall
sign only along the eastern elevation of the retail center. Such wall signs
shall be in accordance with Table B. The color of the wall sign and the
projecting sign for each user shall be the same.
4) The background color of wall signs and projecting signs shall be selected
from a palette of trim colors approved by the planning commission as part
of the development plan approval process.
5) For purposes of aiding the public with locating a particular use within this
center, each user shall be allowed to apply temporary signage to the east
elevation of the retail center consistent with the Dublin Signage Code.
6) In addition to the wall signs which may be located on the east and west
sides of the retail center as described in 3, above, the occupant located at
the north end of the retail center (i.e. Tenant 7) shall have the right to locate
one monument sign along Avery- Muirfield Drive which identifies only that
occupant provided that such monument sign complies with all of items (a) -
(i), above, and provided further that that occupant (Tenant 7) is limited to a
total amount of signage of no more than 66.67 square feet. That monument
sign shall be located as noted on Table C .
7) No projection signage located along the west elevation of the retail center
shall be illuminated.
8) Wall signs located along the east and west elevations of the retail center
should be externally lit by "goose- neck" light fixtures.
UUMM
APPROVED -PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
RIVERSIDE NORTH
(Modifications for Subarea A3— THE PERIMETER)
Signage and Graphics Applicable only to Subarea A3 (as revised as part of Ordinance
01 -13. January 28, 2013)
All of the following signage standards shall apply to the neighborhood retail building on
Perimeter Drive (located within Subarea A3) as generally depicted on the attached
Exhibit D.
A. Types of Signs Permitted sign types include single- sided, wall- mounted, tenant "panel"
signs, and wall- mounted, projecting "blade" signs. Window signs, other than informational
window signs, of any type are prohibited.
B. Number and Location All signs shall be architecturally integrated into the building fagade
generally in the location depicted on the attached Table D. Tenants occupying space
within the building shall have the right to install one wall- mounted (panel) sign on the north
building fagade, one on the south building facade, and one projecting (blade) sign on the
north building facade.
C. Mountinq Height No sign shall be permitted to exceed 15' in height to the top of the sign
measured from established grade. The projecting (blade) signs on the north facade shall
be a minimum of eight feet in height to the bottom of the sign from established grade.
D. Desiqn and Fabrication Creativity with signage is encouraged. However, the following
must be adhered to:
Wall- mounted Tenant Siqns
a. Maximum Size. The maximum height for all wall- mounted tenant sign panels
shall be no more than 24" tall. The maximum width for all wall- mounted tenant
sign panels shall be no more than 120 ". The maximum height for text/graphics
within said wall- mounted sign panels shall be no more than 16 ". The maximum
width for text/graphics within said wall- mounted sign panels shall be no more than
96 ".
b. Additional Specifications:
i. Sign Panel = Single Faced, 1.5" thick wood or high density urethane
with surface applied text/graphics and routered 1" wide perimeter
detail.
ii. Installation = Sign panels to be surface- mounted to wall with 5/16"
Hilti style expanding anchors. No mounting hardware shall be
visible on sign face.
2. Approved Signage Shapes The shape of the wall- mounted sign panels on the
north and south facades of the building shall be generally in a rectangular shape
and shall have matching ends containing one of the shapes depicted in Table D.
3. Wall- mounted Proiecting (Blade) Siqns
a. Maximum Size. The maximum height for all wall- mounted projecting (blade)
sign panels shall be no more than 27 ". The maximum width for all blade sign
panels shall be no more than 36 ".
b. Additional Specifications:
151 Page
APPROVE P PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
RIVERSIDE NORTH
(Modifications for Subarea Aa— THE PERIMETER)
i. Sign Panel = Double- faced, 2" thick wood or high density urethane
with surface - applied text/graphics & routered 1" wide perimeter
detail.
ii. Hanging Bracket = 1 -1/2" x 1 -1/2" square steel tube and wall flange
assembly with fabricated 1/4" aluminum scroll and finial cap.
Bracket and hardware shall be painted in Matte Black finish.
iii. Installation = Bracket installed perpendicular to wall w/ 3/8" Hilti
style expanding anchors. Signs shall be suspended beneath the
brackets with ' / Z" eye - bolts.
C. Projecting (Blade) Signage Shapes: The shape of the projecting (blade)
signage on the north fagade of the building shall be generally in one of the four
shapes depicted in Table D.
Further, such projecting (blade) signage may incorporate and include the logo of
the business operating within the building or an iconic representation of the nature
of the business or the primary good or service sold or provided to the public by that
business.
4. Menu Boards
a. If a drive -thru is approved by the Planninq and Zoning Commission in
accordance with this development text the use is permitted one 1 menu
board sign in addition to the other signs permitted in this development text.
b. The menu board shall not exceed 32 square feet in size and must be
approved as part of the final development plan.
4-5. Lettering, Logos and Secondary Images
a. Lettering. All sign lettering is to be centered in relation to the height and
width of the sign. The actual signage text/lettering shall consist of surface
mounted, raised lettering (as individual letters containing the name of the
business operation) and shall be adhered to the wood sign board. The
height and placement of all sign lettering must comply with the
requirements specified in this text.
b. Logos and Secondary Images are permitted in accordance with Code
Section 153.158(C)(2).
a__r_i
Color. The background color for all signs shall be in accordance with that
approved as part of the final development plan presented to the Planning
Commission or as otherwise approved by the Planning Staff. No more than three
colors in total are permitted for each sign including the color of the background of
the wood sign. A corporate trademark or symbol used as a logo or secondary
image shall not be limited in the number of colors used, but shall be considered as
one of the three permissible colors. The selected color scheme of each tenant must
be consistent for each of the tenant's signs.
Sian Illumination Wall- mounted signs shall be illuminated by linear
fluorescent track lighting fixtures as depicted and described in Table D. Projecting
(blade) signage shall not be separately illuminated from the building.
161 Page
PPRQn IED PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
RIVERSIDE NORTH
(Modifications for Subarea As— THE PERIMETER)
171 Page
W
of
a4
n
Y! MIN Uzi
- - - - -- _
IELD DRN __- _______� _
-_ AyERYMUIRF_______ _ _Y- ___..__. ___ __�
__ -_____ __ Ili
Pill � � �`�-•• Iii
I
,
r
I
I L
1 `
F I L'1
I 1
r, r
'>
2 Ci /'' yd Q r 7 % J I II III ti
11 ce
W
w JI L 6 a: i i
:5 0 O w 6 , g g l J J 1 -- " I I k
f�
P H I -* Y
0 LL N �I s 0:1
z- II
rrnn w D u , -W. r , ------
LL
cn
Z
W
R t Y g b 1 `' O C� G7 C� CS
I
I I _
I I ' _ —_ -• S1j i 17 ________T
� J i
� �
II 4g `�
' 11
n��� - L -- -- -- --
I '
--
3 � �
`$ oil, I
W -] q I
wHig HIM
rrWa HIM 6"
sloz/�Nm eo�nvc aa+oo aso [lI[my IN LW[ M• 0\ b? �[ •uCU31 \[00.^'i H
0 x
LU
' rco z
wiz 0
w
„Si C,� . {; ✓ .., ,i •. •u• y K�i�f if �.i� '�,1 �,,- .- .,.•'• mM
----- ---- -- -
ap
41
Vi
LIJ
05
'
43,
– ---------- —
to, __ � I 41''
it
ii
L IL I JL
......... . ..
--- ----- - ---
ir J"
4F,
i p
. . ........
iL _3 I
H I
----------
OPINE
ji
i b-P &" lxx wwo38
U y a
a N a W W d
y =mo < X
,a US
K
}
H W Z ~
7
i ,?j Z
e ww° U
° a
nd �
��
3
� r ¢a
^ n
-- --- --"_ --
r -
..
I
_- _--- _- _.-- __ __ __
1
= II
-,
Z
jib
.g Vtl '
,
Q : SH P _
LU
.
I
o
gg i
,
I
:
!
m - -
I ,. l
•aka : .. � ______. _J
I .
I ,
-------------- F ;-
i
I,
I I
i
�----------� Z_�.i� -- -
i �
i
i !O, I L 3h Y L__C,_____ ------
_
r � I
i
- '0_
f
• - l1 �' • / t . %� 'I 11it -- - -- - -- - - -J
w W O
,
1
°-
r
r 1
I
& ' - - - - - --
t ;
o ;. R <A J
LL_
a
- o
--------
Jill
•,oi /[o /eo awdvn uwlx, 99o sl \•m!d , w \moN. \, loz\•wr \'w
x.
o b
d
Z �
8g
woo F a
Y �$ p f w °p Z
CC p p g S K K , O 4
W S Y uR u� uR W W J O I_
ne O a V O 3
Z g ° • aw° Z�
A O 3$ d 8 w 8 tp .g "
91 Use W g
0000 a
a s H. =
o • L' • ® 9
:
�' ggggg
��II . IIr'�I11^'' 1 -II�`� � � `� e m . ___ -__- `��1, , i�'• i � /
� \ Y 7 L - . '
i Ck {
7Lnq
A l
Z U
• > - i � F 6 �t p r1
-_ — eve / � V• - • �'.,� %R -., ,' \ 1 �
•b_L � ' , 5 I I r In
1�
J- I l _ LEA, _ l ,R.a
y1
S laa 31V lad X3
J � � 4 t -_ —_ _____ � —_____ � - _-- i.__ --- 9$ ' 1 X 111 fp.• �1
ak:
- - -- } - - Ck
*IWLO/LO b+•'wy MIWp O 9w. —Wwa b-3 490- s \••bk Yw, °mW&M5W— u3\b" \&W\M \•,OL \.: -.::.
R
y 8
R O
A l l /
M
/ r
a I
j
I
11 I
,11 l
' ll
N
K
N
3 �
a
w LLLL —_ p WWW ¢? 4 W zC
p LLLL tlY uy, �a OO u
u�
f 6 t
O Q�QA�a��•S IQ- << � ¢ W C � C �� J�uu
HAM
z 8 .
g �« z �y; Q 7y
.jot /la/[U o.a wje ,ww 0 •.ewww.e Sao- �j1.wy ,ww Maus .yauy�aro \(IV�v�Dao,.joZ�.mr,'H
{
A l l /
M
/ r
a I
j
I
11 I
,11 l
' ll
N
K
N
3 �
a
w LLLL —_ p WWW ¢? 4 W zC
p LLLL tlY uy, �a OO u
u�
f 6 t
O Q�QA�a��•S IQ- << � ¢ W C � C �� J�uu
HAM
z 8 .
g �« z �y; Q 7y
.jot /la/[U o.a wje ,ww 0 •.ewww.e Sao- �j1.wy ,ww Maus .yauy�aro \(IV�v�Dao,.joZ�.mr,'H
a y
R 8 $
� ggqqSS !l
rA l
/ / f
I
N
W
S a
LLLL LLLL ��
9:e
w w 99 wW ae
«
w o N �� da $ -a q NR RS s
a I F w
2 o00oQ w d
-
O
pj
= t
o $ "aaa
•IO AW10 ld wpw 3 980-11\ W IwwUOWi{ f�Or \9W \�IOZ \WN\ H
x
V
� 8
YY
i
- 1 - T - 1 1
JT1
0
a
i 1
p �!
G G) G^ G
000 G(S)
d'
li
4 � I
4
/ ! r
�i
i
W '
p 6 I
'1i 1
'r id I
I
6
a
a $
gR S
K
T U
4dj °S
0
4 � w
i
a��
Q
a
a
w �
U
a
I �Y
Ug
W
Z
m
�I U
a3
.ioc/m/m - -. — as 'ANwwd M- —W rw� mww�aa ...ve�y�ew \anr�suo- ,.roz:�wr� H
V
� 4
i
- 1 - T - 1 1
JT1
li
4 � I
4
/ ! r
�i
i
W '
p 6 I
'1i 1
'r id I
I
6
a
a $
gR S
K
T U
4dj °S
0
4 � w
i
a��
Q
a
a
w �
U
a
I �Y
Ug
W
Z
m
�I U
a3
.ioc/m/m - -. — as 'ANwwd M- —W rw� mww�aa ...ve�y�ew \anr�suo- ,.roz:�wr� H
V
� 4
i
li
4 � I
4
/ ! r
�i
i
W '
p 6 I
'1i 1
'r id I
I
6
a
a $
gR S
K
T U
4dj °S
0
4 � w
i
a��
Q
a
a
w �
U
a
I �Y
Ug
W
Z
m
�I U
a3
.ioc/m/m - -. — as 'ANwwd M- —W rw� mww�aa ...ve�y�ew \anr�suo- ,.roz:�wr� H
x�
t1 U
o�
CL
R m_' �
"° � o ffi o :� • _ ... � awo z W a
Z W d a N
R w w
i
c s �• - -: �� .. S t y � --
-yr ,l °R. EB - -_
x:x
II 11 N O u'� a0 �(b•` "ter 4'r
v 17 . 7'
gag
-�
9d
is 4 G., �'Ro•G � ��ee tae
g is
J I
a.ma S
AINO31V iJd "X3 � ` y 1 ��.b bb
§ 't
1
$xfi$F �,• I it vee ee
1
'1 1 ;
*tOULU /m Wwy DND gpp_y,�swN IwwaoP+.�byw.wu�e°p�py�y\ggp \•, \,pyq °
I! i
H M
- ------------
1 1 /
JA
---- ------
M�
Sal
1,49 00
15 .
Tf
PAII a 31VA[Hd
9p,
TI i ig
T,
-----------
_ 2 1020 q40 .^YWMOo
WO—" 11
SOlpnl e11 ; 8� dnoae) �a�wIed ayl k
z
q Ll0£bo14O'u1I4�4 r
:s6$ Peon ja�awNed OLSB - OLS9 a a s d
�ls� die ;ab as ;awiaad n 12 �, 4 a
U O 000
q
b� g
S
g g S
o .
g s 8 a
EL
Q a
N
ff
o
z
CO
Sa O
Z�
Z
7
m q U
O
�
SS U
os
a g
2
N
U O 000
q
b� g
S
g g S
o .
g s 8 a
EL
Q a
N
i
d ,
s
2
N
d
u�
h L,
M tr
F, iv
t.
�
kz4_4
U O 000
q
b� g
S
g g S
o .
g s 8 a
EL
Q a
N
i
d ,
s
2
d
h L,
M tr
F, iv
t.
�
kz4_4
r g$g4
8
a
�
_
°s
WN
210
s
F
L�
S+t
S
z
�iBaYs�o
4
9S%G
Wun�d as i 1
sc ;n;se�
dnojC) iolwlea 0&1 c
LLOE4 e
peoa Je�awNed OL59 - 0 59 c z b 4 0 N
�iejem aa;awiaad � R W a �� 1
b o '
O
i v "•D 1�
n
F �
1
OR
�I
h
RI
i
l �
Mfr "if l 9 l l
�
101 �1,
1.
.x o
LL
0
I
I NN
s.�
e � 4e +�tOu 0
t®
0
L U
Z �
o
s
a
m
z
g �
�tm
3-
(
0 0
0
O
dnojC) iolwlea 0&1 c
LLOE4 e
peoa Je�awNed OL59 - 0 59 c z b 4 0 N
�iejem aa;awiaad � R W a �� 1
b o '
O
i v "•D 1�
n
F �
1
OR
�I
h
RI
i
l �
Mfr "if l 9 l l
�
101 �1,
1.
.x o
LL
0
I
I NN
s.�
e � 4e +�tOu 0
t®
0
MAO •."s •�I•l cc
St N
SOlptl }S t?� dnojE) jolwic(l a41 c o
•$E L60£4o14O'uil4na a
�; F Peoa Me 1J9d OLS9 - O LS9 � �
• lily. I!e�aa aa}awlaad R f H o l lox
o
i f' �I= 311$ - HI a a #t s - $
+ i 'If 11111 5 Yig �! 1
. aE i l = i'a3 gIal f a E'
9
� ; aEj� $ a�aif f i l l i . f E '�E $• a � $ #' $ 1�`: i tE
� � Et � � Y$ # � � f# � fP a f Y �- YY �e i^ �E • 9 a �d g 4 �r ii jF a �- Y e
$j P f � � � �� � ; : t8 # F �f ���f f�$i f €tf �`� E#�# �� tl�$ � � � 1 f �s l� # � f� I� � E � �
f
a fi {' E 1 YY of &t S eE E =a E ! # '
°f[ 'iP = 1H 3 11 fag & t a i p I i ll #gaf f 1 Ef f s i f
{ f { i : v i j f jjj 'jf t 3 if 1.111 Hill y '� t ' t � t � f p 3
�Y.x
P {
pp pp pp qy � �� f jt Y t E p E { t f
f a � ag t i e E 6 '� � f � • 5 p � �{� '� E� +� � � 3 z 3 fi� '� # }� ° � � �;� � f
�
1 1B j g •� Sd a i y
3
1 f $t
d°. 1!1m d. J =11 d • x . 1 x .< M1 c l ^< 1 ^ ; 1 i . < J d o J . d x I . I
6 f '
t�t� �yy� ➢ {� � � Ei � � � �� ��� Y�� fa � g � �'E� ![� � �g ���� �� �' �81# {t �; �+ }f i � t (j�
i•
f E• = sil f` aE, 13 H E 6
� H
°�
4 d t i1� pS , 2 ' # td °t i� i
t � �l�'�� � i
tl d S: a 1 J d . • d o f • x d S < I ^ x < . d d .� 1 i
tf• �
. { Y fta iia f faE f • f ! t =$� i IM $ { � � � � � � �i �� [��F i�� s f � ��� ��i; a ��q�i �: ��'•
p p a 3 9 pp t g 1 � ' a { ! p p f ; ` E i, ' °# ��� =f ' j@ # Y!F➢ + ' 2
ag �,� �i$�$
1 1 d w d�< �<
e p -W X" WI M& In cf)
soipnl e� ��$I�I dno JOIwlep 041 N
peoa,eRewNnd oc99- 0 i s g a W g
Ile ;ab as ;aualaad N A l R! X WN 1
R
! a if
fit
its
t ,� � 3 , ► � � R
k
if lilt I
t � a
R�1�y N g 1 3 lA � 9; �p€.Yi
y 1 `k ill J i R d1t !lia 331 I �! i
L,0
lit
y ¢ y ¢ i7 of §;
�€
+
� ' � { 1 q" g � f� { Y !R d i ifa!
f c a 2 e!# ' i .� " j; i s t' F¢ 3 E I of I e 1" ` a Fv
6 r t a y
l it # Y g t } I" # t j i faR4 7 3., # l°{ I 1 1 1 a t� 6 $3
a 3 k6 t! a lii }} i $8 4 P 1� j ## 11311j1 { a �' 1 1 ISp �1 ; 1 a
R i t S` 9y ! 3 �'-k ; c #2 $ E 3 �� =R
I f ° ; n 0 y ! #1 ; �
� J . ` ����� ;a �� a�rir E tf �l�f�tf�l� l� i €ei I�'
I I f 1.. P�336. i _ 3a.Wl ! • !ff 1!E #f(d �.. sR. l� : #: # a !d! #1 88 s lI �$
i f
yy f SS
�R4
HE g
I I 1 11111
1- = �nw e vozsv owo _
laza
L L • • • _ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■
• r
CI CL
s
o $
I Ji
og� s �a�i
Z
z
0
a
m
0
z
9
0
m
z
4
F
W
e
v /
s
4�
.
-F—
W
O
s
M
0
a�
m
u
,i
•
Q
N
u°
J `
C
0
O�
C
d
C
Ol
E
a
o
v
a
ft
n �
W
U
V)
CY)
> CSI
J
W
N
O
� O
� N
c
L
r
N
U
N
C3
V)
N
E
O
U
07
c
O
►M
(D
LO
N
U
O
N
V) 14- O
N � �
U N —
O 0
N c
L Q
1 W
co
O
N
O
O
Q
c
p
0
E
0
Q-
0
7
0
cn
W
E
Q
U
M
�
0
6
Z
E
E
E
E
E
p
0
C)
o
D
O
O
O
O
_0
M
0
<")
O
w
I�
00
oo
O
E
E
E
E
E
~
O
O
O
O
C)
O
M
O
C-)
co
00
V)
E
N
_ O
O w
U�
-4-�
�
U
C c
_O
4— 0
W U
N
to
U
N
E
O
U
c
L
O
O N o
0 0
o l
0
Q
N
U p
0
I` c
_ E
a Q
a o
� s
c O
c
N
(D
Q
N
U `
O N
N
O 6
N
O)
c
u
L
O
0- co
W
a)
0
►;
^
W
E
O
U
00
Iq
LO
-O
N
LO
Iq
0
0
6
Z
E
E
b
O
E
o
O
E
o
O
E
o
O
p
F
_0
co
O
co
O
w
I�
ao
0o
O
N
E
E
E
E
E
~
O
O
O
O
O
cn
O
M
V)
NIN100100
►;
C
O
.� >
Q co
L
W
�LL
^^O ^ O /
/ ry
1� -
�� O
O�
E
O
c
� U
C `7
N
cy')
u
v
N
UO
(D
E
O
N
U
0)
c
O
V) V
( N
v O
o'0
,O O
00 LO
O'
a�
U
1
E
0
'O
M
N
oo
0
0
Z
E
E
E
E
E
0
0
C)
0
0
F-
0000
_0
M
O
Cl)
O
L
N
co
co
0`
N
E
E
E
E
E
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
M
cn
K
K
m
0'0*
1
7 c l ityof Dublin
Land Use and Long
Range Planning
5800 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
phone 614.410.4600
fax 614.410.4747
www.dublinohiousa.gov
PLANNING AND ZONING
RECORD OF ACTION
AUGUST 21, 2014
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
6. Riverside PCD North, Subarea 3 — The Perimeter Starbucks
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU SSW6570 Perimeter Drive
Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Proposal: This is a proposal for a Starbucks Coffee Shop with a drive -thru and
associated site improvements for an existing shopping center within
Subarea A3 of the Riverside PCD North Planned District on the north side
of Perimeter Drive, between the intersections; of Avery Muirfield Drive
and Hospital Drive.
Request: This is a request for review and recommendation of approval to City
Council for a rezoning /preliminary development plan application under
the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050 and a request for review
and approvat of a final development plan application under the
provisions of Zoning Code Section 153:1050 and review and approval of a
conditional Wise for a drive -thru under time provisions of Zoning Co9de
Section 153.236.
Applicant: Centre at Perimeter, LLC, represented by Paul Ghidotti, The Daimler
Group.
Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II.
Contact Information: (614) 410 -4675, chusak @dublin.oh.us
MOTION #1: John Hardt moved, Todd Zimmerman seconded, to recommend approval /disapproval to
City Council for this preliminary and final plat application because the proposal complies with the
preliminary and final plat Criteria, with one condition:
1) That the applicant update the traffic information provided to more accurately reflect the existing
uses within the Planned District; subject to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
*Paul Ghidotti agreed to the above condition.
VOTE: 4-2.
RESULT: This Preliminary and Final Plat will be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation
of approval.
RECORDED VQTES:
Chris Amorose Groomes Yes
Richard Taylor
No
Amy Kramb
Yes
John Hardt
Yes
Todd Zimmerman
Yes
Victoria Newell
Absent
Amy Salay
No
Page 1 of 2
7 c l ity of Dublin
No
Land Use and Long
Yes
Range Planning
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
5800 Shier Rings Road
Yes
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
RECORD OF ACTION
phone 614.410.4600
No
fax 614.410.4747
www.dublinohiousa.gov
AUGUST 21, 2014
6. Riverside PCD North, Subarea 3 —The Perimeter Starbucks
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU 6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
MOTION #2: John Hardt moved, Amy Kramb seconded, to approve this final development plan
because this proposal complies with the proposed development text and preliminary development plan,
the final development plan criteria and existing development in the area, with two conditions.
1. That the applicant revise the size of the menu board to 32 square feet prior to applying for a sign
permit; and
2. That the evergreens screening the drive -thru be pulled back from the curb at least 5 feet and
that a plant different from junipers be selected, subject to approval by Planning.
*Paul Ghidotti agreed to the above conditions.
VOTE: 4-2.
RESULT: The Final Development Plan was approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Chris Amorose Groomes Yes
Richard Taylor
No
Amy Kramb
Yes
John Hardt
Yes
Todd Zimmerman
Yes
Victoria Newell
Absent
Amy Salay
No
MOTION #3: John Hardt moved, Todd Zimmerman seconded, to approve this conditional use
application because the proposal complies with the applicable review criteria, with two conditions.
1. That this approval Is only applicable to a coffee shop; and
2. That should this drive -thrG cease operating, the site will be required to be restored to pre- drive-
thru conditions °within one year of the close of business or a new conditional use application is
approved by the Commission.
*Paul Ghidotti agreed to the above conditions.
VOTE: 5-1.
RESULT: The Cvriditional Use application was approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Chris Amorose Groomes Yes
Richard Taylor
Yes
Amy Kramb
Yes
John Hardt
Yes
Todd Zimmerman
Yes
Victoria Newell
Absent
Amy Salay
No
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Claudia D. Husak, AICP
Planner II
Page 2 of 2
7 c l ity of Dublin
Land Use and Long
Range Planning
5800 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
phone 614 410.4600
fax 614.410.4747
www Oubl nohlousa.gov
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 21, 2014
DRAFT
6. Riverside PCD North, Subarea 3 — The Perimeter Starbucks
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU 6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan/ Conditional Use
The Chair, Chris Amorose Groomes, introduced this application for a request for a Starbucks Coffee Shop
with a drive -thru and associated site improvements for an existing shopping center within Subarea A3 of
the Riverside PCD North Planned District on the north side of Perimeter Drive, between the intersections
of Avery- MuirField Drive and Hospital Drive. She said the Commission will forward the recommendation to
City Council for a Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan application, and the Commission will review the
requests for a Final Development Plan and a conditional use for a drive -thru.
Ms. Amorose Groomes swore in anyone intending to address this Commission on this case.
Claudia Husak said this proposal was discussed informally in June. She said the construction on the new
retail center has been substantially completed and there are two businesses operating out of the
shopping center. She presented a slide showing the proposed site plan and how it has changed since the
concept was reviewed in June to accommodate the Starbucks with the drive -thru and how the
Commission's comments. She said the proposal involves a request for approximately 2,000 square feet of
space for the coffee shop and drive -thru window. She pointed out the internal drive that comes off of the
Perimeter Drive access point which is being closed as part of this application to avoid conflict with people
entering and leaving the center. She demonstrated the proposed drive -thru stacking which will be routed
along the east side of the site, and then wraps south and west to the drive -thru window. She explained
there have been some large islands incorporated into the plan to separate the drive -thru activity with the
parked cars and to route the traffic exiting the drive -thru.
Ms. Husak summarized the recommended conditions:
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan
1) That the applicant update the traffic information provided to more accurately reflect the
existing uses within the Planned District; subject to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Final Development Plan
1) That the applicant revise the size of the menu board to 32 square feet prior to applying for a
sign permit.
Ms. Husak said there will be pavement markings shown so that customers will be routed to the drive -
thru. She pointed out where the order menu board is located.
Ms. Husak said the Commission had inquired about the development text and fast food uses being
prohibited. She stated that in 2012 — 2013, the permitted uses were changed for this particular subarea
to accommodate restaurants within a shopping center that would be in one building. She explained that
previously, the requirement was that there are two buildings on this site. She said the overall limitations
within the development include a prohibition against drive -thrus and fast food restaurants. She said the
drive -thru portion was addressed by proposing language that allows a coffee shop drive -thru as a
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 — Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 8
DRAFT
conditional use for this particular subarea. She said the fast food language was left alone as it seemed
more comprehensive to the entire planned district. She said coffee shops are called out separately in the
other subarea. She said in Subarea A3, Staff recommended that the uses be a little more generalized.
She said Staff put Starbucks in the `restaurant and eating and drinking establishment' category of the
permitted uses.
Ms. Husak reiterated there are three motions required by the Commission for this application: the
rezoning preliminary development plan which is the change in the development text, including the list of
permitted uses which would then be forwarded from the Commission to City Council for approval. She
said approval is recommended with one condition:
1) That the applicant update the traffic information provided to more accurately reflect the
existing uses within the Planned District; subject to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Ms. Husak said the second motion is for the Final Development Plan, which is a determination on all of
the site details. She said approval is recommended with one condition:
1) That the applicant revise the size of the menu board to 32 square feet prior to applying for a
sign permit.
Ms. Husak concluded that the third motion is for the Conditional Use for the drive -thru. She said approval
is recommended with no conditions as it complies with the conditional use review criteria.
Ms. Amorose Groomes swore in the applicant.
Paul Ghidotti, 6840 McNeil Drive, Dublin, Ohio, said Daimler tried to address the concerns from the
informal review on June 5, 2014 that related to the operational issues of the drive -thru. He recalled Mr.
Taylor had said the placement of the drive -thru seemed awkward and shoe- horned onto the site and the
rest of the Commissioners requested more detail on the drive -thru. He said Daimler has since received
more detailed information from Starbucks. He explained they had three different locations in the case
studies. He compared the traffic counts to Perimeter Drive, which was about 8,000 — 9,000 cars per day,
substantially less than the other three locations. He also learned that on average, Starbucks receives 60
percent of their customers between 7 am — 9:30 am. He addressed the lunchtime service to
accommodate the stacking in the drive -thru of 12 cars. He said food is offered but not made on site as
the cafes are only 1,800 square feet. He explained that food is delivered by truck and then heated up.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the morning customer statistics were all drive -thru. Mr. Ghidotti said the
numbers reflect total customers inside and out. He explained the traffic analysis.
Ms. Amorose Groomes invited anyone from the public that would like to speak with respect to this
application. [Hearing none.] She invited thoughts from the Commission.
Amy Salay said she had asked Mr. Ghidotti to approach the neighborhoods that are to the north because
they have always been very active and concerned about development in this area, and she asked how
that discussion went.
Mr. Ghidotti said they reached out to the four officers from the Indian Run Meadows Homeowners
Association (IRMHA). He said Michael Welsh, secretary for IRMHA, provided a written response that
stated he thanked the applicant for the information but said it did not present any issues for their
residents as they are not adjacent to the site and take a neutral stance.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 — Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 8
DRAFT
Ms. Salay asked if he reached out to Lowell Trace, to which he responded he did not. He said Lowell
Trace is even farther removed than Indian Run Meadows but offered to if the Commission recommended
that they do so.
Ms. Salay said she did not have an extremely negative opinion of this project before and stated that she
has since given it a lot of thought, visited the site, and concluded that drive -thrus really do not make
anything better and are never an improvement either in appearance or helping the site function better.
She said the case studies were interesting but said nobody anticipated what would happen at McDonald's
and the Wendy's/Tim Horton's at Avery Road. She said the Starbucks building looks great but she is not
sure the drive -thru will improve the development. She said she is not going to be supportive of this
proposal. She said Starbucks fits into the definition of fast food in her opinion. She said changing the text
to allow fast food is the "tail wagging the dog," and she has never been interested in fast food for this
location.
John Hardt said he has given this a lot of thought as well. He said going back to the beginning when the
change in zoning was granted, the site was zoned for two sit -down restaurants. He said a compelling
argument was made to which he was receptive. He said we now have the prospect of replacing one sit -
down restaurant with a drive -thru, which makes him uneasy. If he supports this, he said he would not
want to change the text. He stated the prohibition of fast food is important. He said if he supports this, it
is only because Starbucks is a coffee shop. He explained that if Starbucks decides not to occupy this
space in the future, he would not be the least bit supportive of having a burger joint take their place. He
indicated he is concerned with what will become of the other side of the building, and asked if there was
information to be provided regarding the end cap on the west end.
Mr. Ghidotti said he had explained at the June informal that they had tried all along to get two sit -down
restaurants with two patios on the ends of the building. He said they begged Dewey's Pizza to take an
end but they did not want it, and he is still not sure why. He said this may be a different discussion if
they were on one end or the other. He said since fall of 2002, trying to market this site, Daimler has
struggled. He said he still believes they are going to have two restaurants and not a traditional fast food
restaurant, and he does not consider a coffee shop to be fast food. He said he does not have a problem
with limiting this to a coffee shop. Mr. Ghidotti indicated if there is a desire to clarify what type of shop
can be in there, he said they are willing to consider that.
Mr. Hardt said the request for the drive -thru is a conditional use and asked if it was occupant specific.
Ms. Husak said drive -thru was conditional use and not based on any particular occupant as proposed.
Mr. Hardt said he can get comfortable with what is in front of the Commission this evening, but if the
space were to turn over, he would like to have a conversation about it.
Amy Kramb said that was her biggest concern. She said she is okay with a coffee shop. She said in the
language in the existing text, she is not comfortable because it opens it up to too many possibilities. She
indicated she would be okay if they tied the drive -thru specifically to the conditional use and if the space
turns over, they remove the drive -thru altogether. She said she was not certain the Commission could get
to that language into the text.
Mr. Hardt said it was not unlike some of the conversations they have had regarding gas stations
connected to grocery stores, to which Ms. Kramb agreed.
Todd Zimmerman recalled that when ms's opened up on Sawmill Road, they had a conditional use for the
gas station, but they closed less than a year later and the station went away, and now it is level, paved,
and you would never know it had been there.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 — Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 8
DRAFT
Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that that had happened for several businesses.
Mr. Zimmerman asked what would happen if the drive -thru were installed and then later removed, and
how the site would be designed.
Ms. Amorose Groomes thought it should be returned to the original design.
Ms. Husak offered options: 1) a drive -thru is permitted for a coffee shop. She said if Starbucks went out
of business and another coffee shop were to move in within a year, and the operations were similar, the
other coffee shop could use this conditional use for themselves; or 2) if any new user comes in regardless
of their use, they would need to request a conditional use from the Commission.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought the Commission would be more comfortable with the second
option. She said stacking issues need to be discussed.
Mr. Ghidotti said, from an ownership standpoint, that gives a lot of leverage to a Starbucks because if
anycoffee shop comes in, a lot of leverage is in a single tenant's hands.
Phil Hartman said another idea that had been discussed was percentage of sales for beverages.
Mr. Hardt said he is concerned that if Starbucks moves out of this space and an ice cream shop moved in
for example, he has seen their drive - thrus, and on an 80- degree June night he does not believe this
stacking would be sufficient so he would want the opportunity to re- evaluate that, if the use changed.
Mr. Ghidotti said he liked the idea of percentage of sales from coffee. Ms. Kramb agreed.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said it holds Starbucks to a standard. She said the drink relation percentage of
sales would protect the Commission from some of those other businesses.
Ms. Kramb inquired about the size of the menu board sign received in their cut sheets.
Ms. Husak pointed out that it was close to 50 square feet.
Ms. Kramb asked what size it was permitted.
Ms. Husak said Code limits the square footage of menu boards to 32 square feet.
Ms. Kramb said the menu board needs to be smaller. She asked for a size of a typical menu board in the
area to which Ms. Husak responded they must be 32 square feet.
Mr. Ghidotti said they have already cut the size of the menu board down by a third. He said the first
board shows the menu offerings before the customer reaches the drive -thru speaker for more efficient
ordering. He said there are actually two faces, pretty close in proximity to each other, and confirmed the
faces are not connected. He said there are two different designs.
Ms. Kramb asked for clarification if there were two separate signs.
Mr. Ghidotti said the applicant is still limited to a total of 32 square feet. Ms. Kramb said the text reads
"one menu board ".
Ms. Husak clarified the one sign the applicant is proposing has three panels.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 — Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 8
DRAFT
Mr. Hardt asked for clarification on the sign placement and a few Commissioners commented on the
configuration. Mr. Hardt thought the response should be, wherever the sign is, between the sign and the
private drive, there needs to be some additional landscaping so the back of the sign is not visible.
Mr. Ghidotti agreed that landscaping might be better than introducing a different material for the back of
the menu board. Mr. Ghidotti pointed out the menu board on the landscape plan.
Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested different plant materials.
Mr. Hartman said he would be comfortable adding a condition to the conditional use to limit the use to 60
or 65 percent beverage sales.
Ms. Husak said under the Subarea A3 permitted uses, the language currently states "one drive -thru may
be permitted as a conditional use within Subarea A3, subject to review and approval by the Planning and
Zoning Commission... ". She suggested "one drive -thru for a tenant whose sale volume is made up of a
minimum of 65 percent beverages, may be permitted" and keep the language.
Mr. Hartman suggested "non - alcoholic" text be added.
Mr. Ghidotti questioned the "magic" number of 65 percent. He asked for flexibility before going to
Council.
Mr. Hardt asked for confirmation that this is not a condition on tonight's vote; it is a modification to the
development text.
Ms. Husak said it would have to be conditioned, somehow but wanted to get a comfort level, first.
Ms. Kramb suggested the condition would be 'the Commission would modify the text to include a
beverage limit that will be verified', to which Ms. Husak agreed the condition could be written that way.
Ms. Husak said this would be for the conditional use language that Staff added for Subarea A3, which
does not address the fast food discussion, earlier. She confirmed the Commission believed the beverage
requirement creates the distinction between fast food and this type of operation.
Mr. Hardt said there was a separate paragraph that prohibits fast food.
Ms. Husak said the definition of fast food was not in their Zoning Code.
Ms. Salay said it was important to have an opinion on this before it goes to Council.
Mr. Hartman said the distinction should be made if it is not fast food. He said the opinion is that it is not
based on current laws and cases dealt with in the past unless it is specifically defined as the zoning is
going to be construed.
Mr. Hardt asked if not having a kitchen makes it relevant to that conversation.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked Legal to help define fast food as defined by the City of Dublin.
Mr. Hardt asked why this is considered a coffee shop.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 — Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 8
DRAFT
Ms. Husak said when she had a conversation with Legal, it seemed Ms. Readler she was leaning toward
fixing that fast food language in the text for this specific Subarea to give the City some protection. She
said she thought the beverage percentage was to resolve the fast food point.
Mr. Hardt asked if the applicant had a specific deadline.
Mr. Ghidotti said time is money. He said there are three tenants they are talking to that will not commit
until Starbucks is signed.
Ms. Kramb said she was comfortable with Starbucks but her concern was the text modification.
Mr. Hardt concluded the Commission is just being asked to vote on a conditional use to which they are
only supportive if it is for a coffee shop.
Richard Taylor asked what the Commission does not like about fast food.
Ms. Kramb stated her concern with fast food related to traffic at specific times of the day. She said she
does not want to see stacked cars at lunchtime or between 4 pm — 6 pm when every business is so busy
during that time.
Ms. Salay asked how to get around the idea that Starbucks might want to expand their business, add
food, offer more and more breakfast and lunch items, offer a big pastry line, etc.
Mr. Hardt said the argument at the informal was there would be predominantly morning traffic. He said,
traffic data specific to this user has been provided and he would want to see the same data to evaluate it
for a proposed future use.
Mr. Taylor summarized that the issue seems to be the amount of traffic.
Ms. Kramb agreed it was purely traffic because the whole area is a traffic nightmare.
Ms. Salay inquired about data for the rest of the day.
Mr. Ghidotti said back in June, the concern was about the stacking of cars and if there was not enough
stacking, would cars end up blocking some of the parking spaces.
Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Hardt that he preferred to review the specific traffic data related to another
user if the business turns over.
Ms. Salay again brought up the condition with BJ's gas station and asked if there could be a condition
whereas if Starbucks goes away, the drive -thru gets removed.
Ms. Husak said the prospective tenant would need to start this process all over again unless they were a
coffee shop.
Mr. Ghidotti was concerned about the condition being tied to a named user.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said that could put the property owner in a very difficult position.
Ms. Salay said it should be difficult, as a drive -thru is being requested when the Commission is not really
comfortable with one.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 — Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 8
DRAFT
Mr. Hardt asked if the definition of fast food was being written into the Code.
Steve Langworthy said Staff attempted to tackle that, reviewing the old SIC Codes, but could not find a
solution.
Mr. Hardt said if that cannot be cracked, then the notion of updating this text to clarify what is meant by
this particular use seems just as unlikely.
Mr. Langworthy suggested instead of defining fast food, just find a new term.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what that term might be.
Mr. Langworthy said "fast casual" as that has a definition to it. He reiterated that "fast food" is an
umbrella with multiple categories underneath that do tend to have definitions.
Mr. Taylor said that appears to be a moving target and brought up the example of salads at McDonald's
and he wanted to know why a Starbucks might work here but a McDonald's does not. He said he is
comfortable saying whatever happens after Starbucks, gets reviewed by the Commission.
Ms. Salay asked what happens to the physical drive -thru, lanes, facility, and building addition if the
subsequent tenant is not a coffee shop.
Ms. Amorose Groomes commented on the landscape plan. She said she would like Globe Arborvitae or
some other evergreen instead of Juniper and would like them pulled back behind the curb at least five
feet to alleviate constant conflict with vehicles.
Ms. Husak said plant material was changed during the Final Development Plan approval.
Mr. Ghidotti said the applicant has already changed this once.
Ms. Salay said she thought the goal was to hide the cars in the drive -thru.
Mr. Ghidotti offered to achieve the opacity requirement with a combination of mounding and plant
materials. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested this could be "subject to Staff approval ".
Ms. Husak asked for clarification for the Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan with respect to
development text and the Final Development Plan would have one condition about menu boards, asking
if a size had been determined.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said Code permits 32 square feet.
Mr. Langworthy explained that if there are two panels, it is considered one sign and if there is a gap
between, it counts toward the square footage so it is the advantage of the applicant not to do that.
Mr. Hardt inquired about the mention of two different locations.
Mr. Ghidotti said he had misspoke and the applicant is not proposing that at this location.
Ms. Kramb asked about the requirements with respect to lighting the menu boards.
Mr. Zimmerman said he was not on the Commission at the time of the informal review. He inquired about
the future seating area outside and asked if it is typical seating area, following Code.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 — Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 8
DRAFT
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were any further questions or comments with respect to this case.
(Hearing none.] She said there were three motions and three votes before the Commission.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Hardt moved and Mr. Zimmerman seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for this Rezoning
with Preliminary Development Plan application with one condition:
1) That the applicant update the traffic information provided to more accurately reflect the existing
uses within the Planned District; subject to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked the applicant if he agreed to the condition as written in the Staff Report.
Mr. Ghidotti agreed. The vote was as follows: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Salay, no; Ms. Kramb, yes;
Mr. Taylor, no; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Hardt, yes. (Approved 4 — 2)
Motion and Vote
Mr. Hardt moved and Ms. Kramb seconded, to approve this Final Development Plan with two conditions:
1) That the applicant revise the size of the menu board to 32 square feet prior to applying for a sign
permit;
2) That the evergreens screening the drive -thru be pulled back from the curb at least 5 feet and
that a plant different from junipers be selected, subject to approval by Planning.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked the applicant if he agreed to the two conditions. Mr. Ghidotti said he
agreed. The vote was as follows: Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Ms. Salay, no; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr.
Taylor, no; Ms. Kramb, yes; and Mr. Hardt, yes. (Approved 4 — 2)
Motion and Vote
Mr. Hardt moved and Mr. Zimmerman seconded, to approve this Conditional Use application with two
conditions that were added this evening:
1) That this approval is only applicable to a coffee shop;
2) That should this drive -thru cease operating, the site will be required to be restored to pre- drive-
thru conditions within one year of the close of business or a new conditional use application is
approved by the Commission.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked the applicant if he agreed to the two conditions as written on the board. Mr.
Ghidotti agreed. The vote was as follows: Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Taylor, yes;
Ms. Salay, no; Mr. Hardt, yes; and Mr. Zimmerman, yes. (Approved 5 — 1)
la of Dublin City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Land Use and Long
Range Planning Planning Report
5800 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Thursday, August 21, 2014
phone 614.410.4600
fax 614.410.4747
www.dublinohiousa.gov
- -- Riverside Planned Commerce District North
Subareas A3 - The Perimeter - Starbucks
Case Summary
Agenda Item 6
Case Number 14- 0692 /PDP /FDP /CU
Site Location 6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
On the north side of Perimeter Drive, between the intersections with Avery- Muirfield
Drive and Hospital Drive.
Proposal A Starbucks Coffee Shop with a drive -thru and associated site improvements for an
existing shopping center within Subarea A3 of the Riverside PCD North Planned
District on the north side of Perimeter Drive, between the intersections of Avery-
Muirfield Drive and Hospital Drive.
Requests 1) Review and recommendation to City Council under the Planned District
provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050 for a rezoning with preliminary
development plan
2) Review and approval of a final development plan under the Planned
District provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050.
3) Review and approval of a conditional use under the provisions of Zoning Code
Section 153.236
Owner /Applicant Centre at Perimeter, LLC; represented by Paul Ghidotti, The Daimler Group.
Case Manager Claudia D. Husak, AICP Planner II (614) 410 -4675 1 chusak @dublin.oh.us
Planning
Recommendation In Planning's analysis the proposal complies with all applicable review criteria and
the existing and anticipated development standards. Planning recommends:
1) Approval to City Council of the rezoning with preliminary development plan
with no conditions.
2) Approval of the final development plan with 1 condition.
3) Approval of the conditional use.
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Condition
1) That the applicant update the traffic information provided to more accurately
reflect the existing uses within the Planned District; subject to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
Final Development Plan Condition
1) That the applicant revise the size of the menu board to 32 square feet prior to
applying for a sign permit.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 14- 069Z/PDP /FDP /CU Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3
The Perimeter - Starbucks
Thursday, August 21, 2014 1 Page 2 of 16
14 -069?IPDP /FDP /CU
Rezoninp/Prel mnary Devdopment PbrV 0 150 300
Firral Development Plan/ Conditional Use �- 1
City of Dublin Rrversrde PCD North, Subarea A3 - The PenmeLer Starbud6 Feet
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 14- 069Z/PDP /FDP /CU I Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3
The Perimeter - Starbucks
Thursday, August 21, 2014 i Page 3 of 16
Facts
Site Area 2.93 acres
Zoning PUD, Planned Commerce District (Riverside North plan, Subarea A3)
Surrounding Zoning South: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Avery Square plan)
containing the Avery Square shopping center.
All Others: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Riverside North plan)
containing office, daycare and commercial uses, including the
Shoppes at Avery restaurant and retail center.
Site Features • Rectangular parcel with 450 feet of frontage along Perimeter Drive.
• Access is provided by two private drives from Perimeter Drive.
• Existing sidewalk located along Perimeter Drive.
• A 14,000 - sqaure -foot shopping center with 126 parking spaces was
constructed earlier this year.
Development • The subject parcel is in Subarea A3 of the Riverside North development,
Context which includes 24 acres at the northwest corner of Perimeter Drive and
Avery- Muirfield Drive.
• Divided into three Subareas, with specific permitted uses, such as office,
medical office, daycare, retail and restaurant, depending on the
Subarea.
• The PCD has been under development for several years and currently
includes the Shoppes at Avery shopping center, Huntington National
Bank, Champaign Bank, the Primrose School daycare and medical office
buildings.
• Subarea A3 was rezoned in 2013 to allow restaurants within a single
building and to permit additional retail uses.
• The site was approved with a parking agreement with Champaign Bank,
immediately to the east of the site.
• Among other permitted uses, the development text permits casual and
fine dining restaurants and eating and drinking establishments up to
11,000 square feet. Additional restaurant square footage may be
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The text specifically
states that those establishments shall at no time include a drive -thru.
Background On June 6, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Commission commented
informally on a request for review and feedback for a Starbucks Coffee
Shop with a drive -thru. Commissioners were concerned about the impacts
of the proposal on parking, circulation, screening and potential noise. They
suggested contacting adjacent neighborhoods who were previously
concerned about commercial development north of Perimeter Drive.
Members suggested the applicant revise the development text to limit
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 14- 069Z/PDP /FDP /CU I Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3
The Perimeter - Starbucks
Thursday, August 21, 2014 1 Page 4 of 16
Facts
drive -thrus to certain uses and requested operational details for a
Starbucks drive -thru as well as stacking data and peak time use data.
• City Council approved the rezoning for Subarea As in January of 2013.
• The Commission recommended approval of the rezoning on December 6,
2012 after reviewing an informal proposal in September of 2012.
• Ordinance 118 -03 approved Planned Commerce District on April 19, 2004.
Preliminary and Final Plats approved on August 2, 2004.
• The Commission has approved numerous final development plans for a
variety of office and commercial uses within this District.
Community Plan Future Land Use
The Community Plan's Future Land Use Map shows the site as General
Commercial (6,500 — 8,700 5F per acre) and the current zoning allows
restaurants and office but excludes retail uses. The Plan describes this land
use classification as retail and commercial development that is heavily
dependent upon the automobile with a mix of retail, restaurant and personal
services. The plan also states this type of commercial development is
outdated and should not be used in the future due to the reliance on the
automobile.
Land Use Principles
Land Use Principles 3 and 4 suggest places with integrated uses that are
distinctive and sustainable, and contribute to the City's overall vitality. The
Plan states it is important to provide some retail services closer to residential
areas as an amenity. The Plan also highlights design considerations.
Details Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Process This is a request for review and recommendation to City Council of approval
of a rezoning with preliminary development plan to revise the development
text for Subarea A3 of the Riverside North Planned District to allow a drive -
thru for a Starbucks coffee shop. Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development
requires approval of a development text to serve as the zoning regulation
for the development requirements noted.
The proposal is a request to rezone 2.9 acres from PUD (Planned Unit
Development District, Riverside PUD North, Subarea As) to the same district
but creating a new PUD with standards and regulations only applicable to
this Subarea. No changes are proposed to Subareas Al and A2.
City of Dublin i Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 14- 069Z/PDP /FDP /CU i Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3
The Perimeter - Starbucks
Thursday, August 21, 2014 i Page 5 of 16
Details Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Development Text This development text modifies the permitted uses for Subarea A3. A coffee
shop is a permitted use within Subarea A3 of this Planned District however,
a drive -thru is explicitly prohibited in this Subarea. The revised permitted
uses and prohibited use sections of the development text (Page 6) deletes
the drive -thru prohibition. Text has been added to permit one drive -thru as
a conditional use in Subarea A3, including an allowance for a menu board
sign.
Preliminary This use is to occupy the easternmost tenant space, converting the
Development Plan previously proposed patio area into a drive -thru window and lane. To
accommodate the stacking spaces, the proposal eliminates an internal
driveway into the site from the east side and 14 parking spaces.
The drive -thru is proposed to be accessed from the north driveway into the
site with drive -thru circulation on the east side. A landscape island separates
the drive -thru circulation from parking spaces. Pavement markings will
indicate the intended traffic flow for the drive -thru.
The Commission previously expressed concerns regarding the potential for
vehicles stacking beyond the 12 required stacking spaces. This proposal
provides the 12 spaces and in the event stacking occurred beyond this point,
the parking spaces that would be potentially blocked are relatively remote
from the rest of the center.
Architecture The architecture was part of the previous approval for this Subarea. The
changes to the elevations are minimal. The drive -thru window will add
approximately 200 square feet to the building and remains integrated into
the building architecture.
Parking The development text requires parking by the Zoning Code. As a "shopping
center" the parking requirement is 1 space /150 square feet of building, or
99 spaces. The site was approved with 126 spaces. The applicant has a
shared parking agreement with the owner of the adjacent Champaign Bank
allowing shared parking on evenings and weekends.
This proposal requires the removal of parking spaces and provides 111
spaces. While the development text would be met as proposed, the
Commission was concerned at the rezoning stage that popular restaurants
could stress the on -site parking. The applicant has indicated that other
shared parking agreement options may be available should parking become
an issue.
City of Dublin i Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 14- 069Z/PDP /FDP /CU Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3
The Perimeter - Starbucks
Thursday, August 21, 2014 i Page 6 of 16
Details Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Signs The development text permits one menu board sign for a drive -thru to be
approved at the final development plan stage. The menu board may be 32
square feet and 6 feet and is permitted in addition to the other signs
permitted for the tenant (2 wall signs and 1 projecting sign).
Traffic Study A traffic analysis has been provided to the City Engineer. The study reviews
the area originally studied for The Fairway Traffic Study in 2003. A
comparison was made between the anticipated trip generation in 2003 and
the currently developed and planned areas. The trips are balanced.
Therefore no new transportation infrastructure is anticipated. The City
Engineer is requesting minor revisions and a resubmission of the analysis.
Analysis Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Process Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and
approval for a rezoning /preliminary development plan (full text of criteria
attached). Following is an analysis by Planning based on those criteria.
1) Consistency Criterion met: The proposed development text modifications address the
with Dublin unique needs of this Subarea and includes appropriate regulations.
Zoning Code
2) Conformance Criterion met: The Future Land Use Plan of the 2007 Community Plan
with adopted identifies the land use for this site as General Commercial, which is met.
Plans
3) Advancement of
Criterion met: The preliminary development plan encourages development
general welfare
as a cohesive and complementary development to the surrounding area.
& orderly
development
4) Effects on
Criterion met: The proposed development fits well within the existing
adjacent uses
development pattern of this area. The drive -thru circulation is proposed in a
manner that avoids off -site conflicts. Code required stacking is met, with the
potential for several additional stacking spaces. With the main entrance at
the north side of the center, the likelihood of conflict on the public street, or
on the adjacent private drive is remote.
5) Adequacy of
Not applicable.
open space for
residential
6) Protection of
Criterion met: The proposal includes additional landscape screening to limit
natural features
views of the drive -thru.
and resources
City of Dublin i Planning and toning Commission
Case 14- 069Z/PDP /FDP /CU i Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3
The Perimeter - Starbucks
Thursday, August 21, 2014 i Page 7 of 16
Analysis
Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
7) Adequate
Criterion met: All required public infrastructure is in place.
infrastructure
8) Traffic and
Criterion met with Condition: The applicant provided traffic analysis,
pedestrian
which accounts for the proposed use. The City Engineer is requesting an
safety
update to the traffic information provided to more accurately reflect the
existing uses within the Planned District. Code required stacking spaces are
Condition 1
met and with the location of this use at the end of the shopping center, the
conflict with pedestrian movement is minimized.
9) Coordination &
Criterion met: The proposal provides for a coordinated and integrated
integration of
development consistent architectural and landscaping details.
building & site
relationships
10) Development
Criterion met: The proposed use meets lot coverage requirements, has
layout and
adequate parking and circulation. The layout is cohesive in relation to the
intensity
existing development.
11) Stormwater
Criterion met: The applicant has provided the necessary information to
management
satisfy City requirements.
12) Community
Criterion met: The proposal will provide an additional retail service near
benefit
residential and commercial areas, giving the community more options.
13) Design and Criterion met: The proposed development uses high quality materials
appearance consistent with the previously approved development text and other
developments in the area.
14) Development Criterion met: This will be constructed in a single phase.
phasing
15) Adequacy of Criterion met: There are adequate services for the proposed uses.
public services
16) Infrastructure Criterion met: No public infrastructure contributions are required.
contributions
Recommendation Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Approval Based on Planning's analysis, this proposal complies with the
rezoning /preliminary development plan criteria, provides the opportunity for
additional retail options within the city and includes a cohesive campus
development. Approval is recommended with one condition.
Condition 1) That the applicant update the traffic information provided to more
accurately reflect the existing uses within the Planned District; subject to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
City of Dublin i Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 14- 069Z/PDP /FDP /CU i Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3
The Perimeter - Starbucks
Thursday, August 21, 2014 i Page 8 of 16
Details Final Development Plan
Proposal/ The proposed improvements include:
Development • 228 square foot building addition for a drive -thru window for a Starbucks
Details coffee shop
• Elimination of east driveway to accommodate drive -thru lane
• Removal of parking spaces, east of the building
• Landscape islands to separate drive -thru activity from circulation
• Pedestrian crossing from parking area to building
• Architecture with a residential character and rich materials and colors
Access and Access for this site was determined at the time of the original rezoning and
Circulation the proposed plan eliminates an access point along the eastern site
boundary. The removal of this access point allows for drive -thru stacking and
alleviates conflicts between the drive -thru lane and parking spaces. The site
meets Code requirements for vehicular stacking and circulation through the
site. The Washington Township Fire Department has access from the internal
drives surrounding the site.
Pedestrian circulation includes a five -foot wide sidewalk immediately along
the south site of the building. A minor change is proposed to allow for the
drive -thru turn toward the pick -up window proposed on the eastern side of
the building. Six -foot wide sidewalks connect to the public sidewalk along
Perimeter Drive.
Drive -Thru The proposal includes 12 stacking spaces total, which circulate around the
east side of the building. Two large landscape islands separate the drive -thru
circulation from the parking lot. A crosswalk is provided across the drive -thru
to provide a marked pedestrian crossing from the parking area in the eastern
portion of the site to the building. The applicant will be asked to work with
staff to provide pavement markings or directional signs that indicate the
drive -thru entrance.
A landscape island is also proposed near the drive -thru exit to address
previous concerns raised by Planning regarding conflicts with parking spaces
and exits from the drive -thru lane.
The menu board is proposed in a location that forces patrons onto the drive -
thru aisle therefore eliminating the potential of cut - through using the
adjacent parking area.
City of Dublin i Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 14- 069Z/PDP /FDP /CU i Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3
The Perimeter - Starbucks
Thursday, August 21, 2014 i Page 9 of 16
Details Final Development Plan
Parking The plan provides 111 spaces, which meets Code. There were some concerns
mentioned by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the informal review of '
this proposal regarding the parking impacts of popular restaurants. Given the
development pattern of this area, it is likely that off -site parking areas may
be available during evening or weekend peak times for restaurants. The
applicant has an arrangement with Champaign Bank to allow employee
parking at the bank weekday nights after 6 p.m. and on weekends should
parking prove to be insufficient.
Architecture The proposed architecture meets the development text requirements for
traditional architecture with a residential character and natural materials. A
storefront with an ordering window will be added to the east elevation. An
awning will be included over the window.
Landscaping The proposal meets the Code required landscaping as well as the text
requirements for mounding and landscaping along Perimeter Drive. The plan
includes large landscape islands in the parking lots and smaller pockets of
plantings in the plaza area in front of the building. Substantial screening has
been proposed along the southeast side of the drive - through to filter views
of stacked cars and the menu board.
Signs The proposal includes one menu board in the southeast portion of the site.
The proposed development text limits the size of the menu board to 32
square feet in accordance with Code. The proposal shows the menu board
at 48 square feet, which must be reduced in size to meet the text.
Stormwater Stormwater management for this Subarea will be handled similarly to the
Management other areas of this development using parking lot ponding and controlled
release at the one -year release rate to the existing pond along Avery-
Muirfield Drive. Water quality will be provided by an underground unit prior
to discharging to the private sewer.
Utilities Existing water and sanitary sewer services are adequate to serve this
proposal.
Analysis Final Development Plan
Process Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and
approval for a final development plan (full text of criteria attached). Following
is an analysis by Planning based on those criteria.
1) Consistency with Criterion met: This proposal is consistent with the requirements of the
the preliminary proposed development text and preliminary development plan.
development
plan.
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 14- 069Z/PDP /FDP /CU I Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3
The Perimeter - Starbucks
Thursday, August 21, 2014 i Page 10 of 16
Analysis
2) Traffic and
pedestrian
safety
3) Adequate public
services and
open space
4) Protection of
natural features
and resources
5) Adequacy of
lighting
6) Signs
consistent with
preliminary
development
plan
Condition 1
7) Appropriate
landscaping to
enhance,
buffer, & soften
the building
and site.
8) Compliant
stormwater
management
9) All phases
comply with the
previous
criteria.
10) Compliance
with other
laws &
regulations
Final Development Plan
Criterion met: The plans provide for adequate safety and circulation for
both pedestrians and vehicles. On -site walks are adequate sized to allow for
parked vehicle overhang.
Criterion met: The site has adequate public services. No open space
dedication is required.
Criterion met: The proposed plans show additional landscape screening to
enhance the site.
Criterion met: No changes are proposed to the lighting plan.
Criterion met with Condition: Any signs for the Starbucks tenant space
will be required to adhere to the details in the development text. The
proposed menu board must be reduced in size to 32 square feet.
Criterion met: The landscape plan meets or exceeds Code and text
requirements.
Criterion met: Stormwater management for the site is accommodated in
the stormwater management plan and will be finalized at the building permit
stage.
Not applicable.
Criterion met: The proposal complies with all other known applicable local,
state, and federal laws and regulations.
City of Dublin 1 Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 14- 069Z/PDP /FDP /CU I Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3
The Perimeter - Starbucks
Thursday, August 21, 2014 1 Page 11 of 16
Recommendation Final Development Plan
Approval In Planning's analysis, this proposal complies with the proposed development
text and preliminary development plan, the final development plan criteria
and existing development in the area. Planning recommends approval of this
request with one condition.
Condition 1) That the applicant revise the size of the menu board to 32 square feet
prior to applying for a sign permit.
Details Conditional Use
Proposal 1 This is a proposal for a drive -thru for a coffee shop for an existing retail center.
Development The site is within Subarea As of the Riverside PCD North Planned District. This
Text application is based on the proposed rezoning to allow a drive -thru for this site
as a conditional use. Drive -thrus are typically considered a conditional use in
the Code
Operational • The proposal includes 12 stacking spaces which meets Code.
Details a The applicant has indicated that peak times at area Starbucks locations are
7a.m.to9a.m.
• While the data does not show the drive -thru use, it indicates total visits in
30- minute intervals at three different Columbus locations.
e The highest number of visits is 65 at the East Broad Street location near
Mount Carmel East hospital between 7:30 and 8 a.m. This would equate to
about one car for every two minutes if they all used the drive -thru.
Analysis Conditional Use
1) Will not have a Criterion met: Proposed operations are arranged to be contained within the
hazardous or site.
negative
impact on
surrounding
uses
2) Will provide Criterion met: The drive -thru provides a convenient service for area
adequate residents.
services and
facilities
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 14- 069Z/PDP /FDP /CU I Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3
The Perimeter - Starbucks
Thursday, August 21, 2014 i Page 12 of 16
Analysis Conditional Use
3) Will not harm Criterion met: This proposed use contributes positively to the economic
the economic climate of the city.
welfare.
4) Create no use Criterion met: The use will not be detrimental to the surrounding area.
or
characteristic
that is
detrimental to
the
surrounding
uses
5) Vehicular
circulation will
not interfere
with existing
circulation.
6) Not
detrimental to
property
values in the
vicinity.
7) Will not
impede the
development
8)
9)
Criterion met: The applicant has included landscape islands and pedestrian
crossings to streamline on -site circulation. Stacking meets Code and is located
away from other main activity of the center.
Criterion met: This proposal will not be detrimental to property values.
_ __ I
Criterion met: This proposal uses are contained on site and will not impede
development or improvement to the surrounding properties.
or
improvement
of surrounding
properties
Vehicular Criterion met: The changes are proposed to provide additional parking.
circulation will
not interfere
with existing
circulation.
Not ( " Criterion met: This proposal will not be detrimental to property values.
detrimental to
property
values in the
vicinity.
City of Dublin i Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 14- 069Z/PDP /FDP /CU i Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3
The Perimeter - Starbucks
Thursday, August 21, 2014 i Page 13 of 16
Analysis
lo) will not
impede the
development
or
improvement
of surrounding
properties
Conditional Use
Criterion met: This proposal uses are contained on site and will not impede
development or improvement to the surrounding properties.
Recommendation Conditional Use
Approval Planning recommends approval of the proposal with no conditions as it
complies with the conditional use review criteria.
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 14 -069Z/PDP /FDP /CU I Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3
The Perimeter - Starbucks
Thursday, August 21, 2014 1 Page 14 of 16
REZONING /PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN CRITERIA
The purpose of the PUD process is to encourage imaginative architectural design and proper site planning in a
coordinated and comprehensive manner, consistent with accepted land planning, landscape architecture, and
engineering principles. The PUD process can consist of up to three basic stages:
1) Concept Plan (Staff, Commission, and /or City Council review and comment);
2) Zoning Amendment Request (Preliminary Development Plan; Commission
recommends and City Council approves /denies); and
3) Final Development Plan (Commission approves /denies).
The general intent of the preliminary development plan (rezoning) stage is to determine the general layout and
specific zoning standards that will guide development. The Planning and Zoning Commission must review and
make a recommendation on this preliminary development plan (rezoning) request. The application will then be
forwarded to City Council for a first reading /introduction and a second reading /public hearing for a final vote.
A two -thirds vote of City Council is required to override a negative recommendation by the Commission. If
approved, the rezoning will become effective 30 days following the Council vote. Additionally, all portions of
the development will require final development plan approval by the Commission prior to construction. In the
case of a combined rezoning /preliminary development plan and final development plan, the final development
plan is not valid unless the rezoning /preliminary development plan is approved by Council.
Review Criteria
Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a Rezoning /Preliminary
Development Plan. In accordance with Section 153.055(A) Plan Approval Criteria, Code sets out the following
criteria of approval for a preliminary development plan (rezoning):
1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Dublin
Zoning Code;
2) The proposed development is in conformity with the Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan
and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the
existing street network;
3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the City and immediate vicinity and will
not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas;
4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the City so that the use and value of property within
and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded;
5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the
Community Plan;
6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the
natural resources of the site;
7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and /or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided;
8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize
traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate
adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a
safe, convenient and non - conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians;
9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for the
coordination and integration of this development within the PD and the larger community and maintains
the image of Dublin as a quality community;
10) The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and
structures, yard space, design and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility
and other elements having a bearing on the overall acceptability of the development plan's contribution
to the orderly development of land within the City;
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 14- 069Z/PDP /FDP /CU I Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3
The Perimeter - Starbucks
Thursday, August 21, 2014 1 Page 15 of 16
11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as
practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas;
12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any
deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Dublin Zoning Code or Subdivision
Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development
District regulations;
13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding
area and all applicable appearance standards of the City;
14) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and
is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall
development;
15) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements
and not impair the existing public service system for the area; and
16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and
are sufficient to service the new development.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN CRITERIA
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development process is to encourage imaginative architectural design and
proper site planning in a coordinated and comprehensive manner, consistent with accepted land planning,
landscape architecture, and engineering principles. The PUD process consists of up to three stages:
1) Concept Plan (Staff, Commission, and /or City Council review and comment);
2) Zoning Amendment Request (Preliminary Development Plan; Commission recommends and City Council
approves /denies); and
3) Final Development Plan (Commission approves /denies).
The intent of the final development plan is to show conformance with and provide a detailed refinement of the
total aspects of the approved preliminary development plan (rezoning). The final development plan includes all
of the final details of the proposed development and is the final stage of the PUD process. The Commission
may approve as submitted, approve with modifications agreed to by the applicant, or disapprove and terminate
the process. If the application is disapproved, the applicant may respond to Planning and Zoning Commission's
concerns and resubmit the plan. This action will be considered a new application for review in all respects,
including payment of the application fee. Appeal of any action taken by the Commission shall be to the Court
of Common Pleas in the appropriate jurisdiction. Following approval by the Commission, the applicant may
proceed with the building permit process. In the event that updated citywide standards are applicable, all
subsequently approved final development plans shall comply with the updated standards if the Planning and
Zoning Commission determines that the updated standards would not cause undue hardship.
Review Criteria
In accordance with Section 153.055(6) Plan Approval Criteria, the Code sets out the following criteria of
approval for a final development plan:
1) The plan conforms in all pertinent respects to the approved preliminary development plan provided,
however, that the Planning and Zoning Commission may authorize plans as specified in §153.053(E)(4);
2) Adequate provision is made for safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation within the site
and to adjacent property;
3) The development has adequate public services and open spaces;
4) The development preserves and is sensitive to the natural characteristics of the site in a manner that
complies with the applicable regulations set forth in this Code;
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 14- 069Z/PDP /FDP /CU I Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3
The Perimeter - Starbucks
Thursday, August 21, 2014 1 Page 16 of 16
5) The development provides adequate lighting for safe and convenient use of the streets, walkways,
driveways, and parking areas without unnecessarily spilling or emitting light onto adjacent properties
or the general vicinity;
6) The proposed signs, as indicated on the submitted sign plan, will be coordinated within the Planned
Unit Development and with adjacent development; are of an appropriate size, scale, and design in
relationship with the principal building, site, and surroundings; and are located so as to maintain safe
and orderly pedestrian and vehicular circulation;
7) The landscape plan will adequately enhance the principal building and site; maintain existing trees to
the extent possible; buffer adjacent incompatible uses; break up large expanses of pavement with
natural material; and provide appropriate plant materials for the buildings, site, and climate;
8) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site which complies with the
applicable regulations in this Code and any other design criteria established by the City or any other
governmental entity which may have jurisdiction over such matters;
9) If the project is to be carried out in progressive stages, each stage shall be so planned that the
foregoing conditions are complied with at the completion of each stage; and
10) The Commission believes the project to be in compliance with all other local, state, and federal laws
and regulations.
1�
1.�..�
I
PCD
I
_s
PCD
i
UD
Northwest
Presbyterian
Church �
R-
R -1
F
_---------_
!Ll
PUD Mwet
Q�
• . - 410 BCD �
4 O -�
Dublin Methodist
Hospital
OUD
MI
14- 069Z/PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ 0 150 300
Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
City of Dublin Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks Feet
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
7 ci of Dublin
Land use and Long
Range Planning
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
5600 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
phone 614.410.4600
RECORD OF ACTION
fax 614.410.4747
www dublinohiousa.9ow
3UNE 5, 2014
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
1. Riverside PCD North, Subarea 3 — The Perimeter Starbudcs Informal Review
14 -MINF 6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Proposal: An informal request for review and feedback for a Starbucks
Coffee Shop with a drive -thru for an existing shopping center on
the north side of Perimeter Drive, between the intersections of
Avery Muirfleld Drive and Hospital Drive,.
Request: This is a request for informal review and feedback for a potential
future rezoning and final development plan application.
Applicant: Centre at Perimeter, LLC; represented by Paul Ghidotd, Daimler.
Planning Contact: Claudia Husak, AICP, Planner II.
Contact Information: (614) 410 -4675, chusak@dublin.oh.us
RESULT: The Commission commented informally on a request for review and feedback for a
Starbucks Coffee Shop with a drive -thru for an existing shopping center on the north side of
Perimeter Drive, between the intersections of Avery Muirfield Drive and Hospital Drive. Some
Commissioners preferred this location for a Starbucks Drive -Thru to a previously proposed site.
Most Commissioners were concerned about the impacts of the proposal on parking, circulation,
screening and potential noise. Commissioners suggested contacting adjacent neighborhoods
who were previously concerned about commercial development north of Perimeter Drive. The
Commission suggested the applicant revise the development text to limit drive -thrus to certain
uses and requested operational details for a Starbucks drive -thru as well as stacking data and
peak time use data.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Claudia D. Husak, AICP
Planner H
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 5, 2014 — Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 20
1. Riverside PCD North, Subarea 3 —The Perimeter Starbudw Informal Review
14- 045INF 6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Ms. Amorose Groomes said the following application is a request for an informal request for review and
feedback for a Starbucks Coffee Shop with a drive -thru for an existing shopping center on the north side
of Perimeter Drive, between the intersections of Avery Mulrfield Drive and Hospital Drive.
Ms. Husak presented this informal application and said that the site is to the north of Perimeter Drive
where they received zoning approval in January 2013 to build the existing 14,000- square -foot retail
building. She said the site required that zoning to allow the size of the restaurants and the combination
of everything in one building.
Ms. Husak said the proposed site originally Included restaurant spaces at either end of the retail center
with patio spaces on both ends and one of the major restaurant tenants elected tD go Into the center of
the building which Is Dewey's Pizza now open for business. She said Starbucks is asking to use a tenant
space on this site for their coffee shop and include a drive -thru and the applicant would like some
feedback on a use stand point and could this use be accommodated on this site particularly because the
development text does not permit a drive -thru within the subarea and would require another rezoning.
Ms. Husak said they looked through different Issues that could be presented and they came up with a
plan to accommodate the stacking and the Impacts to the site. She said they propose to eliminate the
Internal access point along the private drive from Perimeter Drive that loops around the entire site and
connects the tenant spaces and the building within the development. She said the drive -thru is intended
to be in the area along the eastern portion of the site providing 12 stacking spaces which is required by
Code and loops around the southern portion and the area that was intended to be the patio with an
awning overhang Is now the drive-thru window. She said there is concern with the escape lane
circulation with the parking spaces potentially backing out into the stacking lane as well as the exiting the
drive -thru with the entrance of the center which the applicant provided a alternate design which provides
a landscaped Island that would separate the drive -thru from the parking spaces and still provide a drive
isle and Increase the landscape Island to the north tD separate the drive -thru exit more from the parking
at the front of the shopping center and includes heavy landscape screening along the side to hide the
drive -thru activity from Perimeter Drive.
Ms. Musak said there are two discussion questions for the commission on whether or not the Starbucks
with a drive -thru is appropriate to the site and are there any other circulation considerations the applicant
could make to eliminate some of the conflicts highlighted.
Paul Ghklotti, 6840 McNeil Drive, Dublin, Ohio, working with the Daimler Group, the owner and managing
member of this center, shared a little history important to this site regarding the rezoning and previous
plans because it is unusual to be talking about a specific tenant by name. He said usually there is a
building design and the tenants come and they figure out how they will fit into a space and if there are
changes they come back for approval. He said they have a nice mix of uses with 10 year leases and
there Is a very strong lunch oriented users, with one dinner user, and a tenant for bunt cakes which
doses at 6 pm. He said if they are able to get a coffee shop like Starbucks they will be open all day with
drive -thru peaks during morning hours. He said Starbucks has tried for eleven years to find a location in
this area.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was anyone from the general public that would like to speak with
respect to this application. [There were none.]
Mr. Budde said he appreciates the summary of the history and likes the alternative plan with the use
peak hours being morning when the other spaces are closed and supports the proposal.
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Dublin Planning and zoning Commismion
June S, 2014 — Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 20
Ms. Kramb said when she read through the minutes there was discussion to not have fast food or drive -
thrus with the considerations being for the residents to the north and to avoid high volumes throughout
the day. She said in this instance with a drive -thru busy in the mornings she could support and be
comfortable because it is a Starbucks and would like to approve as a conditional use and restrict the
drive -thru use only as long It is a Starbucks. She liked the alternative design and said there should be
more striping for a walkway to the restaurant crossing the drive -thru lane and at the top of the drive -thru
lane at the northeast corner to keep stacking from the access to the parking spaces. She said the
original approval was for a certain number of patio square footage and wanted to make sure the text
reflects the changes to allowable patio space. She said they needed to indicate where the ordering
boards would be located and provide the other details related to speakers and lighting.
Mr. Taylor said this proposal seems shoe horned and jammed into this site and he is concerned with
losing the access to the parking from the east. He said it seems like an awkward placement and forced
on the site and does not like losing the parking with how much would be required on this site.
Mr. Ghidotti said they were able to secure a parking easement with Champaign to the east and that they
exceed Code even with losing the 14 spaces by 12 or 14 spaces and they will have the ability to park 20
cars after banking hours to the east. He said there are discussions with the dental office being built to
the northwest to allow parking on that site as well. He said with having complimentary uses with the
various hours that each restaurant operates will allow them to minimize pavement and support the uses.
Mr. Taylor said they could talk about parking numbers and he could probably get happy with it but his
biggest concern is the overall circulation of the site.
Mr. Ghidottl said the proposed access will match the neighboring center with two access points.
Mr. Hardt complimented the applicant on the building and was glad they went the extra mile on the
building. He said it's exiting getting two larger sit down restaurants in this location with outdoor seating
space which Is lacking in this part of the community. He said what causes him pause is with losing a
viable restaurant space and outdoor patio and is a shame. He said If there is going to be a drlve-thru on
this site they have made It work about as well as it can. He likes the new plan presented better than the
older one.
Mr. Hann said the traffic for Starbucks is all morning traffic and the pizza place is evening traffic and
potentially the other restaurant Is lunch traffic and that would work, but if the other restaurant was a
breakfast place the traffic does not work.
Mr. Hardt said he lives in a condo on Past Road and if he Is outside the only thing he hears is SR 33 and
the prospect of hearing a drive -thru is an impossibility and is not anything he would be concerned about.
Ms. Salay complimented the applicant on the building. She visited Dewey's on Sunday and was
disappointed they are only open till 4:00, but they are very busy and expected they will be at lunch time.
She recommended they get in touch with the neighbors at Lowell Trace and Indian Run Meadows
knowing that they would be interested In this project. She said if the speaker is done properly they will
not be able to hear, but she has heard that residents in Lowell Trace can hear party's at BW3s patio with
outdoor speakers and music.
Ms. Salay said she likes the alternative design and seeing that there are 12 spaces for stacking but the
real world events shows that there is a need for more and a solution needs to be prepared prior to
bringing this back as a formal application. She said knowing that Starbucks now sells food this will be a
business that will have business through the noon hour and wanted them to be prepared for the
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Dublin Planning and Zordng CommhWon
June 5, 2014 — Meetlng Minutes
Page 4 of 20
Increase. She said this is a better location for Starbucks and is glad to hear about the parking
agreements with surrounding businesses.
Ms. Newell said she has reservations for using this site with a drive -thru and the layout proposed in
response to staff's comments is the best arrangement that they could accommodate. She said she would
like to see screening using low stone wall features or a combination of landscaping nicely integrated with
the building. She said she is concerned with stacking and that they will not just busy during morning
hours they serve lunch fare and expects this location to be used frequently especially with students after
school hours. She is concerned with changing the text to allow a drive -thru to certain uses and asked for
operational details for a Starbucks drive -thru as well as stacking data and peak time use data.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said losing the entrance to the east is not a hurdle, but It would be interesting to
see how traffic patterns would circulate through the parking lot and would not want access to the drive -
thru lane from the adjacent parking area. She requested operational details for comparable Starbucks for
busy times of the day. She said the building is well done. She said she thought It would be nice if this
location would have outdoor seating.
Mr. Ghkotti said it will have some outdoor seating with two or three cafe type tables but they have not
shown It and would welcome feedback on where it could be located.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she is not opposed to the drive -thru concept, but felt it had to be the right
user and should be a conditional use type of application and limited to a coffee shop type use and not an
Ice cream or fast food type user and with the university coming there might be some opportunities in the
area.
Mr. Ghldotti said they have good feedback and hoped to be back in the next 60 days with a formal
application.
Ms. Amorose Groomes thanked the applicant and said they will look forward to seeing the application.
L NAG PUD, S rea A, Land Ro /Range Rover/
14-WA f1 -D Amended Hn
jt' '
Ms. Amorose said the fo ing application i request for an i
feedback for pro posal for the proposal for n of the existing4and
of a new 30,00 uare -foot m for the Land over,
franchi , a sky bridge for Lamborghini fra Ise connecting t posek
builds and all associated improvements.
is Husak said applicant has flied amended final d lopment plan
t some informal f back from the mission first on a uple of issues.
focusing on Suba A of the MAG PU , which was creat n 2009 to accomm
main building cccmmodate Voly on this site and th was a subseque i
B to allow for a BMW /Mini builds and the Audi bull ng to be constructed.
Ms.
Hu said the Land Rov building to the of the site is 7, -squa
track a display area ado the Perimeter R d frontage. She id main
acco odate
s a majority f the franchises f the MAG campus about ill
the are approximat 96,000 square f of display area o he campus
g rally located in fingers in the no west and southw corners of the
s 472 parking s for employees d visitors. She sa the evergreen a
kh - informal RE
Pedmeter Loop
gal request for and
Rover show m and the
Range R and Jaguar
building the main MAG
and wanted
said this applicatl9d is
e the expansion f the
Tina to create ubarea
and cludes a test
.hi building which
re -feet. She said
wbarea A which i
le said the site
1 to the east the
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
r c r ityof Dublin
Chris Amorose Groomes
Land Use and Lang
Range Planning
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
5800 shier Rings Road
Amy Kramb
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
John Hardt
phone 614.410.4600
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
fax 614.410.4747
Victoria Newell
www .dublinohlousa.gov
APRIL 17, 2014
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
1. Avery Square — Starbudw Ouitparoel Hospital Drive
14- 024IRF Informal Review
Proposal: An approximately 1,800- square -foot coffee shop with a patio, drive -
through, and associated site Improvements for the Avery Square
Shopping Center on the north side of Hospital Drive, 500 feet west of the
intersection with Avery- MuirflHd Drive.
Request: Review and Informal feedback for the potential development of an
outparcel for an existing shopping center.
Applicant: Dublin Oaks Umited; represented by Chadle Fraas, Casst;o.
Planning Contact: Claudia Husak, AICP, Planner H
Contact Information: (614) 410 -4675, chusakDdublin.oh.us
RESULT: The Commission reviewed and provided informal feedback for the potential development of an
outparcel associated with the Avery Square Shopping Center. The Commissioners agreed that the
Proposed Starbucks is a welcome use within the community and could work well on this outparcel,
however, the Commissioners stressed that without the modifications to the shopping center entrance, the
existing congestion and hazardous conditions in this area do not create a situation where the Commission
could support this use. The Commissioners suggested the applicant pursue the entrance modifications,
design the building to match the center's architecture and propose a wall sign Instead of a monument
sign.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Chris Amorose Groomes
Yes
Richard Taylor
Yes
Amy Kramb
Yes
John Hardt
Yes
Joseph Budde
Absent
Victoria Newell
Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
'�& t &.—) A" ') 4'�
Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
April 17, 2014 — Meetlng Minutes
Page 2 of 14
1. Avery Square — Starbucks Outparcel Hospital Drive
14-024INF IMormal Review
Chair Chris Amorose Groomes Introduced this application for a request for review and non - binding
feedback for an approximately 1,800 square -foot coffee shop with a patio, drive - through, and associated
site improvements for the Avery Square Shopping Center on the north side of Hospital Drive, 500 feet
west of the Intersection with Avery- Muirfleld Drive.
Claudia Husak said this Is an informal review for a Starbucks for the Avery Square Shopping Center. She
presented the site Information and highlighted the area just west of Wendy's/Tim Horton's restaurants
where the applicant is requesting feedback.
Ms. Husak presented the 2010 Approved Development Plan that had been reviewed by both the Planning
and Zoning Commission and City Council. She said it was brought fiorward for approval of the Kroger fuel
station. She reported during the review process there significant discussion with the applicant regarding
the abundance of parking spaces within the area and explained the additional square footage permitted
In the development text She noted the applicant showed an outpamel within this proposed area but did
not have a user, and set aside the parcel to be reviewed later as part of a Final Development Plan. She
said at the City Council level, when the Preliminary Development Plan was approved, they agreed with
that Idea but wanted to make sure they would have a say on the layout and amended the development
text to require Council approval of the Final Development Plan in addition to the Planning and Zoning
Commission (PZC). She reported the Preliminary Plan Included access changes to the site where Hospital
Drive provides the main access to the shopping center. She explained the access change was driven by
Avery- Muirfleki /Perimeter loop Road Intersection Improvements, which will require a splitter island on
Hospital Drive and an existing access point to be eliminated. She noted originally, the improvements were
slated for 2014 but have been pushed back to 2017.
Ms. Husak presented detail for the proposal including a 1,800- square -foot kiosk for a Starbucks, a drive-
through centric restaurant use, which the applicant would like feedback. She said the Code requires eight
stacking spaces but 12 spaces have been Incorporated Into the design as well as an escape lane, patio
area, overflow parking area, and landscape island ensuring the best circulation for drive - through service.
She said the applicant proposes a monument sign that is not contemplated in the development text.
Ms. Husak showed more detail for the circulation plan that included the existing drive as well as new
drive that would be In place at the same time the intersection improvements occur. She noted there has
been a lot of discussion at both the PZC and City Council level regarding the challenges this access point
presents and the adjacent uses, specifically the Wendy'sMm Horton's restaurants that gets quite
congested, especially at peak times. She said this elevates concern of introducing another drive -through
oriented business that would share the same peak periods. She explained the changes would need to
occur for right -in, right -out access on Hospital Drive that will shift the main access and this was
emphasized to the applicant to have a plan before returning for approval of a formal application for the
outparcel.
Ms. Husak reiterated her proposed discussion questions;
1. Is the proposed outparcel development of a Starbucks drive -thru appropriate?
2. What further vehicular circulation considerations should the applicant make as part of this
proposal?
3. Other considerations by the Commission?
Ms. Amorose Groomes invited the applicant to step forward and state his name and address for the
record.
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Comrnisdon
April 17, 2014 — Meeting Minfes
Page 3 of 14
Charlie Fraas, 250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 500, Casto, said he has a long history with this project. He
said over the last 15 years, they have seen a lot of development around this area and found there is lot
of demand for different uses, especially for a Starbucks In the morning with a right turn/right turn entry
to get coffee. He explained when they came in for the Kroger gas station, they knew conceptually what
they wanted but were not quite sure. He said this proposal is a great use from a size standpoint because
It allows overflow parking and fits well within the center. He contends that Starbucks is the right type of
tenant for their community involvement, local footprint, and a green business in both building materials
and operations for sustainability, sharing the same ultimate goals that the City of Dublin has. He said
they understand the architecture will need to comply with existing materials and design style that Is used
In the shopping center. He clarified it is not a Idosk, but a small restaurant that will allow for couches and
chairs. He reported they have spent a lot of time revising the existing entrance, due to the Impending
roundabout but now that has been pushed back. He said the entrance was planned to be as far away
from the intersection as possible entering from the back way, with stacking that required them to rest ipe
a continuous right-in as a separate lane that allows for more stacking. He believes that both intersections
will be used in the morning. He understands It is not a good situation as it stands today. He said their
plan will disperse the traffic a different way and asked for feedback from the Commission regarding the
layout. He said when the City constructs the roundabout the new entrance will really come Into play.
John Hardt asked for clarification on the current slide on the outbound lanes as having one left turn and
one right tum, with the previous slide showed a median In Hospital Drive.
Mr. Fraas said this was a temporary solution, until the intersection doses altogether. Ms. Husak explained
she did not include It In her presentation because we are essentially saying there is not an intermediate
gyp•
Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comment in respect to this application. [Hearing none.)
Ms. Amorose Groomes noted the discussion questions posed on the slide.
Amy Kramb said she would not support the monument sign because no others tenants were permitted
this. She said they would be allowed the normal wail sign. She said she supports the Starbucks as a
needed use but said the original entrance has to be dosed. She was supportive of moving the entrance
down to eliminate the conflicts with Wendy'%Mm Horton's congestion. She is not happy with a temporary
solution. She said the intersection needs to be fixed.
Mr. Hardt thanked the applicant for coming in for an informal like this; there are not enough applicants
that request the early feedback. He said he lives very close to the center and believes the site is over -
parked and would welcome additional uses. He said he Is supportive of the proposal on a conceptual
level. He explained when the Preliminary Development Plan was reviewed previously, three major things
were discussed: 1) gas station; 2) outparoel; and 3) drive -way realignment. He said tonight, we want to
do all the positive things that bring revenue and do not want to do the one negative thing that does not
have a return which is to move the driveway. He agrees with Ms. Kramb in that he does not know how
this works with the current driveway. He does not believe that restdping to change the geometry, does
not fundamentally change that everyone will be flowing through that one spot on the site. He said this
needs to be explored by engineering and managed. He reiterated the building architecture needs to
match the center. He agrees the signs need to be consistent with the other tenants. He said he would
like to see this plan refined and developed further. He said In the Preliminary Development Plan there
was a considerable amount of discussion about expectations for landscaping and the aesthetics of the
whole area. He encouraged staff and the applicant to read through the history to ensure It meets those
needs as the expectations are quite high.
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
April 17, 2014 — Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 14
Victoria Newell said she welcomes Starbucks to the community and said this Is an appropriate use for this
outparcel. She agreed with the other commissioners and said the design and signs need to match the
center and be consistent. She said Is not in favor of the monument sign, particularly in the location it is
shown. She said the application is not rectifying Issues of backup from the congestion produced by
Wendy's/Tim Horton's, or Burger King. She stated that until we address the circulation in that center, you
will compound that issue. She said she was uncomfortable with that little bit of parking left isolated and
does not anticipate that will be used. She asked If that was needed In the parking count.
Ms. Husak responded the area was allocated for larger vehicle parking that use Wendy's during the lunch
hour as an attempt to get them off of their site because circulation Is so Important there.
Ms. Newell said she was concerned with pedestrian traffic crossing the drive when you take Into
consideration that the Tim Horton's/Wendy's parking lot is filled to capacity; It Is at the same peak time.
Ms. Husak said the striping was the solution to indicate a pedestrian crossing area. Ms. Newell said she
understood why the striping was done In that manner. She said she is concerned with the small area of
parking and would prefer It be landscaped.
Ms. Kramb said pedestrians need to be accommodated even for overflow parking. Ms. Husak confirmed
there was a pedestrian crossing delineated across the drive aisle.
Ms. Newell said she was concerned people would not pay much attention to that any more than they pay
attention to the stop sign.
Mr. Hardt asked If Wendy's has an agreement to use that as overflow parking or is it just habitual. Mr.
Fraas said because of the strict parking requirements at the time, areas did not have to be defined but
the shopping center was entitled to give them extra parking.
Mr. Hardt vaguely remembers this situation and asked If there Is a formal agreement In place, which
would need to be worked out.
Richard Taylor said the biggest issue is the existing drive/new drive situation and he would like to see It
corrected. He said there Is going to be a Ict of congestion no matter how we restripe or reconfigure that
intersection. He said Mr. Hardt mentioned the previous entryway design and we did spend extensive time
on landscape and signs. He recommended putting in an Internal driveway and providing enhancements
as the second phase. He agreed with the others, he would not support a monument sign and believes it
Is easy for Starbuck's customers to find the locations. He asked If the existing drive was eliminated, if that
would provide an opportunity to completely rethink the geometry of the site, suggesting flipping it 180
degrees. He said this would accomplish a couple of things with that entrance being gone: 1) direct access
to the main drive Instead of going around the back side of the parking lot, and 2) the north end of the lot
could serve as the escape lane, using the existing pavement. He said Starbucks could interface with the
driveways at the perimeter of the large parking In the same way Burger King and Wendy's/Tim Horton's
does rather than taking people all the way Into the site and moving around and back out again; a net
loss.
Mr. Fraas asked to get a summary of everyone's thought on that.
Mr. Taylor said he was in favor of the project and his favorite part Is that we would introduce a significant
area of green In an area that has none right now.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said Starbucks would be an asset to this site and is supportive of the use. She said
the pressure that is on the existing intersection at Perimeter Loop is intense and this will Increase that
Intensity on that intersection, which is already operating as an "F". She cannot in good conscience put
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Dublin Manning and Zoning Commission
April 17, 2014 — Meetlng Minutes
Page 5 of 14
more pressure on an Intersection that Is operating as an "F". She said she would not support this going
forward without a reconfiguration of that Intersection and would not support holding off on landscape
enhancements. She said it all needs to come In at one time for the benefit of the tenants of that center.
She believes that Is a high occupancy center with very little vacancies and when one tenant goes out,
something comes in very quickly. She said more creative things could happen to utilize the drive aisles;
she can easily see stacking of 15 - 20 cars in line for Starbucks. She understands the applicant has
exceeded the stacking requirement but when this center was build, she is not sure If Starbuck's had even
hit the Midwest. She said Tim Horton's does not have enough stacking. She sees a huge asset to that
outparcel with the reconfiguration of the Intersection because they can stack cars all the way to the drive
aisle and they will. She agreed the building would have to match the center.
Ms. Amortise Groomes invited the applicant to ask questions and get clarity.
Ms. Newell wanted to follow up to say she was not comfortable leaving the landscaping until a second
phase. She said she has seen a number of trees that are dead within the Islands. Ms. Amorose Groomes
commented that there are a lot of ash tree failures that have not been dealt with yet. Mr. Fraas explained
the trees were treated with fertilizer that killed them and they are in the middle of a lawsuit to remedy
the situation.
Mr. Fraas thanked the Commission for their input, encouragement, and support for the application. He
said unfortunately, they are not in a position to move that driveway as part of the condition with the
tenants. He said if they cannot do it the way It is, they might have to wait.
Ms. Amortise Groomes said we would welcome Starbucks to the community in this location and hopefully
they can figure out a way to make that work with the balance of the tenants.
2. EmWald 4rkway Phase Office
14-02 NF
This case postponed prior the meeting.
3. ping Code An f dment
DM - NotWc
14- 006AC
Emerald Orkway
InformaYRevilew
and Adult Fsvnily Home Ameqd
Adnfi istrative
introduced application for a for ame! c Ing the Dublin ' of
rni ) Sedton 153. CX3) th mod /tae notification iremerrts to be .--- -
With City Council les of Order; a Amending Cha 153.002, and 183.073 to add req rements
regarding Adu mtly Homes.
Jennifer R ler said this was tabled at a April 3, 2014 ng with di on from the
Commi for staff to meet ith the residents nd discuss in mor detail, the resid ' concerns that
were at that meetin She said they h the opportunity meet with the is on April 9,
2014 discussed the law and the and federal reg dons that govern types of u
She ported the resid is would like �ea% npermlts rr dispersal d than is being roposed in the e
ndment tonight. a said while sta munic� titles to limit the xcessive concen on,
does not define parameters so it suggested that a residents get City's assistance king
verification for wh that really mea . She said they rev ed the Code Ame ment so all the r ulations
are in one Dlaoe
Ms. Readler resented the pro" Code Amendmgfit to:
• A adult family home as permitted used /fn single - family dentlal districts, as required by the
Oh io Revised Code (1-5 unrelated adultsi
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
�m January 28. 2013 Page 4
Held 20
Chief Vo Eckartsbe ey made a suggestion o the Prosecutor that
agr be reviewear basis, as the last regiment was put into ace 20 yea ago. There is cluded for a requl review, however. M Chinnid Zuerche three - year yen term was included in dinance 09
Chief Von Edwrtsberhe County secutor apparently ded to their
request in regard to t.
There will be a sj9ond reading /public h ng of Ordinance 10-13 the February 11
Council meeti
COHSE GENDA (resumed)
Mayor ider moved approval actions requested for a six items remaining the
con agenda.
Mrs. ring seconded the on.
n thM Mgfte Vice yor Salay, yes; Mayor ddider, yes; Mr. Rein yes; Mr.
nan, yes; Ms. Chinn uercher, yes; Mrs. g, yes.
Approval of Regu Meeting Minutes of nuary 14, 2013
Ordinance 03 3 (Introduction/ ding)
Authorizing City Manager to Enter o a Master Memora of Understanding wi
the Central lo Community Im ent Corporation for Reutilization. (Secon
reading /p lic hearing February 1 uncil meeting)
Ord nce 07 - (Intro /first reading)
A rizing the City Mana Execute Necessary veyance Document'ati to Acquire
a .130 Acre, More or Permanent Multi -Use, lity, Grading and Drat a Easement
nd a 0.031 Acres, Mo r Less, Temporary Ea ent from 3ames D. an olly S.
Nester. (Second reads /public hearing Febru 11 Council meeting)
OrdinaV (Introdutd5
Authoriz Manager to
Various Working in
hearing Council me
2n 01 -13 (tab
g the City Mana
Commission for
Emergency Mutual
with Franklin Coui
Execute a Contract
Tense of Indigent I
the Frai
Resolution he 03 - 1 3
a
Clty (�aductlon ter int
Authorizing the onager to Enter into Agreement for
Services.
Ordinance 01 -13
Resoning Approximately 2.9 Acres Located on the North Side of Perimeter
Drive, Between the Intersections wkh Avery Mulrfield Drive and Hospital Drive
from PCD, Planned Commerce District (Rhrerside PCD North, Subarea A3) to
PUD, Planned Unit Development Diisb t (Riverside North, Subarea A3) to
Facilitate the Development of the Site with an Approximately 14,500- square-
foot RetaO Building, Including Restaurant Spaces and Associated Patios. (Case
12 -073Z/PDP /FDP)
Ms. Husak stated that no changes have been made since the first reading of the
ordinance. She and the applicant, Mr. Ghidotd are available to respond to any questions.
Mayor Leddider noted that Mr. Maurer has pointed out that the proposed development
text contains a 2012 date Instead of 2013.
Ms. Husak responded that staff would obtain a signed copy of the text with a 2013 date.
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
0&^*N � &AVL w 1*� W W" January 28, 2013 Page 5
Held - - - --20—
Mayor Lecklider Invited public testimony.
Wal lace stated that the great ISP century philosopher John
Ruskin, sharing his views about architecture, said, "Show me your buildings — the ones
you like — and III tell you what type of society you are. Ill tell you what your moral and
intellectual level is." He would Re to read two statements from the fourth page of staffs
memo, under "Final Development Plan Conditions:" The first statement is, "that the
elevations be revised to replace the gable returns with a more appropriate style." The
second statement is, "that the sea green junipers on the north side of the site be replaced
with winter gem boxwoods." In regard to the first statement, the writer obviously has in
mind an artistic or architectural principle or conviction and implies that this style is not
adequate and should be replaced with something more appropriate. The question is,
what is the collection of principles, ideas or convictions about architecture? In regard to
the second statement, there is also an artistic or architectural principle judgment involved.
Again, the Issue is what exactly are these principles? He assumes that the response
would be a stated preference for traditional architecture. However, the question remains -
- what �s the nature, objectives, and ultimate goal for the aesthetics of the architecture,
and what does that reveal about the City's ideals?
Mayor Leckllder responded that he assumes that answer can be derived from the Planning
& Zoning Commission minutes. He invited Ms. Husak to respond.
Ms. Husak stated that the clarification is provided in the Commission's minutes.
vice Mayor Salay stated that there are three architects and a landscape designer on the
Planning and Zoning Commission, and they typically provide that type of input.
Mr. Maurer responded that there are guiding principles involved, and he would seek
further information from these individuals.
a :Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Leddi der, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr.
Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnlci- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes.
Ordlna /nh
leY of Du Builddng Code.
Mr. yler that the ublln Residential Bui ng Co/ea ed n the 2013
entiag Code Ohlo, which is based pen the al Residential
riding Ct Is developed through consensus ving members of
fire buildi— architects, engi , homebuildent officials.
When Ohiat Code, !t is modif9 to meet the Oents through the
Residentiavisoy Committee. erefore, when ts brought to local
entities, it n through a corn ensive review. Du m revisions
the base nt to make It the lin Residential Buil This Code is ry
similar to the previous 2006 version.
Mayor icier stated that he Its there was a lavyufult In regard to that dential
Code. s Dublin permitted to ke some revisions to t,* Code?
Mr. yler responded thatAnothe a result of that [awls Dublin was permitted make four
lions to that Code. Ose revisions, one is w being deleted due a fad: that it
as already been lndu base docum It Is no longer a Dubli my provision.
Mr. Keenan asked If is the carbon monoxiyf provision.
Mr. Tyler respon affirmatively. Dublin the provision p, 'y, but because the
International as now included it in eir version, the City ro nger needs to include
it specifical
Mr. Keenan that Dublin has Ind ed /bD Code the past 8-10 years.
Mr. Tyler c rmed that Is correct.
Ms. Chi '- Zuercher asked if re will be to developers as a t of the
Code endment.
Mr. er responded that in 09, the State rocess to update the 006 version of a Residential Bulldi Code. A t that was no data ind' ng what cost crease would result the new proviould be coming the State. It required approximatel ree years to comcess, and the fate was satisfied that the safety p ions of the revised ighed the in eased costs, which
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council
•.na Loft MAW W - For. -0 Im• January 14, 2013
Held
Ms. Grigsby
that to him.
2. Asked what employee gi
responded that the
Fraternal Order of P
r unit of the F.O.P.; k
Steelworkers union.
Asked for more nforr
Ms. Gn
are in
are unionized?
groups that are
ce; the communicatk
the maintenance we
about
conservation. observes that this
the pay band He notes that thins mi
have been ery collaborative effoV
staff con er the qualifications t
relatlo D to art?
that she does n(it have that
20
Meeting
Page 4
(at hand, but can pro e
are the Police offi who
inicians/dispatchers Who are in
and mechanics dta(are in the
yrposition of specialist/for public art
Ion Is categorized as implementer in
has been carefully ught out and must
It is a substantive
for a public art coi
Ms. Grigsby ted that this position Id perform two mal funk
public art providing for timely tion of the publi art In
contract ministration for the ,related to art or oth areas as
will h a dual role.
kdown. what would
:rvationia and his/h
dons: maintena of
place for the Ci , and
needed. Thi n
V10 Mayor Salay, yes; Ma Lecklider, yes; Mr. r, yes; Mr.
yes; Ms. Chinnid uedier, yes; Mr. Rei , yes.
INTROMMQU 1138H READING —O idllkAIVCES
Ordinance 01 -13
Rezoning Approximately 2.9 Ames Located on the North Side of Perimeter
Drive, Between the Intersections with Avery Nuirfield Drive and Hospital
Drive from PCD, Planned Commerce District (Riverside PCD North, Subarea
A3) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Riverside North, Subarea
A3) to Facilitate the Development of the Site with an Approximately 14,500 -
square -foot Retail Building, Including Restaurant Spaces and Associated
Pathos. (Case 12 -073Z /PDP /FDP) (Second reading/public hearing January 28 Coundi
meeting)
Mr. Gerber Introduced the ordinance.
Ms. Hug stated that the ordinance was reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission
In December 2012 and recommended for approval. The apptcation 's a modification to
development text to allow retail uses on a site within the Riverside Planned Commerce
District. This district Includes the retail building that currently houses Matt the Milier,
Potbelly, and includes various medical buldings and the Primrose Daycare. She noted the
following:
• The proposal is for a 14,500 square -foot building. Mr. Ghidotti, representing
applicant Daimler Group Is present. He has also developed the remainder of this
PCD, and has had some interest from restaurant tenants about this site. Subarea
A3 is the subject of the ordinance, and in the development text, only the
standards and uses for this particular subarea are proposed for change.
• She shared the site plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission.
It Includes the retail building along the southern portion of the site, which fronts
Perimeter Drive and has two access points internally to the site that are shared
with the other uses within that Center. Two patio spaces are also shown on either
end, and it is the Intention for those two areas to be used by restaurants.
• An ample plaza area is shown to the north. This could include more informal
seating, depending upon the type of uses In the remaining tenant spaces.
• The applicant meets the Code for parking. There are some more detailed sign
standards within the development text for this particular area.
• She shared renderings of some elevations, noting there are more detailed
renderings in the packet. Primary building materials are brick and stone, and
materials also include siding. Some portions of the building will have standing
seam roof in a dark burgundy color.
• The elevations also show the signs as approved by the Planning Commission.
They are generaIy flat signs of wood material with track lighting beneath them.
14 -069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
•»�� o y January 14, 2013 Page 5
Held _ 20
In addition, each tenant can have a smaller blade sign that is more pedestrian
oriented. Two wall signs are permitted for each tenant.
Vice Mayor Salay noted that the signs as shown have a uniform font and are externally
Illuminated.
Ms. Husak responded that the signs are externally Illuminated, but do not necessarily have
a uniform font. The font would not be uniform, but the colors would match the building
materials.
Vice Mayor Salary stated that the text indicates that internally illuminated signs are
permitted and corporate logos are incorporated. This seems quite "busy." She pointed
out that what Is being shown tonight Is not reflective of what is indicated in the text. It is
important to understand exactly what the product will look like. In reviewing the text, this
is an option within the text, but it is certainly not the only option.
Ms. Husak responded that lighting, specifically, was a concern of the Planning
Commission. They asked the applicant to eliminate in the development text the option of
Internal illumination. The text has been updated to reflect this, as shown on page 16.
The lineal, fluorescent track light shown in these elevations is the only permitted lighting
at this point.
Vice Mayor Salay noted that she recalls reading in the materials that internally illuminated
signs are permitted.
Ms. Husak stated that t is possible that the other subareas would permit that at this point.
Ms. Husak noted in regard to colors that they would have to meet Code where the logo
could be a color. There is not a limitation in the text, currently, that the tent or any
graphics on the sign could only be one color. If that is something Council wants to add,
that can be considered.
• The Commission recommended approval with four requested changes to the
development text, and those have all been integrated into the text provided to
Council.
• Staff is recommending approval of the ordinance at the second reading /public
hearing on January 28.
She noted that the applicant is present to respond to any questions.
Mr. Reiner stated that he Is pleased that the applicant is providing more parking than what
is required. Is that related to the potential for two restaurants?
Ms. Husak responded affirmatively. Staff and the Commission had concerns about parking
needs for restaurants with peak hour patrons. They encouraged the app 'cant to explore
shared parking options and they have been able to have a positive outcome with
Champaign Bank.
Mr. Gerber stated that in reviewing the materials, it appears the Commission encouraged
the applicant to be creative with the signage. He asked Ms. Husak to elaborate.
Ms. Husak responded Mat the sign topic is sensitive to both staff and the Commission.
There was discussion at the time of the Informal review of the application about doing
something different and creative. At the same time, however, the architecture is very
traditional and in keeping with the area witht-- which the development Is located. Staff
struggled with this issue. A commissioner had suggested that perhaps the applicant could
move away from the gooseneck lights and do something different. The applicant has
chosen to pursue this option. The Commission is defin tely seeking signage that is
different from what has existed In Dublin, but they are also sensitive to the areas n which
this approach Is appropriate.
Mr. Gerber asked if this was the result of direction from Council or something the
Commission Initiated.
Ms. Husak responded that It is a combination. The Comm_ssion has definitely seen
planned un t development districts where applicants have tried to do something different
or have had different needs. Signs have been a topic of discussion of late, and were a
topic of a recent work session.
Vice Mayor Salay recalled that Council declined to have further discussion about signage in
view of the more important priorities at hand. Her concern Is that what she envisioned for
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
WnM«04 MAW. W -MM E+," January 14, 2013 Page 6
Held
- - - - -- 20_.Y- .—._,.
creativity and innovation relative to signs was specifically for the Bridge Street District and
that Council bdreved it was a place appropriate for that creativity. Outside of that District,
Council Indicated they are pleased with the status quo in signage and the results that have
been obtained with the current regulations. Her preference is to maintain the current
standards for other areas, as "creative" is certainly a subjective judgment. The
community Is accustomed to a certain kind of signage. Outside of the Bridge Street
District, she does not want a creative signage approach to be Incorporated. This could
have a domino effect.
Ms. Chinnid- Zuercher stated that she is confused, as what is being shown is the same
type of signage that already exists In the area. The lighting may be different, but the
other development took place many years ago and there have been changes to lighting
types over the years.
Mr. Gerber agreed, noting that he merely wanted to affirm the direction that Council has
given on this topic.
Ms. Husak responded that the Commission found this minor change acceptable for this
building.
Mr. Gerber asked about 3ogos, and if they can now be incorporated in signage throughout
the City.
Ms. Husak stated that has always been the policy. The permissible colors for logo signage
is what was modified by Code.
Mayor lecklider asked if there was discussion about outdoor speakers or music for the
patio areas.
Ms. Husak responded that such speakers are not permitted, as reflected in this text Staff
was aware of the proximity to residential areas to the north and the potential a mpact on
them.
Mayor Lecklider explained that there were isms raised by Lowell Trace residents and
those to the north about potential outdoor speakers at the BW3 restaurant at the time the
development was proposed.
Mr. Reiner stated that he is pleased that the outdoor dining at the front is ficiuded for this
application versus coming bads for such approval at a ater date.
Ms. Husak responded that outdoor dining is permitted up to a certain square footage.
There is an overall square footage cap for this.
Paul Ghidotd, Daimler Grow stated that this is the first project they are doing in Dublin in
some time. This three -acre tract, in particular, has been quite challenging. Daimler Group
developed the overall 24 acres and, in partnership with Ohio Health, developed the area
bounded by Perimeter, Avery and Post, securing that approval in the first quarter of 2004.
Over the past 9 years, they have developed over 100,000 square feet of office on the 24
acres -- the Avery Shops Retail Center, which is quite successful; the Champaign Bank;
the Huntington Bank; and a successful daycare fadlty. They have struggled with these
2.9 acres, which Is zoned for two sit -down restaurants. They have talked to 6-7
restaurants over the past 9 years and all have struggled with the size of the parcel they
need to make a 5 -6,000 square foot restaurant work. There would be little residual
remaining for development of the parcel. They have worked with Planning staff, and went
through the nformal process In September. They received good feedback and returned In
December to P&Z Given the elevations and the architecture, there is little discretion as
the neighborhood has already been developed and they are aware of what is appropriate
in this area. Trying to deviate dramatically from that would be a m stake and would look
out of place. Therefore, they have chosen a similar style of architecture, using the same
architect who worked on the Avery Shops. In reviewing lighting, signage and other
components, there was a request to do something different from gooseneck ilghting, and
the architect is therefore proposing band ghting, which wdi be uniform for each sign.
The signs will be a wood board and will appear very similar to what exists at the Avery
Shops, with the addition of one color. That would allow for someone to do a logo on the
banded signs. There is more text included than with Avery Shops. He Is hopeful that
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
January 14, 2013 Page 7
Council is comfortable with what has been presented tonight He offered to respond to
any questions. They are looking forward to the construction and opening of this project.
Mr. Keenan asked about ingress and egress for the fire department, especially in view of
the experience with the nearby Huntington Bank. Has that issue been addressed?
Mr. Ghidottl responded that It has been addressed, noting that this site has much better
access — both to Perimeter and to the private drive. There are three points of access
along that private road system.
Mr. Keenan commented that he Is not certain that a ladder truck could access this site,
but he is satisfied with the response from the appiicant
Vice Mayor Salay commented about the signage, noting that her previous comments were
not directed to this site specifically — but rather about signage in general and where the
City is headed. She appreciates Mr. Ghidotti's details about the signage plans.
Mr. Ghidotti noted that on the blade sign on the north side — a projecting sign — there was
much discussion about unique signage for some tenants. This was only to be viewed from
the north side and would only be pedestrian in nature. It would not be viewable from the
main streets. Until the developer can identify who the users will be, they are not certain
of the appearance. The text does allow for some creativity, and there seems to be
opportunity for something unique, yet appropriate.
Ms. Chinnid- Zuencter stated that she is p *ased that the Daimler Group s once again
developing in Dublin.
Mayor Lecidider stated Mr. Ghidotti has mentioned the size of the site and challenge for
restaurant development. Is Mr. Ghidottl satisfied that this deve =opment proposal will work
on the site and that there Is adequate land to accommodate this square footage?
Mr. Ghidotti responded that having a single building versus mutiple buOdings results in
savings. Secondly, there is some Inline retail space that can help subsidize. Finally, when
someone is willing to make the initial investment and a tenant can then enter Into a 10-
year lease based on square footage — th s is more viable for prospective tenants. Given
this, they have had good - nterest in this site, but have not signed any tenants at this
point They want to make sure that Council is comfortable with what Is being presented.
There is little available space in Avery Square and Perimeter Center, and there are many
new food service users who have been the second or third generation user. There is a
need *n this area for more food service operators.
There will be a second reading/public hearing at the January 26 Councl meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS
Ms. Griosbv reported that a memo was +ncluded in the packet in regard to video interviews
with other government agencies and elected officials. Staff wants to gauge the interest of
City Council in using videos for various purposes and occasions throughout the year She
asked that Council provide any feedback prior to staff identifying the various entities and
individuals to be interviewed. The goal vs to have more video available for City
communication efforts
Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher commented that she is supportive of using more video, as cizzens
are interested in more live production to obtain information This is an interesting venue to
bring forward. She emphasized that what Is brought forward should focus on issues and
not party politics. That will be an important consideration for the topics being explored and
the speakers selected to educate the citizens about the topic.
Ms. Grigsby noted that staff concurs, and has d scussed the need to be cognizant of
elections and timeframes of the year. Part of the goal is to recognize partnerships created
and some of the benefits to projects that will move forward, such as the 1- 270/33
. nterchange Staff will take this comment into carefu consideration.
Mayor Leckl +der asked T the memo regarding Acting City Manager succession is for
informa ^ion only
Ms Grggsby responded that this Is an annual designation t"t she is required to make
early in each year.
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
,.,,au "CL—L.s "Mom ,,,.. January 14, 2013 Page 8
Held
curt
Mayor Leckiider asked If there are any additional comments by staff regarding the snow
removal efforts.
Ms. Grigsby responded that from her perspective, there are always challenges with snow
removal. Staff did an excellent job in addressing the snow and ice situation. There were
some complaints, but based on the number of residents, they were fairly minimal Staff did
an excellent job of ensuring the streets were safe and clear within a reasonable timeframe
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
Mr. Gerbe r stated that the Council Special Committee regarding KIA Recognibon met
on January 2 at staff's request in order to clarify some direction given previously
regarding design details. The minutes of the meeting were included in the Council
packet The project will continue to move forward.
Mr. Reiner:
1. Stated that he is interested in revisiting Dublin's water system in a
comprehensive way. In the late 1980s, the City looked at the possibility of
drilling wells at Darree Fields. It was found that there was adequate water
supply to serve Dublin, as well as Marysille and Powell. It appears there is an
aquifer running from Chicago to South Carolina, and It borders the western
edge of the City. He is aware that Dublin residents pay a surcharge to
Columbus for their water supply. He is interested in the City investigating the
costs of drilling those wells and the costs of constructing a pumping station to
serve a water system. With Dublin's current hearth initiative, he has done
some reading and learned that the average person in Atlanta drinks water
processed through a human being four times. In talking with some who were
involved in the Darree Fields drilling, they indicated the water was of very high
quality. It would be desirable to relieve the citizens of the tax burden imposed
by the surcharges. He Is simply proposing this be investigated so that the
residents of the Dublin would not have to pay surcharges to Columbus for
water.
Ms. Grigsby noted that there have been discussions over time about the 30 percent
surcharge for water. Some of the current restrictions /limitations are that the water
and sewer agreements with Columbus run until 2043. There are many considerations
and issues to be addressed. Staff has had discussion about some other options to
consider with regard to the 30 percent surcharge. Staff will continue to monitor and
evaluate those to determine if there are viable options. Initiating a new City water
system would be challenging at this point in time. The issues would be engineering
related as well as cost The evaluation of the aquifer Mr. Reiner references was done
In the mid to late 1980s, and she is not aware If the conditions have changed. There
are many elements to consider with regard to this topic.
Mayor Lecklider commented that he is not suggesting Mr. Reiner's idea does not
warrant consideration in theory, but there is a contactual impediment for the next 30
years.
Ms. Grigsby responded that the current agreements with the City of Columbus for
water and sewer services run through 2043. These were 50 -year agreements when
entered Into.
Mr. Keenan added that much of this Issue relates to the merger discussion that took
place in the late 1980s. The township supported the merger proposal, but the City did
not Much of the Information circulated at the time for the voters indicated a merger
could result in a shutoff of the water supply from Columbus. The merger was
defeated by the voters. He noted that the aquifers were explored at the time due to
the merger proposal, and they confirmed a huge aquifer existing under Darree Fields
and Homestead Park with a tremendous supply of water.
14- 0692 /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
Da „, o , u ,., B ,,. 0 IM-0 p,g January 14, 2013 Page 9
Held
_._.20 —.
Ms. Grigsby added that part of the reason this was reviewed in the late 1980s was the
fact that the Clty's water and sewer agreements with Columbus had expired and
Dublin was involved in difficult negotiations with Columbus. The option of having a
separate water and sewer system for Dublin was explored.
Mr. Gerber commented that the system is a large asset and resource, and a 30
percent surcharge for the suburbs is not equitable. If the residents of Dublin have to
endure this for another 40 years, options should be explored.
Mr. Keenan stated that it is not only a surcharge for water usage, but for the water
taps that include separate fees for Columbus and Dublin.
Ms. Grigsby responded that staff would need to review this. Many entities have higher
tap fees. Marysville has its own system and their tap fees are considerably higher
than Dublin's, and in some cases higher than Dublin and Columbus fees are together.
Given the number of issues involved, she could not provide any recommendation on
this.
M� . Keenan added that this exploring the option of a Dublin water system would have
been more feasible In the mid 1980s. At this juncture, with all of the investments in
water towers and Infrastructure, it would be very complicated.
W. Grigsby clarified that Dublin owns the water lines, but Columbus is responsible for
maintenance of the fines. There would be many engineering issues to be considered
to determine if there is any feasibility to this option.
Mr. Reiner noted that the 30 percent surcharge is outrageous and re;teving the
citizens of tivs burden would be a great step forward.
Mr. Gerber stated that, whether or not having a city system is possible, he would like
w understand why there is a 30 percent surcharge for suburban users and what it is
used for. There must be an economic basis for such a surcharge.
Ms. Grigsby responded that the surcharge is essentially used to subsidize the
operations of the Columbus system. All of the suburbs who contract with the City of
Columbus for the water pay the 30 percent surcharge. The 30 percent surcharge paid
by residents of the various communities helps to support the Columbus system. If the
30 percent surcharge were eliminated, the rates would increase for all of the users of
the system.
Mr. Keenan stated that his understanding is that the contract includes a provision
calling for periodic review.
Ms. Grigsby responded that there is language about a review every five years. In
2010, the agreement was modified to incorporate the 277 acres by the Post
Interchange. Discuss can be in'tiated at anytime regarding amendments.
Vice Mayor salay added that Columbus is currently developing upground reservoirs to
serve the community as it grows. This probably accounts for some of the 30 percent
surcharge as well.
Ms. Grigsby stated that Columbus does a l of the bailing and collections for the water
system and they handle all of the required mandates. There are many issues involved
In operating the treatment facility for both water and sewer and Columbus does have
the burden of responsibility for this and not the suburbs.
Mr. Reiner continued:
2. He congratulated Ms. Mumma and the Finance team for their financial
reporting award. He is very pleased that the Finance Department has
consistently (lave achieved this award.
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
WA04IL" KAW 04 roues Wes January 14, 2013 Page 10
Held
'0
cl: commented:
1. The City's "snow warriors" did an excellent job. It seems that most of the
complaints related to the courts and cul de sacs, which are a lower priority in
the established tier for snow removal. To have 44 complaints from the entire
City is a very low number. The staff should be commended for the outstanding
work they have done.
2. Noted that she will not be attending the OML Legislative Luncheon, although
she serves on the Board. She encouraged anyone avallabie to attend the
legislative luncheon on February 6.
3. A music /noise Issue was raised tonight regarding the proposed Daimler
development project The City has wonderful music and entertainment in the
Historic Dublin area, and this is a draw for patrons, particularly in the warmer
weather. The DCVB has promoted more outside Irish activities throughout the
DistricL In view of the plan to build more residential development in the
Historic Dublin area, there is a need to ensure from the outset that the
developers understand there will be music and sound emanating throughout
the District, and that the building plans may need to be adjusted to
accommodate it. Outdoor patios have been requested in many areas of the
City. She believes that, even In the Perimeter area, there is a desire for music
and entertainment, although this Is not permitted. Where there is interest In
having outdoor venues, there is a similar interest In outdoor entertainment
Ms. Grigsby responded that with urban development, it is understood there will be
more activity and therefore more noise in the area. The majority of people who wits
move to the Bridge Street District and the existing Historic District will understand and
should be aware of the plans for this to be an active area with these types of activities
adjacent to their homes.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Cleric of Council
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
City of Dublin
Land use and Long
Range Planning
8800 Shier Rings Road
Dublin. Ohio 43016 -1236
phone 614.410.4600 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
fa7c 614.410.4747
www dublinohlousa.gav RECORD OF ACTION
DECEMBER 6, 2012
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
3. Riverside Planned Commerce District North, Subarea A3 — The Perimeter
12 -0732 /POP /FDP Perimeter DriYe
Remning /Prellminary Development Plan
Final Detralopment Plan
Proposal: To develop a vacant 2.9-acre site with an approximately 14,000- squam-
foot retail building, including restaurant spaces and associated patios, hi
Subarea A3 of the Riverside Planned Commerce District North, located
on the north side of Perimeter Drive, between the Intersections with
Ave"ulrfield Drive and Hospital Drive.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a rezoning
with preNrninary development plan and review and approval of a final
development plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050.
Applicant: Daimler Group, represented by Paul GhkloW.
Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II.
Contact Information: (614) 410 chusak@dublin.oh.us
MOTION #1: To recommend approval to City Council for this Rezoning with Preliminary Development
Plan application because it complies with the applicable review criteria and the existing and anticipated
development standards, with four conditions:
1) That the development text be revised to limit the size of permitted restaurant use to 11,000
square feet (excluding outdoor dining patios) and that any additional restaurant square footage,
exclusive of outdoor dining areas, require review and approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission;
2) That the development text be modified to allow patio furniture be used when the weather
permits outside of the permitted dates, subject to approval by Planning;
3) That the development text be modified to limit sign lighting to the proposed band lighting; and
4) That the development text be revised to adhere to Code for sign colors Including logos and that
window signs be prohibited, excluding informational window signs.
*Paul Ghldottl agreed to the above conditions.
VOTE: 7-0.
RESULT: This Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan application was approved,
RECORDED VOTES:
Chris Amorose Groomes Yes
Richard Taylor
Yes
Warren Fishman
Yes
Amy Kramb
Yes
John Hardt
Yes
Joseph Budde
Yes
Victoria Newell
Yes
P1 1 of 2 14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preli inary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
l iy of Dublin
To develop a vacant 2.9 -acre site with an approximately 14,000- square-
Land Use and Long
foot retail building, Including restaurant spaces and associated patios, In
Range Planning
5800 Shier Rtogs Road
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Dubhn, Ohio 43016.1236
on the north side of Perimeter Drive, between the Intersections with
pow 614
RECORD OF ACTION
tau 614.410.4747
Review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a rezoning
wwwAublinohlousa.n v
with preliminary development plan and review and approval of a final
DECEMBER 6, 2012
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
3. Riverside Planned Commerce District North, Subarea A3 — The Perimeter
12 -073Z /PDP /FDP Perimeter Drive
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan
Final Development Plan
Proposal:
To develop a vacant 2.9 -acre site with an approximately 14,000- square-
foot retail building, Including restaurant spaces and associated patios, In
Yes
Subarea A3 of the Riverside Planned Commerce District North, located
Amy Kramb
on the north side of Perimeter Drive, between the Intersections with
Avery- Muirfield Drive and Hospital Drive.
Request:
Review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a rezoning
Joseph Budde
with preliminary development plan and review and approval of a final
development plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050.
Applicant:
Daimler Group; represented by Paul Ghldottl.
Planning Contact:
Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II.
Contact Information:
(614) 410 -4675, chusak@dublin.oh.us
MOTION #2: To approved this Final Development Plan application because It compiles with the
applicable review criteria and the existing and anticipated development standards, with five conditions:
1) That the plans be revised to change the color of the standing seam metal roof from grey to a deep
red and the metal awning color be changed to match the metal roof, subject to approval by
Planning;
2) That the applicant provide the shared parking agreement with Champaign Bank with the building
permit application;
3) That the elevations be revised to replace the gable returns with a more appropriate style;
4) That the site plan be revised to Increase the size of the landscape Island to one parking space to the
west along the parking area to the north of the building; and
5) That the sea green junipers on the north side of the site be replaced with wintergern boxwood.
*Paul Ghkk tti, agreed to the above conditions.
VOTE: 7-0.
RESULT: This Final Development Plan application was approved
RECORDED VOTES:
Chris Amorose Groomes Yes
Richard Taylor
Yes
Warren Fishman
Yes
Amy Kramb
Yes
John Hardt
Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Joseph Budde
Yes
Victoria Newell
Yes
rG�- 6W l
Claudia D. Husak, AICP
Planner II
Page 2 of 2 14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
December 6, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 11
Mr. Min saYane acier boundaries re added in black nd the different red designations
d develar were elimin . He said the to River overlay i shown in yellow.
id if you clic in the Distri n the map and it I I pop up the na of the district an will be able to iy to that Di rict. He said they ve also added the from the Vision p for each the ch ricts.
Mr. Goodwi asked the Commis on go onto the sit and look at the pl and click on the ign points
they hav added Images to text. He said have images f how architectur may frame a
rounda ut, the Greenvilrb=usarnh%d- bridge as a example of an I c pedestria and additional
i from Greenville ve been i piration of much this projec they included
p throughout Col some sting conditions in the area. is Is a work In
ress and do not cider any of the ific images or n points to be f Id welcome any bads or additio I images that represent the des
Mr. Goodwin there were co s identified int Ily of how to potential parks open
space areas the Future Land Map (RU Map), rticulary with rds to private pro rtles. He
saki the R Map shows prima parks and open oes areas in portion of planning
area that ve yet to deveb . He said the map ows the stream r areas, 1 open space
nodes t would be linked the stream co , a greenway a the potential all ment for Tuttle
2pem: atic Boulevard ng up north of SR 1, and large is depicted as pa and open space.
n stated a it is approNrfa to target areas future open spa preservation, it
to show a land use desig on called Parks Open Space on a future land use p
areas a private property. a said he is works on including an rlay that shows
areas with a pa nd use designa ,but also allowing em bo stow a s base land use.
Mr. Goodwi asked if the Co issfon had any menu on the dge Street Plan nd if the
Commisslo ught they were ving in the righ iredion with how graphicaly depkt he plan. Mr.
Hardt sa he agreed the Pan is moving in a right direction. a said understood problematic
nature how green spa rea depicted and Id the proposed o ay is a good col n.
Mr. in said movl forward he will tinue to work th h December into J uary to get to a
I version and will scheduling a pub meeting to show website in a reap me environment. e
aid the goal is to ng everything the Commission r a full review and ndation to
Council and in I ruary.
Ms. A roomes said they Id be voting of Ital media and did t know if they hav ever done
that. Mr. in agreed a talk to our legal rtment about h to move into an rdinance, as
there wi a few pieces of project that wi need to be in a h format, such as Future Land
Use M and the Thorouq re Plan.
M§/Newell asked if
that is co
to the website an if they were able
are working wi the website editor nd
nd there are v I s things they can and
and thanked her or bringing it up.
f&ognize the diiffere colors distim
making sure that website is an
they will have th discussion with t
Ms. Amor roomer asked if t re were an7his the general publ that would like to k to this
applicatio [There were none.
Ms. orose Groomes tha ed Mr. Goodwin f d and ted io z on this proj
3. Riverside Planned Commerce District North, Subarea A3 — The Perimeter
12- 0732 /PDP /FDP Perimeter Drive
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan
14 -069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
for lind attempt
Mr. Goodwin said
ssible as it can be
and with GIS ed
Dublin Planning and Zoning commission
December 6, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 11
Final Development Plan
Ms. Amorose Groomes introduced this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan
which is a request to develop a vacant 2.9 -acre site with an approximately 14,800- square -foot retail
building, including restaurant spaces and associated patios, in Subarea A3 of the Riverside Planned
Commerce District North, located on the north side of Perimeter Drive, between the intersections with
Avery- Muirfield Drive and Hospital Drive. She said this application will require two votes, the rezoning
with preliminary development plan will forwarded to City Council for final approval and the Commission is
the final authority on the final development plan. She swore In those Intending to address the
Commission on this case, including the applicant, Paul Ghidottl with the Daimler Group.
Ms. Husak said this site Is on the north sloe of Perimeter Drive and Is a 2.9 acre parcel that is currently
vacant. She described the site and adjacent developments. She said the proposal is for a commercial
building that could accommodate restaurants spaces on either end and has some in -line tenant spaces
that could accommodate a variety of uses as outlined in the development text. She said on either end
are patio spaces proposed for the building, there is a large plaza area to the north which could
accommodate additional seating If warranted depending on the uses in the spaces and parking centered
to the north, east and west. She said as proposed the plan meets parking requirements of 97 spaces and
provided is 125. She said the applicant Is proposing administrative approval for additional patio spaces
as long as furniture and any other amenities complement one another and are of typical high quality
design that Is seen within the City.
Husak said there are sidewalks on all sides of the building that also conned to the south sidewalk along
Perimeter Drive. The applicant has the option for shared parking with Champaign Bank and they are
asking the applicant to do a more formal agreement. She said architecturally It Is very similar to what was
presented at the Informal review with more traditional styling and elements, a lot of detailing on all sides
of the building. She said they asked the applicant to break up the roof a little and do colored standing
seam as opposed to a gray and the perspective drawings do address giving the standing seam with a
more a rich dark burgundy red color. Carter Bean, project architect, showed a sample of the color.
Ms. Husak said they have worked with the applicant on Innovative sign kieas and with the architecture
and the surroundings they are looking at a plaque type sign design with the lighting suggested by the
Commission that was approved for the Brkige Pointe shopping center. She said each tenant would be
allowed to have two wall signs; one the Perimeter Drive elevation and one the Interior elevation to the
north, a blade sign would also be allowed on the north side. She said the wall signs have different
options for the rounding and edges of the sign to do a bit more interesting so that they are not all
uniform and the blade signs providing different options and allowing for a depiction of what the business
might be on the blade signs if the use or tenant warranted.
Ms. Husak said they are recommending approval of the Preliminary Development Plan /Rezoning which
represents the blue in the proposed development text that the applicant changed, which is the list of
permitted uses, the patio and sign requirements which are different and unique to this Subarea. She said
Planning also recommends approval of the Final Development Plan and all the details presented with the
two conditions:
1) That the plans be revised to change the color of the standing seam metal roof from grey to a deep
red and the metal awning color be changed to match the metal roof, subject to approval by Planning;
and,
2) That the applicant provide the shared parking agreement with Champaign Bank with the building
permit application.
Paul Ghidotti, Daimler Group, said they have shown what the Commission had hoped to see from the
Informal. He said present is Carter Bean, the project architect and Andrew Gardner, Bird & Bull, site
engineer. He said staff has done a wonderful job presenting the application and they have worked with
them for the last three months and hopefully everyone is excited about what they are developing.
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
December 6, 2012 - Mee" Minutes
Page 6 of 11
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked If there was anyone from the general public that would like to speak to this
application. [There were none.]
Ms. Kramb said that parking did not seem sufficient for unlimited restaurant space. Mr. Ghldotd said they
could agree to a maximum square footage that is allocated to restaurants, but they struck out the
limitation due to the Commission comments that they wanted to make sure they were able to attract the
right restaurants.
Mr. Hardt said when they saw the informal there was a quantity of restaurant discussed and it was
expressed to give flexibility. Mr. Ghldotti said the original text limited no more than 11,000 square feet of
restaurant and it was modified and expressed not to have the patio square footage limit the ability to
have more square footage, they designed conceptually two patios on each end, established the max
square footage of the patios of 2,000 square feet and he does not think they get to 2,000 square feet
and their experience is typically restaurant outdoor space and indoor space Is not typically occupied at
the same time. He did not think it was intentional to take out the maximum square footage and if there
is a desire to put back in the 11,000 square foot, he has no problem doing that and it was not an
Intentional change by them.
Ms. Husak said staffs concern with the limitation of the square footage of restaurants is that any kind of
place that would serve food or whether it was a ice cream or soda shop or something It would all be
classified as a restaurant.
Mr. Hardt said during the informal he heard that this site was originally intended for up to two free
standing restaurants and It was too big of a site for one and It did not work for two and they are looking
to have two restaurants and fill the space in between with retail and the retail was the question because
the text did not allow retail at this end of the development and he said there Is a practical limit to how
big any one restaurant is going to be, but he envisioned the stuff in the middle to be retail.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said this came from their discussion about the coffee shop and the ice cream shop
and the pretzel shop and those can come in as conditional uses if that is the mix that works.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said the best solution to head off a major parking Issue is to use the conditional
use mechanism to come back through when a Smoothie King wants to come in there and the
Commission can look at the numbers. Ms. Kramb said if they put the 11,000 square feet back in, It could
be any number of restaurants and if they wanted to go over the 11,000 they would have to come back
and get approval for the smoothle shop.
Mr. Fishman said there are different types of restaurants that have dancing which causes a different type
of traffic that would change the character of the whole area and is concerned if it is one huge 14,000
square foot restaurant. Ms. Amorose Groomes said if they have two restaurants of similar size 5,500
square foot restaurant is not a monster.
Mr. Fishman said he does not have a problem with two 5,500 square foot restaurants he is concerned If it
becomes one large 11,000 square foot restaurant. Mr. Taylor said if there is a cap for the total amount
of restaurant and a cap for one single restaurant. Mr. Ghidotti agreed that concept is fine, his preference
Is not to have to come back for a 1,200 square foot Smoothie King, that example of someone that size
coming back for an amended final development plan and go through that process they will lose that
tenant.
Mr. Hardt said they are okay with 11,000 square foot of total restaurant, but if they want to go over that
they have to get approval. Mr. Ghidotti agreed.
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
December 6, 2012 — Mewing Minutes
Page 7 of 11
Ms. Newell said she thought that was a good solution and the development is going to look very nice. Ms.
Amorose Groomes said there are solutions that they can engage and they could talk through what might
be most efficient for them depending upon who is coming.
Ms. Kramb suggested revising the outdoor furniture text to reflect what the Commission had previously
approved. Ms. Readier said they will add the condition to modify the language to make consistent with
what was used.
Ms. Kramb said the text regarding signs says the creativity with signage Is encouraged, but, It Is not
because there is prescriptive language and the signs are going to look just like every other sign. She said
her issue Is with sign illumination, reading the text that says "wall signs shall be illuminated either by
linear fluorescent track lighting fixture as depicted in table "D ". She wondered what the "or" option is.
Mr. Ghidotti said they are trying to get away from the goose necks, so they did and the architecture of
the building Is limited so they provided for track lighting that will not be seen.
Ms. Kramb said the second sentence Is allowing signs to be Internally illuminated or back lit. Mr. Ghldottl
said the wall signs have to be lit and there are three options for lighting and wanted to allow internally
illuminated or back lit signs.
Mr. GhIdotti said the wall signs have to be lilt, but there will not be lighting on the blade signs or
projecting signs.
Mr. Taylor said he would like to see a solution and make sure that the option for a more creative sign to
be proposed to the Commission. Mr. Ghidotti said they tried to incorporate the concept for the projecting
signs face they could have the good or service.
Mr. Hardt said there is something in the text that refers to window signs and that no permanent windows
signs are permitted, and In this general area they do not allow window signs at all. Ms. Husak said they
do allow temporary window signs in the area and not specified in the text.
Mr. Hardt said he would like this text or code regarding window signs to match the existing retail center.
Mr. Hardt said the wrong code section Is reference for color limitation allovAng the logo to be counted as
one color allowing three additional colors. Mr. Langworthy said the correct section Is 158(C)(4) refers to
color.
Mr. Hardt said every other retail center within a mile of this project they have not allowed internally or
back lit signs and given this building was to fall Into line with the other buildings In the area and is not
comfortable with the two alternative lighting methods. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed It is not an
appropriate location for Internally Illuminated signs. Mr. Taylor agreed.
Mr. Budde said if they permitted this and this Is the new Dublin and the new signage and new interests,
why not and If the neighbors want to come and make some changes, that would be their prerogative and
the Commission could help In creating this new look.
Mr. Hardt said the new look was for the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Budde said except for the City did not
create the Nationwide Children's multi -color logo. Ms. Amorose Groomes said this is a more sign style
issue. Mr. Hardt said It Is an Illumination style.
Ms. Newell said she agrees with Mr. Hardt and it should be kept consistent with what is in place with the
surrounding businesses and is only fair. Mr. Fishman said he understood the "New Dublin" is strictly
within the Bridge Street Corridor and they were concerned it would Leak out of the corridor.
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
December 6, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 11
Mr. Taylor said a minor technicality with Installation, signs are mounted flush to wall and where they are
on the synthetic stone It would be better to stand off an inch. Mr. Ghidotti agreed.
Mr. Hardt said on the cut sheet submitted for the linear florescent tubes that the cold start ballast are an
option and wanted to make sure they are used or they will flicker In the winter. Mr. Ghidotti agreed to
order them as indicated.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said as discussed they will limit the restaurant space In the text 11,000 square
feet and to exceed that would require Commission approval, some patio furniture out of season storage
language to be incorporated. Ms. Husak said she added conditions:
3) That the development text be revised to limit the size of permitted restaurant use to 11,000 square
feet excluding the outdoor dining patios and that any additional restaurant square footage, exclusive
of outdoor dining areas, require review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission;
4) That the development text be modified to allow patio furniture be used when the weather permits
outside of the permitted dates, subject to Planning approval;
She said she also summarized the sign discussion.
Mr. Ghidotd said they have to use the illuminated tube that is referenced in the shell of the first part of
section 6. He said they were trying to get away from the goose neck lighting and wanted to give people
more flexibility and It will look more uniform and different from the area and will look nice and wanted to
give creativity and allow for It He said lighting and signage were the two areas they struggled with to
take their comments and come back with what they thought the commission wanted to hear.
Mr. Hardt said the scalloped sign panels, wood sign panels with goose neck lighting fixtures are getting
tired and would like to see more creativity as general statement, but this site is the last puzzle piece of an
already developed site, they should stay the course and finish this. Mr. Ghkiottl said that Is exactly what
Ms. Husak had told them in the early discussions after September, while they want to be creative It Is
hard to make a lot of changes with everything around. He said it is an Infill site.
Ms. Kramb said they wanted to make sure they get the logo option. Mr. Ghidotti said they wanted to
refer to both paragraphs.
Ms. Kramb said she really disliked the barn doors on the elevation with the pedestrian glass door next to
It and with the awnings over it and looks awkward.
Ms. Kramb said the finials on the center section she does not care for and they are usually crooked and
look mall and never look right when built and would like to nix them. Mr. Taylor said there is bad
precedent in the area for leaning finials.
Mr. Taylor said on the site plan the new entrance coming in from the north time is a planting island and
a one and a half parking space when someone pulls out of will be into the entrance and thought they
should expand the landscape island to avoid an accident. Mr. Ghidotti said that Is why the island was
placed there to avoid potential problems, and agreed to switch that space to a van accessible handicap
space to avoid any issues.
Mr. Taylor said he would like to see the return on the gables something other than little dog house
returns and the trim style is simple and can be something other than the tucked under piece and the
finials. Ms. Newell said she is not crazy about the finials, but since they are on the other buildings she
felt they were appropriate.
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
December 6, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 11
Mr. Taylor said they always look good on drawings, but thought they should be replaced with something
more appropriate gable return for the style of the building.
Ms. Newell said she is okay with the barn door detail because It Is something newer and did not object to
It. Mr. Taylor said he likes the barn door on the right. Ms. Kramb said it Is the western side barn door
and the other is a full door with a pedestrian door next to it.
Mr. Bean said they are working on another project where they are doing a similar treatment and Instead
of the man door being on the side it is in the middle to appear that the barn doors a slid open and this Is
the gap between. Ms. Kramb said that sounds better. Ms. Amorose Groomes thought it is a cool option.
Ms. Newell said she appreciated the sidewalks across the street frontage that connects and It was a
response to her comment that it did not have much pedestrian access and appreciated the solution.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said they have circled the entire property in sea green junipers and asked that
they change the back side of the rear of the property and stop at the east and west entry points out with
wintergem boxwood and appreciated that they have the plantings held back more than 5 feet off of the
parking surface. Mr. Ghidotti said they had a different spec tree and staff suggested junipers as one of
the options.
Ms. Newell said that boxwood Is not a hardy plant for snow piled on them and wanted to know if that
was a concern. Ms. Amorose Groomes said in the area that Is In the back location because the push of
snow would go In the different direction and far enough away from the drive lane to be dear of the salt
spray.
Mr. Ghidotti said he Is concerned with the location of the dumpster at the northwest corner and not sure
If they should change the plant material north of the entry drives and If they could just change out the
plantings at the north drive because of the screening Is mirrored on both sides. Ms. Amorose Groomes
agreed to make the change on the north property line.
Motion #1 and Vote
Mr. Taylor moved to recommend approval to Gty Council for this Rezoning with Preliminary Development
Plan application because It complies with the applicable review criteria and the existing and anticipated
development standards, with four conditions:
1) That the development text be revised to limit the size of permitted restaurant use to 11,000
square feet (excluding outdoor dining patios) and that any additional restaurant square footage,
exclusive of outdoor dining areas, require review and approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission;
2) That the development text be modified to allow patio furniture be used when the weather
permits outside of the permitted dates, subject to approval by Planning;
3) That the development text be modified to limit sign lighting to the proposed band lighting; and
4) That the development text be revised to adhere to Code for sign colors including logos and that
window signs be prohibited, excluding informational window signs.
Mr. Ghkiotti agreed to the above conditions.
Mr. Fishman seconded the motion.
The vote was as follows: Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Amorose
Grammes, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 7 - 0.)
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
December 6, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 11
Motion #2 and Vote
Mr. Taylor moved to approve this Final Development Plan application because It complies with the
applicable review criteria and the existing and anticipated development standards, with five conditions:
1) That the plans be revised to change the color of the standing seam metal roof from grey to a
deep red and the metal awning color be changed to match the metal roof, subject to approval by
Planning;
2) That the applicant provide the shared parking agreement with Champaign Bank with the building
permit application;
3) That the elevations be revised to replace the gable returns with a more appropriate style;
4) That the site plan be revised to Increase the size of the landscape Island to one parking space to
the west a" the parking area to the north of the building; and
5) That the sea green junipers on the north side of the site be replaced with wintergem boxwood.
Mr. Ghidottl, agreed to the above conditions.
Ms. Newell seconded the motion.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms.
Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 7 — 0.)
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she wanted to thank the applicant's team for taking seriously their comments
at the Informal review and were able to get both the rezoning/preliminary development plan and the final
development plan done, so hopefully It Is a net gain. Mr. Ghkiottl thanked the commission for their time
and effort and apologized for the sloppiness in the text and that is not how they operate and he accepted
responsibility for them and said It will not happen next time.
4. Tartap%lldge, Section 5 9327 urnett Lane
/12 OFDP /FP Final De opment Plan
Final Plat
se Groomes I uced this appl n to develop o single - family alley within Subarea D
an Ridge P ned Unit Deve nt. She said the ' is located at the west comer of e
n of Em Row Lane and B Lane. She sa this application wi require two votes.
said the Comm n is the final a rity on the final d ment plan a qty Council wHHl ve to
approve the fin plat. She swore I those intending t address the Com n on this case, uding
the applicant, rtes Driscoll.
Ms. Groomes said t do not need a tatbn and as If there were a ne from the
general ublic that would II to speak with to this applicat . [There were no
Fin Development Pi - Motion and V
M . Taylor moved to prove the Final elopment Plan use it complies all applicable re
a and the exi g development s ands, with 2 co Ions:
1) That th applicant revise a hedge Installatio graphic to re Hey accessed Io prior to
sched ing the plat for Council review; an
2) Tha any fence for Lot be selected from n architecturally a ropriate palette to approved
Planning and ning Commission s part of the final evelopment plan proval for the
emaining alley lots.
Mr. Aardt seconded the
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
City of Dublin
Land Use and Long
Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road
AMMh
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
O 614.410.4600
RECORD OF ACTION
K
* fii4.414.4747
wuwe d ublinahtousa.gw
SEPTE14SER 6, 2012
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
S. Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3 — The Perimeter Perimeter Drive
12- OSOINF Informal Review
Proposal: The potential development of a vacant 2.9 -acre site with an
approximately 14,000- square -foot retail building Including two 5,000 -
squane -foot restaurant spaces and associated patios in Subarea A3 of the
Riverside Planned Commerce District North. The site is located on the
north side of Perimeter Drive, between the Intersections with Avery -
Muirfield Drive and Hospital Drive.
Request: Review and Informal feedback.
Applicant: Paul Ghidotti, Daimler.
Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II.
Contact Information: (614) 410 -4675, chusak@dublin.oh.us
RESULT: The Commission commented Informally on this application for Informal feedback for the
potential development of a vacant 2.9 -acre site with an approximately 14,000 - square -foot retail building
Including two 5,000- square -foot restaurant spaces and associated patios in Subarea A3 of the Riverside
Planned Commerce Disbict North. The site Is located on the north side of Perimeter Drive, between the
Intersections with Avery- Muirfield Drive and Hospital Drive. The Commission generally agreed with the
applicant's proposal and understood the challenges for the development of the site as originally zoned
and the changes in surrounding conditions. The Commission appreciated the architectural concept for the
building and encouraged the applicant to address signs Innovatively.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
1� am *I -q 0. �*J&F
Claudia D. Husak, AICP
Planner II
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
DAM Planning and Zoning Cammim
September 6, 2012 — Meeth MhAes
Page 14 of 22
reason nd he did not ny reason to cha the text at all. a recalled that Do pion made sure
that was included in th text so that it wou be there forever d look good. Mr. man said he was
str because the ndards continue be lowered for k: reasons. H said no matter
ions the shingle ' , it is less expensiv than shake. He he would be in fa r of changing the
fin allowing som hang like standing m metal or so ething very attra " e. He said the a alt
shingle would g the building a wh new look.
Mr. McAllist said he would be I vor of the corn a shake.
Mr. Fish n said he would ve to see the posite shake pro before he wo be willing to
Chang a text to allow He said originally was spedfled tha nd -split shake s gles were to be
ut he did not kn If the second appl tion was hand -spl shakes which last t longer. He said
It as thicker, better, d required less ntenance, but it w more expensive. said that in Dubli ,
ny times for the nd go around hake roofs, a ma cut shake was s ted. He said ey
have to be very ul not to kmrer ards In Dublin. said obviously, as against the p
shakes.
Ms. Amor Groomes asked If s was the second ake roof on this b Ing.
Mr. M ster confirmed. H ki a well- maintai shake roof usual lash 30 years.
Ms. orose Groomes ked the applicant it was his pleasur o have the Comm ion table this
Ilow him further rch of roof Is and come back nth other options.
Mr. McAllister as N a composite a had been previo ly approved by th mission.
Ms. Amorose roomes could not lest one.
Mr. McAI requested a Ing of this minor amendment a amended final lopment plan
appl on.
M on and Vote
. Taylor moved to ble this minor text mendment and a nded final develop ent plan applicato at
request of the plicant. Mr. Fish seconded the mo on.
The vote was follows: Ms. Kra , yes; Mr. Hardt, y ; Ms. Newell, yes; r. Budde, yes; Ms orose
Groomes, y , Mr. Fishman, yes; nd Mr. Taylor, yes. (Tabled 7 — 0.)
Ms. Am Groomes said " Commission n to waive any t e requirements, o f they are in a
hurry, anning would w nth the applicant.
3. Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3 — The Perimeter Perimeter Drive
12- 050INF informal Review
Chris Amorose Groomes introduced the following application requesting a Informal review and non-
binding feedback for the potential development of a vacant 2.9 -acre site with an approximately 14,000 -
square -foot retail building including two 5,000 - square -foot restaurant spaces and associated patios in
Subarea A3 of the Riverside Planned Commerce District North. She said the site Is located on the north
side of Perimeter Drive, between the intersections with Avery- Muirfleld Drive and Hospltal Drive.
Claudia Husak presented this case. She explained that the next step the applicant would take after this
informal, non - binding discussion was a rezoning /preliminary development plan application. She said the
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning CommWon
September 6, 2012 — Mwft Mftfts
Page 15 of 22
entire Riverside Planned Commerce District includes the Shoppes of Avery Square, Primrose Daycare, and
several office buildings, which are mostly medical. She said this site is in the center of the PCD and the
other vacant pieces within the District have approved final development plans but have not been bulk
yet. She said the Community Plan shows this site as the General Commercial category, which is also the
category for the eastern portion of this development district as well as the Avery Square Shopping Center
and the area of the Giant Eagle Shopping Center, Perimeter Shopping Center.
Ms. Husak said the General Commercial District Is described as Including most of the existing and
commercial development within the City and it is also described that a lot of the pattern of that
development In the commercial district is very auto - oriented with uses such as retail, restaurants,
personal services, offices, lodging and other auto - oriented services. Ms. Husak presented a subarea map
and said that a majority of this site is in Subarea Al, which permits medical offices and regular offices,
the Suburban Office and Institutional District in the Zoning Code.
Ms. Husak said that Subarea A3 is the one that the applicant would be proposing to rezone to expand the
uses permitted. She said currently permitted are all of the uses listed under the Permitted section in the
SO, Suburban Office portion of the Zoning Code, which are mostly office uses and financial institutions.
She said also permitted in the subarea currently are two restaurants limited to a total of 11,000 square
feet. Ms. Husak said that there was a specific exclusion for drive -thru, drive -up windows.
Ms. Husak presented the applicant's contemplated site plan, which centered around a 14,000-square-foot
retail building which could accommodate two restaurants potentially at either end. She said the applicant
Is proposing to open up the text to allow general commercial uses In addition to the uses currently
permitted to mirror what the Matt the Miller's building is currently laid out as with a restaurant and
different kinds of uses that would be permitted in a general commercial district. Ms. Husak said that
would require a rezoning because those uses are not currently permitted within the current district. She
reiterated that there was a cap on the square footage of restaurants permitted within this subarea. Ms.
Husak said If the applicant wanted to have those uses opened up to allow all kinds of commercial uses,
an ice cream or coffee shop or a use like that which could also be considered a restaurant could be
envisioned. She said there Is some limitation if the text Is kept at the 11,000 square -feet of restaurant
use.
Ms. Husak said if the patios are included as this proposal suggests with the restaurant, they would be
limited in size because quickly they add up to 500 square feet each and they are at 11,000 square feet,
the current cap for the restaurants. So a discussion point outlined was should the patios be counted as
part of the restaurant space number, or Is there the opportunity to allow patios to be bigger and more of
an amenity and more integrated and potentially not be counted as part of an overall square footage
number.
Ms. Husak said that they would look at something similar to what they have done at Giant Eagle and at
the Kroger shopping centers with allowing a certain overall number of patio space by right with certain
amenities that they have come to be used to in Dublin.
Ms. Husak said that the applicant also provided some conceptual elevations of this type of building. She
said that the development text currently requires non -office buildings to have a more residential feel and
style. She said the applicant is trying to mirror what has been the look of the Matt the Miller's building
and other buildings that Daimler has developed around the area.
Ms. Husak said that Planning suggests the following four general questions for the Commission to
discuss:
1. Does this proposal warrant a change to the development text to allow retail uses in this Subarea?
2. Would the Commission allow additional restaurants to occupy the retail spaces, which would
exceed the number of restaurants currently permitted?
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
W ttn Panning and zoning Commis ion
Santo 6, 2012 — MeeMV Minubes
Page 16 of 22
3. Does the Commission support excluding patio spaces from the restaurant size limitation?
4. Is the proposed architectural character appropriate for this development?
Paul Ghidotti, 6840 McNeil Drive, Dublin, with the Daimler Group, said the architectural style of this
building was similar to the Wine Bistro building, across from the Shoppes at Lane Avenue. He said they
thought this architecture was a step above that of the Matt the Miller building. Mr. Ghidotti said that in
2003, they partnered with OhloHealth on this 24-acre development and created a mix of uses, 100,000
square feet of office and medical office space. He said they had talked to five restaurants over the eight -
year period since they started the development. He said every time a restaurant laid out a 5,000 to 7,000
square-foot restaurant, they found that after they met setback and parking requirements and did a
freestanding building, that they needed 2.2 to 2.4 acres which left them with an unusable parcel. He said
the second problem they encountered was that they could not afford to build a building that met the
standard of the Shoppes at Avery.
Mr. Ghldotti said it was his impression most of the second and third generation space that had been
developed at Avery Square and the Giant Eagle center have mostly been quick service restaurants which
are wonderful to have, but they have not generated any real nice sit down restaurants other than Matt
the Millers and The Rusty Bucket. He said two restaurants have come to them; one an Italian family -
oriented pizza, pasta restaurant and the tenant previously mentioned that was on Lane Avenue would like
to have a Dublin location.
Mr. Ghkiotti said the reason why bringing the uses together and creating a single building make sense Is
that the type of uses he is talking about cannot afford a $2M restaurant, but they can afford to rent a
restaurant like this. He said they can have complementary uses if they can make It one building when
there Is a restaurant that is only busy at night and a user that may be a neighborhood retail service that
can provide a service that people will use during the day, but not necessarily at night. Mr. Ghidotti said
they did not have anyone identified yet for what is known as a retail space or letters of Intent signed for
the restaurant spaces. Mr. Ghidotti asked for the Commissioners` questions and feedback so that they
could come back with a plan that Incorporated the things the Commissioners would like to see.
Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comments with respect to this application. [There were none.]
Amy Kramb said that she was in favor of the building being shared with two restaurants, but not in favor
of the retail. She was also line with adding patio space not being included and /or adjusting the amount of
square footage allowed. She said she was okay with the character of the building, but she was tired of
seeing the same thing repeatedly and would like to see something new. Ms. Kramb said asked if the
Development Text would need to be changed to allow the restaurant use.
Ms. Husak said the development text would not need to be changed to allow a restaurant at the site, but
It would require a rezoning to add other non - office commercial uses.
Ms. Kramb said that she would be willing to change the development text to allow a larger square
footage or somehow not Include the patio space in the square footage.
Ms. Husak asked if Ms. Kramb would be in favor of allowing more than two restaurants.
Ms. Kramb said no, due to the strained parking in the entire development.
John Hardt said that he thought this was a good proposal and supported it. He said having dealt with
similar sites In his profession, he could sympathize how a freestanding restaurant really did not work on
this site, so the fundamental approach Is okay to him. Mr. Hardt said that he was not concerned about
the retail. He said the size they are talking about make them Mom and Pop shops. He said there was
100,000 square feet of retail across the street, so he did not see how this would markedly change the
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
OUbfin Planing and Zoning Commission
Septunber 6, 2012 — Meeth Minutes
Page 17 of 22
character of the area. Mr. Hardt said that in the past, there had been some concern about retail creep
going westward down Perimeter Drive, and he was sympathetic to that, but he was okay with this
proposal for a couple of reasons. He said most of the land to the west is developed and he did not think
there was a lot of opportunity for retal' ;eft. Mr. Hardt sa'd that the Community Plan had this site being
contemplated as being commercial and the offices to the west. He said if they leaned on the Community
Plan, this was an appropriate use.
Mr. Hardt said there were two different related issues and one was the quantity of restaurants and the
other is the area of the restaurants. He said he had the same concern as Ms. Kramb about the parking
and he wanted to be convinced that they deal with that. Mr. Hardt said he was willing to consider some
latitude In terms of the square footage and if it was 11,500 square feet, It would allow potentially one of
the small retail spaces to be a restaurant. He said he agreed with the comments in the Planning Report
regarding the patios. He said he was in favor of the patios because he thought we needed more of them.
Mr. Hardt said he would like to see them incorporated Into this project In a creative way. He said
regarding the eastern restaurant, the entire area between the building and parking lot could be a patio,
as long as it was done well, well appointed, and landscaped. He said he did not think it needed to be a
500- square -foot box.
Mr. Hardt said architecturally, he agreed with Ms. Kramb about being over this style and tired of it. He
said he would love to see some more interesting, creative things happen, but probably somewhere else.
He said on this site, the die has been cast and this Is what we have. He said he had no trouble matching
the existing center because he thought It was the appropriate thing to do and he thought this building did
a good job of it. He said he was willing to look and consider more creative and different approaches to
the signs, but on this site, it has been established and done and continuing It was fine with him in this
case. Mr. Hardt said overall, this was a good proposal with some details left to be worked out. He said
that as a resident of the nearby area, he would welcome the restaurants.
Victoria Newell agreed that the architecture has been established in the area and what had been
presented looked nice and It matched. Ms. Newell said she could support having the restaurants in the
area and agreed that if the outdoor patio spaces should be done well and creatively. She said she was
concerned about retail In terms of how she perceived it would remain empty and add to the existing
empty retail all around which was not a good thing. Ms. Newell said that there was not a means of
getting foot traffic to the location, so more car traffic is being generated with it. She said the area gets
very congested with traffic and she was concerned that more retail would add to the traffic.
Joe Budde referred to the south elevation and asked if something similar would be on the other side. He
asked about deliveries and trash pickup.
Carter Bean, Carter Bean Architects, 4400 North High Street, explained that it was very similar to the
existing shops where all the services come and go through the front door.
Mr. Budde suggested If they were building a 15,000 square -foot building, why not have three similarly
sized restaurants if the retail created heartburn.
Warren Fishman emphasized that he would want to see the restaurant be very successful, and the big
problems are parking and access. He said the parking lot is packed by Matt the Miller's Sunday Brunch
customers. He said parking for retail customers may be a potential problem due to large restaurant
crowds. He said he was In favor of the proposal for the restaurants, but had mixed feelings about the
retail use. He said he liked the architecture. He said he thought there might be a parking and access
problem having a high volume restaurant along with Matt the Miller's.
Richard Taylor said that as long as the parking situation was remedied, he was not very concerned
whether there were two or three restaurants, patios or not, and retail or not. He said it was interesting
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
W311n Manning and Zoning CWnWon
SepWrnber 6, 2012 — Mee" MhAes
Page 18 of 22
that when uses are set in the development text to look back at conversations that took place and try to
figure out where that came from. He said that Mr. Ghidotti did a good job of explaining it to him. He said
when there was nothing there, it made sense to limit the uses, but there is nowhere else for retail to go
except here at this point He said they were talking about small retail, so he had no problem with that.
Mr. Taylor said the architecture of the building looked fine. He said he would rather retail centers that
have a common architecture have it be this Irish Gown theme than storefront, glass, and brick like is seen
everywhere but Dublin. Mr. Taylor said they are facing the back of a retail center, so if the signs were
neon, which are not allowed, they would not offend anybody because they would not face a residence or
business. He said to get away from time scallop edged, colonial signs and do something interesting and
creative. Mr. Taylor said not to just use channel letters. He said at 6ridgepointe, they did not use
gooseneck fixtures but used a light that lights more evenly and did not draw attention to the fixture so
just the light is seen. He said he saw on the plan four identical signs with different words on them. He
suggested four signs that reflected the businesses Inside. Mr. Taylor said regarding the trade -off on the
building size and patios, as long as the total number of parking spaces is addressed, there should be the
opportunity.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not have any heartburn about the retail. She said there was not one
vacant retail spot near Piada. She said that we may be a little underserved on retail right through there.
She said if It was the right retail, It Is healthy, and she anticipated that this would experience that same
sort of evolution. She said she did not have a problem with two restaurants or the size. Ms. Amorose
Groomes said she would like to see shared parking agreements, so at least the employees could park
somewhere else. She said that there were many medical office uses that would have significantly
different peak hours than the applicant's. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the patio spaces are great, as
long as they are treated well and their boundaries are treated well with landscape treatments and the
proper fencing and all that creates an environment that is welcoming, rich, and warm. She said she was
okay with architecture.
Ms. Kramb added a caveat to her opposition to the retail use was tied to parking. She said the problem
she saw with retail was that parking spaces are assigned to them only. She said the shared parking
agreements were a great idea. She said this is definitely better than the other plaza and easier to
access.
Mr. Ghldotti agreed that the access for the Shoppes at Avery is awful on a private drive which was forced
with the geometry to ensure that vehicles could only go in and not come out of there. He said this plan
Is completely different because the access points are already established and there are two points on
both the east and west side where the two private drives cone out to Perimeter Drive. He said it will be
much easier to get in and out of this site. He said that although there are complaints about the access,
Matt the Miller's revenue has Increased double digits every year they have been open.
Mr. Ghidottl said regarding concerns mentioned about retail, he said the complementary uses of the
restaurants and the retails are such that they really could not do 15,000 square feet of restaurant on this
site. He said it would not work from a parking standpoint. He said the reason why they can try to make
this work with this kind of complementary use is about daytime, travel times, and parking is that it works
better. He said if the Commission is comfortable with this, they will come back with a use that is this size
and type of use. He said there are no walls between each of the spaces Inside, and If a restaurant needs
400 square feet or 5,200 square feet, they will make It work for their use.
Ms. Newell clarified her comment in regards to the retail. She said her concern was that it was isolated
and there is no encouragement for foot traffic.
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
Oubhn Poamft and Zoning Ca mossim
Septwiber 6, 2012 — Mewing Mbntbes
Page 19 of 22
Mr. Ghidotti said at the Shoppes at Avery for FedEx they established three dedicated parking spaces at
their front door for drop offs. He said most retail tenants love that because their customers can park at
their front door. He said that might be an option.
Ms. Newell said she actually would like to see the eta`I foot traffic encouraged. She said when there are
Interconnected walking paths from one location to the other and it is a pleasant transition, people who go
to restaurants want to wander before or after dinner or while they are waiting for tables.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said there was nothing that required a vote and she concluded the discussion.
She thanked Mr. Ghldotti and said the Commission looked forward to great things.
4. ldwesteirn Au Group PUD — M di
1 - 057IMF
FS Venture
InAwmal A
Ms. Amorose mes Introduced Is application r94uestIng an infor I review and no - binding
feedback for hitectural revision a dealership for Audi franchise r the Midwestern to Group
dealership pus. She said th to Is located on south side of V re Drive, north of 3/SR161.
Claudia usak presented th i case. She said tha Commission an applicati recently for the
BMW Mini portion of MAG campus t incorporate the A i building as a f standing bulking
and t the meeting, th mission req that the Audi llding come back another r P
architecture beta of concerns frig the form of building, the mat Is used not
development or complements the campus. Sh id as a first st , the applicant sts
Informal review a feedback before ng a formal appli on for an amen final development
Ms. Husak sa that the MAG ca us Inc orporates a j 0oximately 25 . She presented site plan
the Commis , prion previously revs ed and said the b Iding footprint in center of the si remains the
same before. She sal the service recep n area has been slightly to west and the
plaza in nt of the builds the east has d in size a li Ms. Husak said stecivrally, the
appl t has increased height of the bull ng to accommoda a second story, inly in the service
rec on area with offs and the show ,dose to US 33 a lot higher. She id while previous) ,
building was mat glass, the applica has incorporated I and cement fi rd to the bull rig
evatfons. She sa glass is primarily ong the front on and a metal nel with a mb
pattern overlay been applied in nner to create glen and edges w was something at the
Commission ho in on as being evalent on the M campus. Ms. H k said while the llding is
still modular its form, the app) tion of the metal I was intend to mirror what style is of
MAG. Ms. k presented a sp pie of the pro metal panel with oneycomb patte overlay.
Ms. Hu k said that Planni hXelevatio s a using =ear ass along the to screen the
me _ units. She pr nteo howing ho I screening wou look. She said on
the levations, a do ire Ind icated where the me backing would ut out so that t uki only be the h eycomb er it so that you uld see through but it would stil be ered. She p ted perspecng the building from different ngles. Ms. Husak sal the discussion vided ask�er or not the pplicant has addr ed the
Commission's ments and co m the last Ing with either a form of the bu Ina or the
materials ofifhe building. ,
Ms. Hu k said the appli t has proposed o signs for the b ing. She said th signs require
devel pm text modifi ons as Identified Planning. She d the wall sign on south elevatio
tha faces US 33, is posed to be a I only without a letters or copy ich requires a t
Mcation to allow n additional wall s n in the subarea 9tcause the subarea as limited to two all
14- 069Z /PDP /FDP /CU
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Final Development Plan /Conditional Use
Riverside PCd North, Subarea A3 - The Perimeter Starbucks
6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Lcga Blank, Inc
100-14 _ Fo rm No. 30043
finance No, Passed 20
REZONING APPROXIMATELY 2.9 ACRES, LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF PERIMETER DRIVE, BETWEEN
THE INTERSECTIONS WITH AVERY MUIRFIELD DRIVE
AND HOSPITAL DRIVE FROM PUD, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RIVERSIDE PCD NORTH,
SUBAREA A3) TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT (RIVERSIDE PUD NORTH, SUBAREA A3) TO
FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COFFEE SHOP
WITH A DRIVE -THRU. (CASE 14- 069Z /PDP /FDP)
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
of its elected members concurring, that:
Section 1. The following described real estate, (see attached legal
description), situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned
PUD, Planned Unit Development District, and shall be subject to regulations
and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the
Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments
thereto.
Section 2 . The application, including the list of contiguous and affected
property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, are all incorporated into and made an official part of this
Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance
there within.
Sect ion 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the
earliest period allowed by law.
Passed this 1� day of 'i2fQL? 2014.
Ma - Presiding Officer
ATTEST:
-- -
Clerk of Council