Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout56-08 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES 56-08 Ordincnrce No. Pclssed ~0 AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 0.31 ACRE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BRIDGE STREET, AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION WITH FRANKLIN STREET FROM PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (TOWN CENTER II) TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (TOWN CENTER II, REVISED -CASE NO. OS-0402/FDP). Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Attest: Clerk of Council Sponsor: Land Use and Long Range Planning r. NOW, THERE~ORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of the elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit "A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Exhibit "C", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Passed this a~ day of , ~T_~v~b ~1/, 2008. CTTY OF DUBLIN_ Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 TO: Members of City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager fJ~u% ~Y-J SB DATE: August 14, 2008 Memo INITIATED BY: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning RE: Ordinance 56-08, Town Center II - La Chatelaine -Rezoning (Case No. 08-0402) Request The applicant is requesting approval of a rezoning to accommodate modifications to the approved sign plan, proposed sign lighting, and awnings for an existing restaurant within the Historic District. The application involves the La Chatelaine restaurant, located on a 0.31-acre site at the southeast corner of West Bridge Street and Franklin Street, within the Town Center II development. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the preservation of the historic, architectural and environmental character of Historic Dublin. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission The application presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission at its July 17, 2008 meeting included consideration of various sign options for the tenant space located east of the restaurant. The Commission recommended to Council approval of the rezoning and preliminary development plan, and also approved the final development plan with the following conditions: 1) That no more than three gooseneck fixtures be used to light the Franklin Street wall sign. White fixtures are to be used; model PRI 20-850, or better; 2) That the existing wall sign on the northwest tower be removed; 3) That the awnings proposed for the northwest tower contain no text or any other symbols or graphics; 4) That the applicant gain rezoning/final development approval, prior to making modifications to the existing signs on the building; 5) That the development text reflecting the approved changes be updated; 6) That an updated sign plan be submitted following final approvals by the City; and 7) That the existing sign plan for the east tenant space not be modified and remain as previously approved. History The current request was informally reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 6, 2008. It was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board on May 21, 2008, with seven conditions related to lighting fixtures, awnings, and approval requirements, among others. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposal at its July 17, 2008 meeting and recommended approval to Council. Memo to Council re Ordinance 56-08 Rezoning -Town Center II, La Chatelaine August 14, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Plan Description Overview The applicant is proposing to remove a wall sign on the Bridge Street frontage and install one ground sign instead for the La Chatelaine tenant space. The applicant also proposes awnings for the northwest tower of the restaurant, and lighting for the existing wall sign on the Franklin Street frontage. The application as reviewed by the Commission and ARB included sign options for the tenant space attached to the east side of the restaurant. The options included various combinations of signs with the intent of providing sufficient sign visibility from the front of the building as well as to motorists on Bridge Street. The final development plan approval eliminated these options. Existing Signs There are two existing wall signs for the restaurant, located on the west wall (facing Franklin Street) and on the face of the northwest comer tower. A sign approved for the east wall of the restaurant has not been installed. Proposed Changes Ground Sign: The approved sign plan for the PUD allows three wall signs, one on each building face for La Chatelaine. The applicant is proposing to modify the development text and permit a ground sign on the Bridge Street frontage and removal of the existing wall sign on the Bridge Street northwest tower. The proposed six square-foot ground sign would be located in an 11-foot space between the edge of the sidewalk and the building front, perpendicular to Bridge Street. The sign would be constructed inside a masonry base 4 feet, 4 inches long, and ZO inches wide. Total height would be 5 feet, 1 inch. Lighting for the sign would be included in the masonry base, as required by the Architectural Review Board. Sign Lighting: The request is to add gooseneck lighting fixtures (Primelite PRI 20-850, white) above the existing wall sign panel on the Franklin Street building face. ARB approval provided up to three fixtures. Awnings: Five awnings, with an aluminum frame, are proposed for the first floor windows on the tower portion of the building. A solid red awning with a white skirt was approved by the ARB and the Commission. Text originally proposed for the skirt of the awnings was not approved by either the ARB or the Planning and Zoning Commission. Recommendation Planning recommends Council approval of Ordinance 56-08 at the second reading/public hearing on September 2, 2008. SO CB CB CB HB HB HR CB ~Q CB HB ~ ~?, Q CB `~~~ PUD N CCC HB N~. CCC ~« PUD CCC Bridge Street ccc PUD HB (n SITE ccc = cc PUD ~~ PUD PUD ~ (!~ .+ t0 PUD ~ CB ~p CB R-2 PUD r= '~ ~ CB C PUD -+ R-4 PUD CB CB R-4 R-4 CB _ CB R-2 City of Dublin 08-040Z/FDP Land Use and La Chatelaine Long Range Planning Town Center II N 65 West Bridge Street Feet 0 100 200 PROPOSED SIGN LOCATIONS *, 2 rhfeadtaxnch FaIsC ('iy(]ff55 to qe retocalei 10 adjatiFnf ply n lin~ bnd, NE4d, G-rn~rdi Simi ;vr' E~t~:rnal Sp ,. ~ r!Ic11nq. Ii9hL; Conc~~,laa vu'rvice)rticn ~inrid:r '.+F!2[::n~i~'r Fxisrn4] v,dl 1,UE$T BRIDGE . `4n Si;]n Pane. ~-----~ - -- --- ..~-" t+:!W. Siyi Pariah; nri NSW Avmrogs. ~ ~ ' Finn: iy des; ai G,L:'rrt Awnmi (Ru...l .: Qh:al~~l+un• Is rump h ~ ~~ '-J~ , - - ~- 1 1:1 T~VlQf ~' ~ ~ f'll8(.IG i t t ~ '~ w { r, . ~. ,, CuBLM ~ I~ • f EicISTP~i C.OrYa1~681GNAl. a ~ WILDNCa G1~tCH i; ~ !ClRT¢RGlll.! ~ ! a . U~ p~ m ' a ~ a . RaoPOaEO '" I; B;,!LDRXa 3 -- , ll ~1+~: DETAIL AStDS f- ~ L 6K4.dn9 iYl1°='i ~ Li ,{ ! cd.u,s:u.~_i DETAIL ~ .___ \~ 08-040Z/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan La Chatelaine Town Center II GS West Bridge Street January 2007 EXHIBIT "B" REZONING APPLICATION (Code Section 153.234) TO EXPIRE Cl i 1' c~L~ Uua>_[~i. ORDINANCE NUMBER ~(~ -b8 land Usa and long Range Plonning 5800Sbieo-4!ngs~oad CITY COUNCIL (FIRST READING) cQ-l8.08 Dublin. Ohio<s~lb-1236 CITY COUNCIL (PUBLIC HEARING) 9 -Z -08 Phone/ foX:614-4I0-A7~ CITY COUNCIL ACTION web sao: ~ d~,~r„ ~n.~.: NOTE: All applications are reviewed by Land Use and Long Range Planning for completeness prior to being processed. Applications that are incomplete will not be accepted. Applicants are encouraged to contact Land Use and Long Range Planning for assistance and to discuss the rezoning process, and if needed, to make an appointment for apre-submittal review prior to submitting a formal application. 1. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: ^ Preliminary Development Plan (Section 153.053) ~~ . Other (Please Describe) ~ ` ~' t-~ ~ ,,, 1 ~: II. PROPERTY INFORMATION: This section must be comateted. Property Address: ~ 5 ~~~ ~I ~ W ~~ ,~Lf [ ~,Q,(/ ~ !/l.t)(,1(,1 ~ (l . '"I ~ L~ (Lr Tax ID/Parcel Number(s): 9~ ~~ ~ _ Gl I Z I /~ ~ Parcel Size (Acres): ~, 3 I Existing Land UselDevetopment: ~ Cy ,TX.~.LV? ~J~V /;~L t ~ r(~~ t c~ e '` ~ Proposed Land UselDevelopment: ~~L.~~y~~Lytl~ /r2~v~~PGI ~~-~ Existing Zoning District: f (.~ ~ Requested Zoning District: ~C (/~ Total Acres to be Rezoned: III. REZONING STATEMENT: Please attach separate sheets (8.5 X 11) to the back of this application with your responses to the following sections. A. Please briefly explain the proposed rezoning and development: / j ~ ail [~/-Ci ~~(/~ ~ ~l/ B. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the existing and potential future land use character of the vicinity: C. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan and, if app c I Rio ~p~sed rezoning meets the criteria for Planned Districts (Section 153.052(B)]: D. Briefly address how the proposed rezoning and development meet the review criteria for Preliminary Develop~t;~ P~r~1a~~~al.by .. the Planning and Zoning Commission as stated In [Section 153.055(A)] (SEE ATTACHMENT A): rr{' f /yr~ -z f ~) CI n ~ll1 `Ut ItS~L YTiyVJ/ E S & LAND U t.V1Yt] 1'fH1Yl:It t'LHIVNII`1l°- Page 1 of 5 Has a previous application to rezone the property been dented by City Council within the last twelve months? ^ Yes No It yes, list when and state the basis for reconsideration as noted by Section 153.234(A)(3}: IV. PLEASE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FOR INITIAL STAFF REVIEW: Please submit large (24X36) and small (11X17) sets of plans. Please make sure all plans are stapled and collated. Large plans should also be folded. Staff may later request plans that incorporate review comments. Fourteen (14) additional copies of revised submittals are required for the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. ^ TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS Please notarize agent authorization, if necessary. ^ FCaIA~EN{44) COPIES OF A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ^ FCkJ`°~' "~~ ^.OPIES OF A TAX PARCEL ID MAP indicating property owners and parcel numbers for all parcels within 500 FEET of the site (Maximum Size 11X17). Please contact Land Use and Ling Range Planning rfyou need assistance. ^ 56iiA~GGAL(. ~d} COPIES OF A LIST OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN ~ FEET of the perimeter of the property based on the County Auditor's current tax list. including parcel number, owner name (not Mortgage Company or Tax Service), and address (Maximum Size 11X17). It is the policy of the City of Dublin to notify surrounding property owners of pending applications under public review. Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance. ^ FOU~yC(14) COPIES OF THE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT ^ FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36} COPIES OF SCALED SITE/STAKING PLANS SHOWING: a. North arrow and bar scale. b. Location, size and dimensions of ail existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping, structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking). c. Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, number of dwellings, building/unit types, square footages, parking, open space, etc.). d. Size of the site in acres/square feet. e. All property fines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights-of-way, easements, and other information related to the site. f. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries. g. Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties. ^ IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING SCALED PLANS: a. Grading Pian. Landscaping Pian. Lighting Plan. d. Utility and/or Slormwater Plan. e. Tree Survey, Tree Preservation and Tree Replacement Plans ^ IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE {24X36) SCALED, ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS with proposed colors and materials noted, ^ IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF SCALED DRAWINGS SHOWING: a. Location of signs and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window). b. Sign dimensions, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grade- c. Copy layout and lettering styles (fonts) of signage_ d. Materials and manufacturer to be used in fabrication. e. Total area of sign face (including frame) f. Type of illumination ^ MATERIAUCOLOR SAMPLES (swatches, photos, plans, or product specifications). Include manufacturer name and product number. Page 2 of 5 V. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERISI: This section must be completed. Please attach additional sheets if needed. ~~ ! Name (Individual or Organization): ^ u (~'~ ~I -~ ~L 1 11 ~. Malling Address: + ~ ~ U l~ ~' ~- ~ L~ti`-Q 1 ~ r~~~ (Street, Clty, State, Zlp Code) 1 f ~ V t~ Daytime Telephone: ~ (~ ~~ d ! ~' t ~ Fax: ~ , ~t , ~i ~~ ~~ S~ Email or Alternate Contact Information: VI. APPLICANT: Please complete if applicable. Thls is the person(s) who is requesting the rezoning if different than the property Name: Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): Malling Address: (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Daytime Telephone: ~ Fax: Email or Alternate Contact Information: VII. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF OWNERIAPPLiCANT: Please complete It applicable. This is the primary contact parson who will receive correspondence reUardinq this application. If needed, attach additional sheets for multiple representatives. Name: ~l`~`Cl~~ "V l ~ ~ ~~ Z ~~ ~S ' ` t Organization: ~ P Malling Address: '1 (Street, City, State, Zip Code) ) ~~ v 11,~e ~ ~' ~-~~~ •H t<~ ; ~~~`~ ~ `'~ ~ ~~ }-I Ct 322 ~ Daytime Telephone: ~ ~ ! t ~ ~~~ ~ G! ~ ~ l Fax: ~/ ~ , ~j p~ ~ ~~j Email or Alternate Contact Information: Page 3 of 5 VIII. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S section must be completed and notarized. If the applicant Is not the property owner, this the owner, hereby authorize mattors made by the designated representative. to act as my applicanUrepresentative(s) ~g the project. I agree to be bound by all of Current Property Owner: Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of State of County of Notary Public Date: 20 IX. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City representatives are essential to process this application. The Owner/Applicant, as notarized below, hereby authorizes Clty representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. X. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The City of The OwnerlApplicant acknowledges the approval of this request for rezoning by the Dublin Planning and Zoning 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. ~, XI~APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: This section must be completed and notarized. J r Ip~~C~1~r~i1't/~~ ~_ ~ r ~'u ~V'~ 7! '~ ~-/~~ ,the owner or authorized representative, have read and understand the contents of this application. The informatio contained in this application, attached exhibits and other information submitted Is complete and in all respects true and correct, to the best of kn e e a d belief. q ~,, Signature of applicant or authorized representativ.~~~~"i~~ = Date: t~,KU ,- ,mil n ; Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~_ day of , 20 ~~ State of D ~ b County of ~~,/r"j~~~_~,~ Notary Public - RE6ECCA B. C3UTERBA Notsry Public - SWa of Ohio .r, Mfr ,o ~y Commigion F-xpirN t1/2D/2012 or o'r NOTE: THE OWNER, OR NOTED REPRESENTATIVE IF APPLICABLE, WILL RECEIVE A FACSIMILE C "" S APPLICATION FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Amount Received: n . Appilcation No: /tG_ O P8Z Date(s): 7_„_ Og PB,Z Action: ro~~ Receipt No: ~50 ~ 11AF S-Eee..Na N~2~ ;?~ Date Received: ~~~_ oy~ Received By: J~U~I.. Type of Request: ~ e ~~ ~ _ _ n c ;, I,n ~~/IV` n , N,~` E, W (Circle) Side of: ~/1~ ~ ~.1_„ „_,_ , 1YY,(iT Nearest Intersection: ~~I '' ~• Distance from Nearest Intersection: ~~ /'nYn~. Page 4 of 5 ATTACHMENT A: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA § 153.055 PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA. (A) Preliminary development plan. In the review of proposed planned developments, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall determine whether or not the preliminary development plan complies with the following criteria. In the event the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed preliminary development plan does not comply with a preponderance of these criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall disapprove the application: (1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Zoning Code; (2) The proposed development Is in conformity wlih 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 resldentlal 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 sur- rounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non-conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedes- trians; (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) Tha 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 accept- ability of the development plans contribute to the orderly development of land within the city; (11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas; (12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed developmentjustity any deviation from the standard devel- opment regulations Included In the Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the Intent of the Planned Development District regulations; (13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the city; (14) The proposed phasing of development 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; (16) The applicant's contribut[ons to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. Rage 5 of 5 Electr eon Power Supplies Designed Specifically for the Demands of Landscape Lighting Jefferson Electric offers power supplies designed specifically for the landscape lighting industry. These units include fully encapsulated transformers that can survive in harsh outdoor environments. The enclosures come in black or stainless steel and are rainproof to meet the strict NEMA 3R requirements for outdoor applications. The product line includes models with output power ranging from 300 Watts to 1800 Watts to support any size application. The units are designed to be easy to install with a special wa-I mounting bracket, spacious wiring compartment and removable hinged door. All units are designed with electrostatic shielding and include a magnetic circuit breaker on each circuit. Multiple styles of timers and photocells are available to customize the unit for the specific application. Jefferson Electric has been a pioneer and innovator of magnetic products since 1915. We enjoy a rich tradition of meeting the highest industry standards for quality, durability and reliability, with products backed by prompt technical support. Features UL/cUL listed to U Detachable mounti 300W to 1800W m Modular design Vicious terminati Encapsulated desi In-rush current limi Removable hinged UL listed power co L 1838 _ Be11et1IS For NEC conif~liance n~c bracket Easy installat~un odels Flexible rnst~cllation for any size application E~ t~ add a timer or photocell or both on compar tm ent _ Ease of wirincl _ _ Quirt and reliable operation ~ I , . . ter door Prcn+c~nls nuisance breaks>r tri s 900W and li~rg~r~~', ` Easier access to wirincl _ _ __ _ rd Quick and easy connection for faster in I IK - - ~`-"'55 w~<•Jw. r•~ffersonE;lar,itic.rc~rri Dry-hype Transformers LaiOd~ !~ ~ 9/ 1 80U 8,l1 .ir I LAN US LONG RANGE PLANNING Bullyte (BI,5016) P.~ 1 of 2 HAOC4~ a G company ~ PfOd(ICt$ NeNn 1'al.nt^~ AboUt aa(1CO ~ RQp r('SQrtAti~~~ 16C<:iOY DIS: _ Bullyte (BL5016): Landscape: Low Voltage: Accent - r ~ Descrtptlon __ The housing Is constructed of double gasketed, dte cast marine-grade alloy aluminum for Vong I!fe. With vibration•prr f or pr along with the base of the housing, It provides a positive lock. A 360 degree fully aCJ))stable swivel arm allows ~~ ~ - ~~ ~_ ~. along with an angled lens For self-cleaning. The fixture Is UL, cUL listed fora 50 watt MR16 lamp. The socket feature - ~~ to secure the lamp In place. "'~ _ ~- ~."~ ~r ~ ; „ Specifications _.... Housing: Ole-Cast marine grade aluminum alloy. Fully-adiustab!e swivel arm with vibration-proof locking teeth. F >r-' ~ • shroud, double gasketed, die-cast marine grade alloy aluminum. ~r," NPS male threads to screw on to accessory mo - . Junction box, sold separately. Gasketing IS silicone. Fasteners are 300 series stainless steel. Additional Information Finish: Thermoset polyester powdercoat Is electrostatically applied after a flue-stage conversion cieaninq process a [~ Specification Sheet heat fusion thermosetting. !:, Instruction Sheets Lamping: SOW maximum MRiG bi-pin lamp. lower wattage lamps are acceptable. Covered MR16 are recommenc ri Llne Art lamps Inner capsule. i:, Product Shots Optlcat Assembly: Clear tempereC glass affixed at 16° an9te for natural cleaning. Eledrlcal Assembly: Bi-pin socket type (GU5.3) with 250° C high temperature teflon coated wire IeaCs. Stainless ° clip affixed to socket to securely hold Tamp In Diace. 12 volt Flxture Is pre-wired with 3-ft pigtail of 18-2 AWG, 105 d c d u e Low voltage quick connector, catalog s'LVC3 included For easy hook-up to the low voltage supply cable, not in requires remote transformer, not Included. Wsrranty: l'hree-year IlmlteG warranty. Certlficatlon: UL Listed to U.S. safety standards for wet locations. cUL Listed to Canadian safety standards for we Manufactured to ISO 9001:2000 Standards. Width: 2 13/16" (71mm) Length: 5 13/3G" (147 mm) Max. Weight: 1.48 Ib http://www.hadco.com/Hadco/1'ublic/ProductDetail.aspx?pid=3 5 &s=B15016 filE COPY ~~ riECE9VE~+ ~~~' ~dl ' ~~~~ CITY F Ri l_~IND USE & I.ONC RANGE I'LANf~~r~'•;; 4/21 /200 Ordering Gu1de Example: BL5016 A S7 BAB Uooseneck sign Light with Angle IZellector Residential Landscape • Lighting ~ r~ ~`~f` 6009 Richmond Ave. Ste. 278 Houston, Texas 77057 SALE PRICE: ~~ 7=.92 QCiF:STiONS? (`all I -8tl(1-3,9-Z`~3y \4<ni - f; i. Ran, ;poi CS i 1-8Q0-239-2938 IocaUlnternetional phone: T13-863-7t399 fax: 74 3-979-1429 email: infa@rlldesign.com Page I of 2 6L . ~ Richmond Ave. Ste. 228 Houston, `Texas 77057 Phone: (80U) 239-2939, Fax: (713) 979-1429 Printed On: 4/21/2008 3:_53:14 PM Gooseneck Sign Light with Angle Reflector Item Number: PRI 20-850 Manufacturer: Primclite This gooseneck sign light is constructed of aluminum and made for outdoor use. • Lamp: Incandescsent (120 Volts) . Wattage: (1) 200 watt bulb . Bulb not included • Medium base socket . Dimensions: 9.5" dia. x 18.5" T-I x 26" Ext. . • 5-7 days to ship T 6" ..~ 99° ~~ 22 ~~ Special: Buy 2 or more units, get S% ofJ" Choose Flnlsh: • Powder Coated Yellow • Powder Coated Brown • Powder Cooted Red • Powder Coated White • Powder Coated Gold • Powder Coated Copper • Powder Coated Brame • Powder Coated Orange • Powder Coated Light Hlue ~ Powder Coated Dark Blue • Powder Coated Yerdi Green Rub • Powder Coated'Yerdi Creen FI! E CCPV '~ 2 UQ'~ ~I C OF~~I~t ~/~ NANO usE e.ON~ F;ANGE PLANNttdC' http://www.residential-landscape-lighting-design.com/store/PPF/parameters/3564 0/printer ... 4/21/2008 Proximity Report Results Proximity Report Results The selection distance was 300 feet The selected parcel was 273-012158. To view a table showing the 36 parcels within the displayed proximity, scroll down. -.~ Get_ Report Print Window ~.J Back_ to _Proxim_ ityReport Page 1 of Z Disclaimer This map is prepared for tfie real property inventory within this county. Zt is compiled from recorded deeds, survey plats, and other public records and d this map are notified that the public primary information source should be consulted for verification of the information contained on this map. The count mapping companies assume no legal responsibilities for the information contained on this map. Please notify the FrankNn County GIS Division of any dis Proximity Parcels Hint: To copy this report to another program: 1. Hold down the left mouse buttton over the top-left corner of the area you want to get. 2. Drag the mouse to the bottom-left corner of the desired area. 3. Let go of the mouse button. 4. Select Edit Copy from tfie menu bar. You can then Paste the report into another application. ParcP.l ULVtter Narree AddreSr 273-000088 37 WEST BRIDGE STREET LLC 273-000094 ALLESPACH SIEGBERT A TR ALLESPACH R 273-000093 ALLESPACH SIEGBERT A TR ALLESPACH R 273-000024 BASSET-f" THOMAS L ET AL 273-000012 BASSETT THOMAS L LYDEN VICKI E 273-000123 BOLYARD JEFFREY P y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ; a 273-000109 CASSADY BETTY J 273-000062 CITY OF DUBLIN }1;~~~~~~ 273-000037 CITY OF DUBLIN ~ 1 273-009979 CITY OF DUBLIN d~ ~~ ~/ K I 273-000111 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO CIT ;.;, rj~ LAND USF 273-000148 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO :.ONG RAI+IGF ?_~.t~~.~~~. http://209.51.193.87/scripts/mw5rer.pl 4/l 5/2008 htap 5narch Steal Estate. Search I{udi?cr Hom? Image Date: Tue Apr 15 12:23:57 2008 Proximity Report Results Page 2 of 2 273-000001 DUBLIN CITY SCh L DIST BOARD OF ED 273-000022 DUBLIN MARATHON SERVICE CO 273-012158 GRABILL & CO LLC 273-000023 GtITHRIE TRACFI( 7 273-000084 SHANGHI ENTERPRISES LLC 273-000036 SHANGHI ENTERPRISES LLC pu:~rrra by r ;fit r-~. U ~~.'~~1 F~ http://209.51.193.87/scripts/mwSrer.pl 4/] S/2008 \ Proximity Report Results Proximity Report Results The selection distance was 500 feet. The selected parcel was 273-012158. To view a table showing the 74 parcels within the displayed proximity, scroll down. -_J Get Report Print Window Back to Proximity Report i i - -1 1 __.i i Image Date: Tue Apr 15 12:24:21 2008 `r~ fi ~ ~,.' . Page l of ~ --„ ~.., ~r ~~~ ~'~~~ ~- ~ ~i ; _.~ .= .-'y ~~' Disclaimer This rnap is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It is compiled from recorded deeds, survey plats, and other public records and d this map are notified that the public primary information source should be consulted for verification of the information contained on this map. The count rnapping companies assume no legal responsibilities for the information contained on this map. Please notify the Franklin County GIS Division of any dis Proximity Parcels Hint: To copy this report to another program: 1. Hold down the left mouse buttton over the top-left comer of the area you want to get. 2. Drag the mouse to the bottom-left corner of the desired area. 3. Let yo of the mouse button. 4. Select Edit Copy from the menu bar. You can then Paste the report into another application. Parcrir6 Owner Name Address 273-000016 25 NORT?i CO LTD 273-000071 25 NORTH CO LTD 273-000088 37 WEST BRIDGE STREET LLC 273-000094 ALLESPACH SIEGBERT A TR ALLESPACH R 273-000093 ALLESPACH SIEGBERT A TR ALLESPACH R 273-000035 BASSETT THOMAS L & VICKI E LYDEN `~ 273-000024 BASSETT THOMAS L ET AL ~ ~ ~ ~ `mil 3 I 273-000012 BASSETT THOMAS L LYDEN VICKI E 273-000029 BLARNEY BROTHERS LTD ;~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ E 273-000123 BOLYARD JEFFREY P ~ 273-000099 BUSH JOHN BUSH MICHELLE K Y aF ~~~~'.~ F~ 273-000109 CASSADY BETTY J C1T LAND OSF & . ANt~rti~~ t.Oh~ RANGE PL httv://209.51.193.87/scripts/mw5rer.nl 4/15/2008 roximity Report Results Page 2 c~~~ 273-000062 CITY OF DUBLIti 273-000037 CITY OF DUBLIN 273-009979 CITY OF DUBLIN 273-000111 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 273-000148 CITY OF DUBLIN~OHIO 273-000002 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 273-000064 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO Z73-000065 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 273-012200 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 273-003680 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 273-000018 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 273-000310 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 273-000025 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 273-000044 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF 273-000113 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF DUBLIN 273-000096 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF DUBLIN 273-000077 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF DUBLIN OHI 273-000096 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF DUBLIN 273-000089 CULLEN THOMAS 273-000008 CULLEN THOMAS 273-000001 DUBLIN CITY SCHOOL DIST BOARD OF ED 273-000124 DUBLIN COMMUNITY CHURCH 273-000122 DUBLIN COMMUNITY CHURCH 273-000022 DUBLIN MARAlTiON SERVICE CO 273-000127 FLADT KIMBERLY F 273-000128 FRANK AARON J FRANK ALLANYA M 273-000072 G&S PROPERTIES & SANFORD J SOLOMON 273-012158 GRABILL & CO LLC 273-001940 GRANT DUNCAN M 273-000007 GRANT DUNCAN M 273-000023 GUTHRIE TRACEY J 273-000102 GUY INVESTMENT CO LTD 273-000040 GUY INVESTMENT CO LTD 273-000121 HAYDOCY KATHRYN H 273-000112 HILL THELMA L 273-000054 HILL THELMA L 273-000014 JACOBY BEN & BETTY J CO-TRS 273-000074 )ACOBY BEN & BETTY J CO-TRS 273-000259 JACOBY BETTY J & BEN CO-TRS 273-000053 JC LAND COMPANY LTD 273-000097 JEFFERS RICHARD H JEFFERS AMELIA J 273-000051 JENKINS DUBLIN LLC 273-000129 LEVERING WILLIAM E & KATHRYN W 273-000138 MALOOF MICHAEL F &VANESSA G 273-000177 MALOOF MICHAEL F &VANESSA G 273-000069 MCCORMICK CHERYL L http://209.51.193.87/scriptsJmwSrer.ol ait Si~nnQ ,ximity Report Results 273-000126 MOODY CHARLES _ BUCKWORTH JANET" 273-000130 PERRY CLAUDIA J 273-000005 PLATINUM MANAGEMENT LLC 273-000056 PRICE JACK A 273-000087 RAY MICHAEL LTD 273-000092 RICHARDS JOYCE M TOD 273-000084 SNANGHI ENTERPRISES LLC 273-000036 SHANGHI ENTERPRISES LLC 273-000050 SONKSEN PROPERTIES LLC 273-000125 SZUTER ALAN P SZUTER MARY L 273-000057 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN 273-000170 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN 273-000057 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN 273-000137 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN 273-000170 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN 273-000057 VILLAGC OF DUBLIN Yage 3 of 3 http://209.51.193.87/scripts/mw5rer.pl 4/15/2008 '~RA13 I LL & GOMFAfJY 614 336 X41 S F . 7snup~y IS, 2000 DESCRIPI"CON QF A 0.307 ACRE TRA.CI' AT THE S,E. CORNE)Ii O1F WEST BRIDGE STR>rET AN'D FRANKLIN STREET, pUDI.LN, OFTIO Situated in the State of Ohia, County of Franklin, City of Dublta, its Virginia MUitatY Saricy No. 2542, being all of Lot No. 3 and a portion of Lot N'o. 2, es shown upon the plat encidrd °~tind Sills' Addition to the Tot+m tsf Dublin", cf rt:COrd in Pl><t Boob 40, Pale 84, Recocdor's Office. Ftanklia County, Ohio. cxld Lot No. 3 and portion of said Lot No. 2 having btx~ zoavcyed to 't'ire Cong-xtianal Churcb o[ Dublin, D., by deed of recacd in Decd Book 569, I?ase 109, Rutxttei tt Office, FraAlclin Cotmty, Ohio, said tact bouttded and dest~bcd as follows; Beginning ac a'fi" 1.Q. iron piix: set at rho incascation of the couch li(te Qf Want Bridge Street - U,S.R. 33 - S.R. 161 ~6t! fret in width) wirb the cost tint of Franklin Stttet (bb Ctet it width) and at the norili+vest corru~r of said L.ot Na. 3: thence N B9° Se' 39" r; along the south line of West 19ridgo $-tet:t, along the earth lint of srjd l.,ot No. 3 ,pd along a poctian of the north line of said l,o- No. 2 s distance of 89.00 fxt to a paint at the northeast corncl of said tract conveyed to The Caogretional Church of C)ublin, O. and at the northwest aorntr of a tract of land conveyed to Bruce D. 8t Lillian S. Graham by deed of record in t7~ciaf Itccord 29440, Page A Oa, Rt:corder's O[fier, Ftanklia Gounty, Ohio, slid poiskt bciag nrfcrenced ay t<'Y''• T.D. Fran pipe found N OA° 16' 13" W e distance of 0.19 feet; titeacc S tXl° 16' 15" 1= along the east liae of said tract convtycd to The Con~resional (:b-vctt of pvblin, O, and along the west lino of saic! tract conveyed co Bruce U. & Lillian S. Onltan+ s di.stanca of 150.10 Pact la a railroad spike la'urd in the north line oC Sall>: Alley (16.5 fur in width), in tl7t: south line of ss;d C,ot No. 2, az thy: southeast corner of said tract conveyed to 'The Codgretiona! CTurch of Dublin, O, and at the southwost Comer nt' the tract conveyed to Hnteo D. ~ Lillian 5, Graham; thence S 89' aZ' 12" W ttlctag a portion of Sells Alley, along a portion of the sourb lino of said Lot Na. 2 and along the south line of said Lot Ho. 3 a distance of 8A.92 feet to a rzitrotd spike found at the incersecti,vrt aP the north li»e of Sells Alky with the east line of Frrr+ltlin Street and ~t the soulhwrst comer of slid Lot Na, 3; thcacr N Ot7' I$' Q2" W uGng ~anYlin Street and along the wtst tint of said Lot Na. 3 a distaacrt Af ! 50.53 feet to the place of bclminiag; r~ containing 13,32 squuo frtt (- x,307 acre) of Iand mote or lass snd batag subject t9 all ettstts~nt and rasttictioffs of cecord. 7t-e above doscription was preps.reti try Ktvin l~, Saxtcr, C7hio Surveyor No. ?697, of G.F. gird do R.3. Bull. lnr., Catuuitting Eogis}cct•s ac Surveyors, Coiumhus, Ohio, from en tsctual field survey performat 'undor hie supervision Felrsw~ry, 1499. Basis of bearinGR is the .ctsuth line o! West Bridge Street. being essurtxd at H 89° SB' 39" E, and a]! other bttuinga ore based upon this meridian, 0 ~. ~" /C„ • g O ICIrVIN Ktvin i.. gaatcr * ~~ ~ Ohio Surveyor tfT697 q s. ~ u ~w.1 G~•~ ~ An txhibit of this desctipUOa is nttachtd hetata and made ;part thetaof r the Cit bf ~ublia IaCVedpprcuttl De~attrslfAt rtlQtllYCrnent8. . RECE~VEC L Pi' , y ti.l,~ - ~~ ~ f ~P CI ~ ~(~ LAND USE ~ GONG liANGE PLANIVIl~I:; _ 1550 W. Lane Ave., Up. Arlington, O}f 4:3221 tel: (614) 488-1911 i 627 N. 1-ligh St., Worthii;gton, Oi 1 43085 tel: (614) 848-6711 a Ghatelain~ Frenc~l Balzery ~~ Ca~e fax: (614) 488-1856 Email: Lachatel ~4>aol.com Apri121, 2008 This application is for obtaining permission to create an adequate retail signage and a better look for La Chatelaine French Bakery & Bistro at the corner of Bridge and Franklin streets at the West entrance of Dublin listoric District. We have followed the design recommendations of the old Dublin design guidelines. Before construction, the City approved a package of signs for Town Center 2. 1/ At 55 West Bridge, La Chatelaine owns the space and would like to have the choice to identify that store by having the name of the business (La Chatelaine or else) a/ in the windows (permitted) OR on the front of the awning b/ and a blade sign extending from the wall (permitted) OR using the sides of the awnings to be seen by pedestrians. 2/ At 65 West Bridge; La Chatelaine owns and uses the space and 3 signs have been approved far that space. al A sign on the tower wall which can2lot be seen since it is hidden by the City flags on the poles and by the trees. We propose an elegant ground sign that will be seen by the drivers of cars going east or west on Bridge Street and pedestrians. This ground sign is perfectly adequate since the four businesses established at that particular intersection have or will have a ground sign (The Church, the school, Jason's and La Chatelaine). The sign will be discretely lighted at night and will be also decorated with flowers and plants. The stone base, of course, will match perfectly the tower base. b/ The main sign above the entrance door on Franklin is not lighted and this entrance cannot be seen at all once it is dark outside. We propose to install 3 gooseneck lamps above that sign. c/ The third sign was allowed for the back of the building and is not instaiied at this time. So far, if the above propositions are accepted, we could have a good East-West signage, however, La Chatelaine is not seen that well from North and South. Furthermore, although, the whole concept of Town Center 2 fits perfectly the character of Historic llublin, we think that the look of the tower could be improved. We propose to dress up the bottom windows of the tower with elegant burgundy awnings and anoff--white stripe on the bottom. We, also propose to use our third allowed sign by having the name of La Chatelaine and words describing the business printed on the off=white stripe of the awnings. Then, pedestrians or drivers will very well see the La Chatelaine place from Franklin or from Bridge (north side-new city parkiltg). ~ ~ C With Respect, Stan Wielezynski President AP ~ h~f~~~~.~t' CILAND USE & LONG RANGE PLANNlNC'. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION CITY OF DUBLIN. JULY 17, 2008 land Ute and Long Range nanNnp 5800 Shier-Rings Road Dubll~, Ohb 43016-1236 Phone/ IDD: 614 a10.460D Fax: 614410-d747 Web She: www.dubfin.oh.us Ctleadnq a La_gacy The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Tawn Center II - La Chatelaine 65 W. Bridge Street 08-040Z/FDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Proposal: Modifications to the sign options for an existing restaurant within the Town Center II Planned Unit Development, located on the south side of Bridge Street, at the southeast corner of the intersection with Franklin Street. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan and a final development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Stan Wielezynski, owner. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Director. Contact Information: (614} 410-4653, slangworthy(aJdublin.oh.us MOTION #1: To recommend to City Council approval of this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan because it complies with the preliminary development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area. VO'TF.: 6 - 0. RESULT: This RezoninglPreliminary Development was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. MOTION #2: To approve this Final Development Plan because it complies with the final development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area with seven conditions: 1) That no more than three gooseneck fixtures be used to light the Franklin Street wall sign. White fixtures are to be used; model PRI 20-850, or better; 2) That the existing wail sign on the northwest tower he removed; 3) 'that the awnings proposed for the northwest tower contain no text or any other symbols or graphic markings; Page 1 of 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JULY l7, 2008 ,.. 1. Town Center II - La Chatelaine 65 W. Bridge Street 08-0402/FDP Kezoning/Prcliminary Development Plan COI\'TINUED Final Development Plan 4} That the applicant gain rezoning/finaI development approval, prior to making modifications to the existing signs on the building; 5) That the development text reflecting the approved changes be updated; b) That an updated sign plan be submitted following final approvals by the City; and 7) That the existing sign plan for the east tenant space not be modified and remain as previously approved. *Stan Wielezynski, agreed to the above conditions VOTE: 6 - 0. RESULT': This Final Development Plan was approved. STAhI~ CERTIFICATION S Steve Langworthy Director Page 2 of 2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 25 Diane Alecu ;Ryan Pilewski, drew Little, Davi tromberg, and Flo Rogers. Council Member C ~y goring was also ' attendance. Mr. lter led the Pledge Allegiance. Mr. 'nunerman requeste -hat the documents accepted into the r ord. The documen were u nimously accepted ' o the record. Administrativ eport Mr. Langw by handed out a f n for the Greenvil Trip and they need o be completed and returned. Ms usak said that ne orrespondence reg ing Cases 4.ani~°fi at has been handed to the mmission tonight. 1VIr. Zinuncnna riefly explauied tl purpose and proce res of the Commissi He explained that since C e 3 was eligible f the consent agenda lowever Mr. Sane tc requested it be pulled for iscussion, that the r gu lar cases would b' ieard in the agenda lowing order. l . Town Center 11- La Cha telaineV _ - ___. 65 W. Bridge Street 08-0402/FDP -- _ Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan - Final Development Plan Todd Zimmerman swore in Stan Wielezyns~i, owner of La-~~latelaine and the applicant, Crty representatives, and all others who wished to spec in regards to this case. Mr. Langworthy pres~xitcd this rezoning,/preliminary development plan and final development plan for sign, awning, and lighting modificatioEt~_~f~r the La Chatelaine restaurant and the east tenant space at Town Center II. He said the sile7s located on West Bridge Street at the southeast corner of Franklin Street. Mr. Langworthy said the La Chatelaine is requesting to install a ground sign with lighting on Bridge Street and if approved the existing wall sign on the northwest tower would be eliminated and removt3:==~ He said the applicant is also requesting awnings along the northwest tower windows with~fc~t, which i~tpproved with text would eliminate a right to a third wall sign on the south side of thc~lauilding. He explained that the request is also to install lighting for the Franklin Street wall sigh and to allow a combination of signs for the adjoining east tenant space Mr. Langworthy said the approved sign plan permits three wall signs, two have been installed on the northwest tower acid one along Franklin Street. The third approved sign is permitted on the south side of the building which has not been installed. Mr. Langworthy described the details of the proposed ground sign and the proposed location. He said the Architectural Review Board approved the sign with the masonry base and requested that lighting be mounted in the sign base. Both Planning and the Commission had recommended a post mounted sign at the work session review. Dublin Planning and 7,oning Conunission July 17, 2008 -Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 25 Mr. Langworthy said the awnings are proposed to be a burgundy shade with text along anoff- white fringe and that the ARB approved the awnings in design and denied the existence of the text. 1Ie said that if the text is approved on the awnings the applicant has agreed to forgo the approval for the third permitted sign on the south wall. Mr. Langworthy said the applicant has request a series of gooseneck fixtures to light the Franklin Street wall sign with up to three fixtures. Mr. Langworthy said the east tenant space has an approved sign package including two window signs and a blade sign with no changes being proposed. He said the applicant is proposing to revise the approved sign plan in order to increase visibility. He said that either the two window signs or an awnings sign are being proposed. Mr. Langworthy said that the ARB approved the sign options and asked that the awning sigm white background with dark lettering. Mr. Latigwortlly said that Planning found applicable criteria have been met and that the the proposed conditions. He said that the Pl. approval with conditions for the final developn 1) That no more than three gooseneck fixt White fixtures are to be used; model PF 2) That the ground sign be of a post-moor than 6 square feet and 5 feet in height; 3) That the existing wall.sign on the no~~ 4) That each of two approved ground me ground sign are screened by~tfl fewer t and Long Range Planning; 5) That the awnin~sproposed for the nortl 6) That the applicant gain rezoning/1 7} 8} Mr. Langworthy said one can be placed inside the rr Stan base. unary development plan criteria tlii~t~be met with val for the °~ezonin~ and be used to light the Franklin Street wall sign. -850, or=~ettcr; ;onstruction without a masonry base, no more ~d lights (Bailyte, BL5016, or better) for the 3 evergreen shrubs, as approved by Land Use contain no text; >pment approval, prior to making the approved changes be updated; and ed following final approvals by the City. that needs to be answered is whether or not the lig}Iting had nothing to add to the presentation. Mr. Zimmerman asked=if there was anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on the application. [There were none.] Mr. Zimmerman said they need to make a decision on the ground sign whether to allow a post or a masonry base. Mr. Walter asked why Planning has deviated from the recommendation of t11e Architectural Review Board. Mr. Langworthy said that Planning agreed with the Planning and Zoning Dubiin }'Tanning and Zoning Conunission July 17, 2008 -Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 25 Commissions' earlier assessment of the options, and that the ARB thought the masonry base would look better and that there are similar designed signs within the area. Mr. Walter asked that Condition 5 include "or any other markings, text or symbols". Mr. Zimmerman asked for the Commission to determine which sign is appropriate, the base or the post sign. Mr. Walter said base sign, Mr. Taylor agreed that the solid masonry base is in keeping with the architecture of the building, Mr. Saneholtz agreed Ms. Amoroso Groomes agreed. Mr. Freimann liked the post mounted sign, but deferred to the judgment of the ARB. Mr. Zimmerman liked the post sign better because it gave a less cluttered look due to the small frontage. Mr. Langworthy said this would allow them to remove conditions 2 and 4. Ms. Amoroso Groomes asked if having three of consistent with area. Mr. Langworthy agreed that it Mr. Walter asked staff to work with the appl are shielded and are not exposed at the end of are shielded and would not overhang from the Mr. Saneholtz said they have always 'C examples of signage on awnings within Mr. Walter said he has note on. Mr. Saneholtz asked why in the past. Mr. Langworthy awnings signs historically are that explanation. Mr. as in the area. __ fxtures were ensure that the bulb length on the fixtures ure. Mr. Lan~worthv a~,n-eed that the bulbs signs ori~a~vnings. Mr. Langworthy showed nmrssion approve signage on awnings since he has been considering awning signs when it has not been approved treat the Historic District in a different manner, because I in that context. Mr. Saneholtz said he could understand proved plan is preferred and would like both buildings to be have wall mounted signs and not have signage on awnings Amoroso Groomes agreed and sees no point in introducing Mr. Langwrtxtl~ said the Code is set up to permit an awning sign in place of a wall sign for a standard Zonmg;District. Ms. Amoroso Groomes asked what is in the District that is straight zoned. Mr. Langvuorthy said=almost everything except the corners of Bridge and High Streets. Mr. Walter said the ~ropcrty at Monterey and Bridge Street is not straight zoned. Mr. Langworthy said that is out of the District and is coming in as a Planned District. Mr. Zimmerman said originally this sign package did not have awning signs. Mr. Langworthy agreed. Mr. Taylor said the design of this building is intended to look like several buildings and applying a consistent look to the signs is opposite of the intent and if the buildings were built over a period of years, one store owner put an awning with signs on it and another owner decided not to have Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July ] 7, 2008 -- Meeting Minutes Page S of 25 awning signage would be a normal process of how things develop. He said having some signs on the awnings and some an the buildings is consistent with the architecture of the building. Mr. Zimmerman agreed that it would be consistent for the 1listoric time period. Mr. Walter said he appreciates the comincnts in the difference in the buildings and they need to be sensitive to the Planned Districts within the area to remain consistent. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she is okay with the window signs and~reed with Mr. Taylors' comments regarding window signs being consistent with the period. She said she is only opposed to lettering on the awnings and does not have any exceptions to the balance of the application. Mr. Zinlnlerlnan asked if anyone had any questions. [N~.ue responded.] Motion and Vote -_ MOTION #1 _ Mr. Zimmerman made the motion to recorrrn7~~d tom Council approval of this Rezoning/Prelimiuary Development Plan because it complies with the preliminary development plan criteria and the existing de_~elopment standards within the area. approve this Rezoning,/Preliminary Development Plan because it complies~avith the preliminary development plan criteria and the existing development s~~"ards within area. Ms. Amoroso Groomes seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr-'haylor, ycs~_. Freimann, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; M,~-~rose Groomes, yes; and Mr. Zimmerman., yes. (Approved 6 - 0.) -- _._.._ MOTION #2 _ Mr.Limmemlan madam.motion to approve this~Final Development Plan because it complies with the final development plan criteria and -the existing development standards within the area with the amended-seven conditions: 1) Thal 110 Illol'e than tl]I"CC gooseneck fixtures be used to light the Franklin Street wall sign. White fixtures are to be used; model PRI 20-850, or better; 2) That the existing wall sign on the northwest tower be removed; 3) Thar~~ awnings proposed for the northwest tower contain no text or any other symbols 4) That the applicant -gain rezoning/final development approval, prior to making modifications to the existing signs on the building; 5) That the dcvelc~pnlent text reflecting the approved changes be updated; 6) That an updated sign plan be submitted following final approvals by the City; and 7) That the existing sign plan for the east tenant space not be modified and remain as previously approved. Mr. Zimmerman asked if the applicant agreed to the amended conditions. Stan Wielezynski, agreed to the conditions. Dublin Planning and Zoning Conunission July 17, 2008 -Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 25 Ms. Atnorose Groomes seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Freimann, yes; Mr. Taylor, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; and Mr. Zimmerman, yes. (Approved 6 - 0.) 2. Perime r Center, Subarea -MAG Parking Lot Ve ure Drive 03- Z Rezo ng/Preliminary Dev opment Plan Clau 'a Husak presented th' rezoning application. he said the plai%is fo a parking lot to serve t existing 1Vlidwestern uto Group car deale yip within Subarea of the Perimeter Ce r lamied Commerce istrict. She rcminde the Commissioners f their previous in nasal comments on th application during tl June 19, 2008 Pla ing and Zoning Co mission meeting, name requesting that an al late location be cho n for theparking lot rich would place it fitr er away from the U 3 frontage. Ms. Hu pointed out that. tl new proposal locates t parking lot along V ure Drive at an east- st orientation. . Husak described tli urrounding uses and plained that the pro rty is locate in Sub ' a ,while the MAG d lership is located in barea ,l. She said tl applicant was propo ~ g to rezone the subjec roperty in Subarea D o a new Subarea, to called J-1. Subarea would permit the sa uses as Subarea D, t also allow for a st d-alone parking lot f employees and vehicl 'nventory. Ms. Husa xplained that plans f an expansion of the AG dealership would c ate a need for this p' ing lot. M _~Ilusak a o said th~~fhe develo Went text indicates that conditional use would e required foi~=tl?c pa- ing lot to exist. , ~1S. Husak displaye e proposed prelims y development plan d explained that Sub a J-1 would be approx' ~atcly 2.21 acres~w_at a majority of fionta ~ on Venture Drive. S1 said the plan and text pow ~t":maximum oi'' 91 parking and stor ~e spaces. She said at access is limited thr tgh the MAG site aii that the development ext does not allow fo ehicle display. Ms. H ak spoke about the onunission's--pr~vio discussions regardi environmentally- frie y pavement option , ni:~~aid that the a ~ scant had not addre ed this issue in thei plication. She cxpla' ed thaf =Planning ha created a condition hick would require ie applicant to utilize vious pavement in tl 'r final development p n. Ms. Husak s~ that in reviewing th riteria for a prelimin development plan, P nning found that all w {e met~excluding_tlie iterion for traffic uti ' es and storm water anagement. She explai d that this criterion c tld be met with two p posed conditions. Sh aid the Planning is rec emending approval ~ i the conditions that stonnwater manages nt report be submitte d the development t~xf~be revised to require ervious pavement for e site. Ben Hale Jr., rc esentative for the ap scant, explained that kfe MAG dealership w ld begin work on thei uilding and that they ould require tempora additional parking. said that the applicant' intent was not to ere e a larger lot for car es, but to have an ar for parking for appro ~mately 145 employee and some vehicle stor e overflow during M construction. Mr. H said the conditional e would allow the Pl Wing and Zoning Co fission to place a ti ~it on the parking to »d that it was intend to be temporary in ure. He explained th the applicant did not f they would have an issues screening the from US 33 nowt it was PLANNING REPORT GITY OF DUai.IN. fool Use ~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Lem AenOe a'kenMg SBOD Shier~Rlnq~ Aeod o~nn, ohm ~aoieaaab JULY 17, 2008 Mrenw Ol d ~ ~ O~dlOD ~~ alb-dl0 d941 W~ 9ifa! w~,duMrn~h,ut SEC'T'ION I -CASE INFORMATION Town Center II - La Chatelaine 65 W. Bridge Street 08-040L/FUP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Proposal: Modifications to the sign options for an existing restaurant within the Town Center II Planned Unit Development, located on the south side of Bridge Street, at the southeast corner of the intersection with Franklin Street. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan and a final development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Stan Wiele7ynski, owner. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Director. Contact Information: (614) 410-4653, slangworthy~dublin.oh.us Case Summary The applicant is requesting a review of modifications to the approved sign plan, proposed sign lighting, and awnings for an existing restaurant and tenant space within the 1-listoric District. "1"he application involves two tenant spaces, the La Chatelaine restaurant and an associated tenant space to the east, facing Bridge Street. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the preservation of the historic, architectural and environmental character of I listoric Dublin. Case Background 1'he Architectural Review Board approved the site modifications and a new building for this site nn .Tanuary 25, 2006 and the Final Development Plan was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 16; 2006. Work Session Update The current request was informally reviewed by the Planning and 'toning Commission nn March 6, 2008. The Commission expressed support for a rezoning and discussed the option of allowing a ground sign if the cumulative total of the permitted signs for I,a Chatelaine was unchanged from the original approval. Other comments from the Commission included not allowing text on the awnings and a preference for apost- mountcd ground sign. Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 08-0401iFUP -Page 2 of 11 Architectural Review Board Action The proposal was subsequently reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board on May 21, 2008, with the following conditions: 1) That no more than three gooseneck fixtures be used to light the Franklin Street wall sign. White fixtures are to be used; model PR120-850, or better; 2) That the masonry base sign option was approved, but if lighting was unable to be placed inside the masonry base of the proposed ground sign the Planning and `Coning Commission's preferred sign option would be implemented; 3) That each of two approved ground mounted lights (Bullyte, BL5016, or better) for the ground sign are screened by no fewer than 3 evergreen shrubs, as approved by Land Use and Long Range Planning; (if the Planning and Zoning Commission preferred sign is used); 4) That the existing wall sign on the northwest tower be removed; 5) 'c'hat the awnings proposed for the northwest tower are approved, but may contain no text; 6) That an updated sign plan be submitted follov~~ing final approvals by the City; and 7) That the applicant gain rezoning/final development approval, prior to making modifications to the existing signs on the building. Site Description Location The 0.31-acre site is located on the southeast corner of West Bridge Street and Franklin Strcct, and has approximately 90 feet of frontage on West Bridge Street and approximately 150 feet on Franklin Street. Site Character This two-story building is designed to have the appearance of individual but connected buildings. Private patios are located on the east and west sides of the building and a public seating area is located along West Bridge Street. F,xisting Signs There are two existing wall signs for the restaurant, located on the west wall (facing Franklin Street) and on the face of the northwest corner tower. A sign approved for the east wall of the restaurant has not been installed. Surrounding %vning and Uses The site and properties to the south and west are zoned 1'UD, Planned Unit Development District (Town Center II). The Dublin Community Church is located to the west, across Franklin Street, and a municipal parking lot is located across Sells Alley to the south.. Properties to the east and north are zoned 1IB, l-listoric Business District and have restaurant and business uses. Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 Planning Report Application No. 08-040Z!FDP -Page 3 of 11 Plan Description Overview The applicant is proposing to remove a wall sign on the Bridge Street frontage and install one ground sign instead for the La Chatelaine tenant space. 'I~he applicant also continues to awnings for the northwest tower of the restaurant with text and lighting for the existing wall sign on the Franklin Street frontage. Sign options are proposed for the east tenant space. Approved Development Text The approved sign plan for the PUD allows the following signs. • La Chatelaine restaurant: Three wall signs, one on each building face. East tenant space: One sign for each window on either side of the main doors, and two projecting signs, one each on the north and east sides of the building. Proposed Sign Changes The applicant is proposing to modify the development text and permit, if approved as submitted, the following signs. • La Chatelaine restaurant: Allow one ground sign on the Bridge Street frontage and remove the existing wall sign on the Bridge Street northwest tower. Allow text on five awnings on the northwest tower. • East tenant space: Provide for applicant tenant sign options. I,a Chatelaine Restaurant Proposed Srgn Details • Ground Sign: The applicant is requesting a ground sign in the landscape bed in front of the tower, perpendicular to Bridge Street. There is an I l -foot space between the edge of the sidewalk and the building front. The masonry base is 4 feet, 4 inches long, and 20 inches wide. The exact location is not precisely determined but if centered on the available space, it would leave just over three feet between the sign base and the sidewalk. The sign is within Code requirements at b square feet, and when placed in the masonry base, a height of 5 feet, 1 inch. If a new ground sign is approved the applicant would remove the existing wall sign from the northwest tower. At the Work Session, the Planning and Toning Commission supported a ground sign in place of the existing wall sign, but expressed a preference for a post sign option. The ARB has approved a masonry base sign, but required the lighting to be inside the base. If this was not possible, the ARB indicated its preference for the Planning and Zoning Commission's post sign option. Planning and Zoning Commission July t 7, 2008 -Planning Keport Application No. OS-040%/FDP -Page 4 of 11 Planning continues to recommend the post sign option rather than the masonry base. Including a masonry e}ement for the ground sign would increase the general sense of clutter to an already crowded and visually busy area. The post-mounted sign presents the simplest form of sign and tits more easily into this limited space. • Sign Lighting: The request is to add gooseneck lighting fixtures (Primelite PRI 20- 850, white) above the existing wall sign panel on the Franklin Street building face. ARB approval was provided for up to three fixtures. Ground-mounted lighting (Bullyte, 13I,50i6) would be used on each side of the ground sign on Bridge Street if the past-mounted option was selected. For the ARB approved option (masonry base sign) lighting was to be contained within the masonry base. • Awnings: Five awnings, with an aluminum frame and text on the awning skirt, are proposed for the first floor windows on the tower portion of the building. A solid red awning with a white skirt was approved by the ARB. The request includes new text scripted along the bottom fringe of each awning. The text on the awnings was offered in lieu of a third permitted sign approved for the south face of the building (facing the parking lot). The Zoning Code regulates canopy signs in the same manner as a wall sign. Since the Code addresses only single wall signs, placing text on five individual awnings, even though closely spaced, would appear to go beyond the letter and intent of the Code. For this reason the ARB denied this request East Tenant Space Proposed Sign Details Currently, the approved development text permits two window signs and a projecting sign on the west end of the building for this tenant space. "I'hc request, if approved, would permit the property owner/tenant to utilize various sign options for a combination of window, projecting, and awning (front and sides) signs. The applicant is requesting flexibility in providing a sign package for this space with the intent of ensuring visibility of the signs fiom the front as well as the sides. The options would include various combinations of signs that have the intent of providing sufficient. sign visibility from the front of the building as well as to motorists on Bridge Sirect. The signs intended to be viewed from the front include the proposed awning sign and the window signs. Either of these can provide adeyuate sign coverage. Signs intended to be viewed from the sides are located on the east and west sides of the awning or the previously approved projecting sign. The request does not include using the projecting sign and the signs on the ends of the awning together, or using the sign on the front of the awning with the window signs. The ARB approved this request with the condition that the awning sign background be white, with dark lettering. Planning also recommends approval as conditioned. Planning and toning Commission July 17, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. (18-040Z/FDP Page 5 of 11 SF.CTIUN II -REVIEW STANDARDS Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan The purpose o£ 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). "I'he 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. T'he application will then be forwarded to City Council for a first reading/introduction and a second reading/public hearing for a final vote. Atwo-thirds vote of City Council is required to override a negative recommendation by the Commission. If approved, the rezoning will become effective 30 days following the Council vote. Additionally, all portions of the development will require final development plan approval by the Commission prior to construction. Evaluation and Recommendation based on Preliminary Development Plan Criteria Section 153.050 of the Zoning Codc identifies criteria for the review and approval for a Rezoning/I'reliminary Development Plan. Following is an evaluation by Planning based on those criteria. The criteria ace arranged in the following categories and are in a different order than listed in the Code: Adopted Policies and Plans (Criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4) "1'he proposed development is consistent with the Dublin Zvning Code; is in cvnfvrmity with the Community Plan; advances the general welfure of the City; and the prvpvsed uses are appropriately located in the City so that the use arad value of property within and adjacent to the area will he .safeguarded. Criteria met: The changes proposed are consistent with the original approval of the Town Center [[ development. The modification of the proposal to eliminate the awning text is necessary for approval of the rezoning and final development plan. The development text must also be altered to permit a ground sign/wall sign option for this corner lot. This has been included as a condition of the final development plan. Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 08-O~IOZ/FDP -- Page 6 of 1 I Parks and Open Space (Criteria 5 and 6) The proposed residential development will hove sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; and the proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site. Criteria met: No natural features or resources are affected by this proposal. Traffic, Utilities and Stormwater Management (Criteria 7, 8, and 11) Adequate utilities, access reads, drainage, retention and/ar necessary jacilities have been or are being provided; and adequate measures have been or will he taken to minimize traff c 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 fora .cafe, convenient and non-conjlicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; and adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas. Criteria met: No additional traffic or runoff will be generated by this proposal. Development .Standards (Criteria 9, and 10) The relationship of buildings and structures provides for the coordination and integration of this development to the community and maintains the image of Dublin us a quality community; and the develvpment standards, and the design and layout of the open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements contribute to the orderly development of land within the C,'ity. Criteria met: No changes have been proposed for the building site and layout. Same open space will be taken up by the proposed masonry based sign. Planning's recommendation for the rezoning and final development plan is the use of apost-mounted sign. Design Standards (12, and 13) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed develuprnent justify any deviation ji-am the standard development regulations included in the Code or the Subdivision Regulations; are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; and the proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards oj~the City. Criteria met: No requests for deviations are included in this proposal, with the exception of the awning text, elimination of which is recommended by the ARB and Planning. Infrastructure (Criteria 14, 1 S and 16) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; the propossed development can be adequately serviced by existing yr planned public improvements; and the applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thorvrtghfure Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. Criteria met: No additional infrastructure needs are presented with this proposal. Planning and 7_.oning Commission July 17, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. U8-0407./FDP -Page 7 of I 1 Final Development Plan The purpose of the Planned Unit Development process is to encourage imaginative architectural design and proper site planning in a coordinated and comprehensive manner, consistent with accepted land planning, landscape architecture, and engineering principles. The PUD process consists of up to three stages: 1) Concept Plan (Land Use and Long Range Plaiuung, Planning and Zoning 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 approvesldenies). 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 Conunission, the applicant may proceed with the bui]ding permit process. In the event that updated citywide standards are applicable, all subsequently approved final development plans shall comply with the updated standards if the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the updated standards would not cause undue hardship. Evaluation and Kecommendation based on Final Development Plan Criteria Section 153.055(B) of the Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a final development plan. Following is an evaluation by Planning based on those criteria. The criteria are arranged in the following categories and may be in a different order than listed in the Code: Adopted Policies and Plans (Criteria 1, 3, 9, & 10). The propvsed mvdifications cvnform to the approved preliminary development plan, have adequate pufilic facilities and vpen spaces, are carried out in progressive stages, and conform to all other applicable wnirrg text and Code requirements. Criteria may be mei through condition: The proposal does not change the preliminary development plan in ternls of permitted use, lot coverage, and setbacks. `l'he proposed awning text is inconsistent with the "Zoning Code in that it would permit both a wall sign (with the awning text being regulated by the provisions of a wall sign) and a ground sign on the same frontage (Condition 5). Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 08-0407./FDP -Page 8 of 11 Site Safety and Circulation (Criteria 2 & S). '1'he prvposed modifications provide, for sane and efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation and provide adequate lighting,for such uses. Criteria met: 'The proposal does not change the proposed site lighting or vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Development Details (Criteria 4, 6, 7, & 8). The details of the development are sensitive to the natural characteristics of the site, include appropriate landscaping and signs, and provide adequate storm drainage. Criteria nxay be met through condition: Planning continues to recommend the past sign option without the masonry base and landscaped tight fixtures. The ARB approval included the masonry base sign option, given the existence of others in the area, and provided the applicant was able to provide sign lighting within the base rather than an the ground. Alf other sign, lighting and awning options are recommended by Planning as approved by the ARB and conditioned in the recommendation (Conditions 1-4, 6-8). SECTION III -PLANNING OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan with no Conditions and approval of the Final Development Plan with eight with Conditions Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan In Planning's opinion, this proposal complies with the preliminary development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area. Planning recommends approval of the request. Final Development Plan In Planning's opinion, this proposal complies with the final development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area, as conditioned. Planning recommends approval of the request as modified by the following conditions: Conditions: i) 'T'hat no more than three gooseneck fixtures be used to light the Franklin Street wall sign. White fixtures arc to be used; model PRT 20-850, or better; 2) That the ground sign be of apost-mounted construction without a masonry base, no more than 6 square feet and 5 feet in height; 3) That the existing wall sign on the northwest tower be removed; 4) That each of two approved ground mounted lights (Bullyte, BLSOI 6, or better) for the ground sign are screened by no fewer than 3 evergreen shrubs, as approved by i,and tJse and Long Range Planning; 5) That the awnings proposed for the northwest tower contain no text; 6) That the applicant gain rezoning/final development approval, prior to making modifications to the existing signs on the building; 7) That the development text reflecting the approved changes be updated; and 8) That an updated sign plan be submitted following final approvals by the City. Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 08-040Z/I'DP Page 9 of 1 I Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 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 Toning 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; S) 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) T`he density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and structures, yard space, design and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overall acceptability of the development plan's contribution to the orderly development of land within the City; 11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas; 12) "i'he desilm, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Dublin Toning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 08-0402/FDP -Page .10 of 1 ] 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. Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 08-040Z/F'DP - Page i i of 11 Final Development Plan Review Criteria: In accordance with Section i 53.055(B) 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; 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 sigm 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) "I'hc 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. Develo ment Context ;' City of Dublin P ~ Land Use and Long Range Planning La Chatelaine N Feet 0 400 800 PROPOSED AWNINGS (5 TOTAL) 30° Awnings ~~~ Drop 08-0402/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan La Chatelaine Town Center II 65 West Bridge Street PROPOSED SIGN 5r stone Base 45.5" Panel__ ____--~ ~• ~~~ 4' x 4' 4' X 4' Support Support Post I -I N Post 08-0402/FDP Rezoning/hinal Development Plan La Chatelaine Town Center II 65 West Bridge Street PROPOSED SIGN RECOMMENDED SIGN PROPOSED TENANT WALL SIGNS NORTH ELEVATION ADDITIONAL SIGN OPTION 2 -AWNING FRONT/SIDES 08-0402/FllP Rezoning/Final Development Plan I.a Chatelaine Town Center II 65 West Bridge Street OPTION 1 - BLADENVINDOW PROPOSED LIGHTING PROPOSED GROUND SIGN FIXTURE 08-0402/FllP Rezoning/Final Development Plan La Chatelaine 'Town Center II 65 West Bridge Street APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT associated with outdoor seating (decorative fencing), screening of adjacent residential lots, and the screening of mechanical units and dumpsters is permitted, and must receive approval from the ARB. • A tree preservation, protection, and removal plan shall be developed in conjunction with City staff and a certified arborist. The plan will designate caliper replacement required. Owner will comply with the tree Preservation Ordinance except as waived by Council due to the amount of existing trees that are required to be removed in order to develop both the building and parking lot. Signage: • All signs on the site will have a similar character. All signs must comply with the Dublin Sign Code and the Old Dublin Sign Guidelines and shall be consistent with the signange approved for Old Dublin Town Center 1 as attached. Signage may not be internally illuminated or electrically back-lit. The comprehensive sign package must be approved by the ARB. Once the package is approved, individual tenant signs must comply with that package and may receive final approval from the City planning staff administrative review. Parking: • Anew parking lot will be constructed within the Old Dublin Town Center 2, Subarea 2 development. This new parking lot will be accessible from Franklin Street and Mill Lane/West Alley and will incorporate a redevelopment of Sells Alley through the parking area. The new parking lot will be made available for the general public associated with Old Dublin use with an understanding that the total parking count is maintained as associated with the parking space requirements of this project. • Any residential use will require sufficient designated parking to be provided. • Any trees that are removed during construction of the new parking area must be replaced by the developer of the Uld Dublin Town Center 2 in compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance. (See Landscaping section of this text.) • Site lighting and poles wilt match those in the municipal parking lot developed as part of Old Dublin Town Center 1 at the Southwest comer of West Bridge and South High Streets location. All decorative building-mounted light fixtures must be approved by the ARB. All site lighting shall meet the provisions of the Dublin Lighting Guidelines. • Buyer agrees to grant Seller a perpetual non-exclusive parking easement, which shall run with the land, to park on the Parking Lot to be developed by Buyer on Parcel 2, as well as a perpetual non exclusive parking easement on that portion of Parcel 1 which will be parking for the office building to be built on Parcel 1. 08-0407./FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan La Chatelaine "Town Center II 65 West Bridge Street ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BOARD ORDER CITY OF DUBLIN.. ~~ ~ a~ MAY 21 2008 tam rta,~. nom , 5600 Ship-Klops Raod Oub+ir, Oh'o 0.3016-1236 Phon©/TDD:b14•110-4600 Faz: 6: 4-410-Ot7 WHb Site: www_dubfn.oh.u; The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 3. Town Center II - I.a Chatelaine 65 West Bridge Street 08-041ARB Signs, Awning, Lighting Modifications Proposal: Modifications to sign options, awning, and lighting for an existing restaurant and tenant space within the Town Center II Planned Unit Development, located on the south side of Bridge Street, at the southeast corner of the intersection with Franklin Street. Request: Review and approval of site modifications under the provisions of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. Applicant: Stan Wielezynski, owner. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Director. Contact Information: (614) 410-4600, slangworthy(a~dublin.oh.us MOTION #1: William Souders made a motion, seconded by Linda Kick to approve this portion of the application for the Bridge Street ground sign, the north face awnings and awning signs, the Franklin Street wall sign lighting, and signs for the east tenant space, as proposed with seven conditions: 1) That no more than three gooseneck fixtures be used to light the Franklin Street wall sign. White f xtures are to be used; model PRI 20-850, or better; 2) That if lighting cannot be placed inside the masonry base of the proposed ground sign, and the Planning and 'boning Commission's preferred option would be implemented; 3) 'that each of two approved ground mounted lights (Bullyte, BL5016, or better) for the ground sign are screened by no fewer than 3 evergreen shrubs, as approved by Land Use aizd Long Range Planning; (if the Planning and Zoning Commission preferred sign is used); 4) That the existing wall sign on the northwest tower be removed; 5) That the awnings proposed for the northwest tower are approved, but may contain no text; 6) That an updated silm plan be submitted following fmal approvals by the City; and ?) 'T'hat the applicant gain rezoning/final development approval, prior to making modifications to the existing signs on the building. * Stan Wielezynski, the applicant, agreed to all the above conditions. Page 1 of 2 os-o4ozrnnP Rezoning/Final Development Plan La Chatelaine 'T'own Center II 65 West Bridge Street ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BOARD ORDER MAY 21, 2008 3. Town Center II - La Chatelaine 08-041 ARB 65 West Bridge Street Signs, Awning, Lighting Modifications MOTION #1 (Continued): VOTE: 4 - 0. RECORDED VOTES: 'T'homas Elolton Yes Clayton Bryan Yes William Souders Yes Linda Kick Yes Tom Currie Absent RESULT: MOTION #2: William Souders made a motion, seconded by Linda Kick to amend the existing sign package regarding the east tenant space to permit a choice of the following three sign options: 1) To keep the existing approved sign plan which includes two window signs and a blade sign; or 2) 'tb permit the side awning signs with dark lettering and white background, and two 2.2- square-foot window signs; or 3) To permit two side awning signs with a white background and dark lettering of the same size as proposed, and two window signs, as proposed. VOTE: 4 0. RESULT: RECORDED VOTES: Thomas Holton Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Clayton Bryan Ycs William Souders Ycs C, Linda Kick Yes Tom Currie Absent Steve Langworthy Director Page 2 of 2 08-0407/FllY Rezoning/Final Development Plan La Chatelaine Town Center II 65 West Bridge Street Mr. Bryan as where in the used. Her nested that the st shingles Mr. Holton noted th point out that a three-tab B suggested that the t ee- Mr. Custer asked if standing three-tab shingle as approve the ribs were aintained on a would no xpect that the sa approv by Planning and wo Dublin Architectural Review Board May 21, 2008 -Minutes Page 8 of 14 ~ tstrict Timberline d' ensional style shingl ad been three tab asphalts ' gie be used rather th dimensional dimensional shin was more contempo ry. Mr. Custer was more exp slue due to the instal ton required. Mr. vale might more in keeping with e outbuilding. , seam metal of could be r d by the and now. Mr. E futur tanding seam roof, me aterials as on the h not have to come ba~ viewed to by Planning if a st lord yan td if the same distanc etween h it would work as a tch, but he se to he used. He s d it could he the Board. [~lt~. Custer said he was rprised that hard-sur ced driveways were uired when a pervio surface would be be r for the existing tree . Mr. Gunderman sa' the only alternative tch requires another a lication would be to k a variance to the h surface requirement m the; Board of 7,onic Appeals. Motion d Vote Mr. lton made a motion t approve this applicati for site modificatio with the following 1) That the ap cant obtain all ncces to obtain' g a building permit; 2) That e gravel material fort pi th• meets Code or that a v 'ance 3) at the portion of the b he rel located; That the flower b es be removed 5) That athree-t shingle or metal existing h se in place of the 4 iVlr. Jon agreed to the conditio as listed above. M~ck seconded the moti .The vote was as fol ws: Mr. Souders, y r. Bryan, yes; Ms. k, yes; and Mr. 1•[olto ,yes. (Approved 4 3. Towa Center II - La Chatelaine 65 West Bridge Street 08-041ARB Signs, Awning, Lighting Modifications Steve Langworthy presented this request for review and approval of sign modifications, the addition of awnings and lighting for La Chatelaine and an east tenant space located in Town Center II. He summarized that the requests for La Chatelaine were to install asix-square foot ground sign on Bridge Street with a masonry base and cap 4-feet long, 20-inches wide, and 28- inches high and the installation of ground-mounted lighting fixture on each side. He pointed out that if this ground sign were approved by the Board, the wall sign currently in the northwest tower would be removed. He said that the addition of lettered awnings are proposed on the northwest tower. He said if the request for the awning text was approved, the applicant has indicated that he would be giving up his right to the third sign on the south wall of the restaurant. 08-0402',/EDP IZezoning/Final Development Plan La Chatelaine Town Center II 65 West Bridge Street variances from the~6ard of Zoning Appeals~rior oposed driveway b replaced with a pave nt material be obtained tha ould permit gravel; -laced along ring Bill where the a 'sting driveway is from e gazage; and st ing seam roof with rib spacing matchin he posed dimension sh' gle be used, subject staff Dublin tlrctutectural Review Boazd May 21, 200$ -Minutes Page 9 of t4 Mr. Langworthy said that the request also provides for lighting the Franklin Street wall sign and for the cast tenant space to allow different sign options for combinations of projecting, awning and window signs. Mr. Langworthy explained that the La Chatelaine sign plan perntits wall signs on the northwest tower facing Bridge and Franklin Streets, the Franklin Street wall sign, and a wall sign on the south side of the building facing the parking lot. Mr. Langworthy said the Planning and Zoning Commission (P7,C) informally reviewed this application in March and expressed their preference that the post-mounted sign be approved in place of the masonry-based sign. He said issues raised by the PZC and Planning were that the space for the proposed sign is limited, and a masonry element would increase a general sense of clutter to an already crowded and visually busy area. He said they were also of the opinion that this was the simplest form of sign and it fits easier into the space proposed. Mr. Langworthy said regarding the proposed text on the northwest awnings, in the current `Coning Code, wall and canopy signs are treated the same way, therefore they fall under the same restrictions. lie pointed out that Code does not permit both a wall and ground sign on the same frontage, so in Planning's view, both the awning sign and the ground sign would have the affect of altering that zoning provision, and placing text ~on the five individual awnings, even though closely spaced, would appear to go beyond the intent of the Code. Mr. Langwurthy said should the Board wish to consider these signs, Planning is of the opinion that it should be in the nature of a general sign regulation, affecting the entire District rather than approvals on a project by project basis. Mr. Langworthy said ground-mounted lighting and gooseneck fixtures have been proposed to light the west wall sign facing Franklin Street. He pointed out that the exact number of fixtures in the text and materials conflict. Planning suggests no more than three lights be approved. Mr. Langworthy said the approved sign plan for the Bridge Street (north elevation) is for a blade sign and two window signs for the east tenant space. Mr. Langworthy summarized that the applicant was looking for the visibility for the east tenant space, traveling from East and West Bridge Street from the sides and visibility facing the building so those signs perpendicular to the building would be visible from vehicles. He said to get both; the applicant is proposing a design on the current awning, approximately 7 feet by 9 inches, and about 6 inches in height. He said in addition to that, smaller signs nn each side of the awning are proposed, but no dimensions were provided. Mr. Langworthy said the proposal is to have the front awning sign or the two windows signs; or the side awning signs. Mr. Langworthy said Planning's opinion based on the C;uidelines, the design elements for La Chatelaine have not been met but the construction guidelines, the site considerations, and the signs all have been met with conditions. Planning recommends approval with the following conditions: 1) That no more than three gooseneck fixtures be used to light the Franklin Street wall sign. White fixtures are to be used; model PRI 20-850, or better; Rezoning/Final llevelopment Plan La Chatelaine ~I~UWn Center lI 65 West Bridge Street Dublin Architectural Review Board May 21, 2008 -Minutes Page lU of 14 2) That the ground sign be of apost-mounted construction without a masonry base, no more than 6 square feet and 5 feet in height; 3) That the existing wall sign on the northwest tower be removed; 4) That each of two approved ground mounted lights (Bullyte, BLSOIb, or better) for the ground sign are screened by no fewer than 3 evergreen shrubs, as approved by Land Use and Long Range Planning; 5) That the awnings proposed for the northwest tower contain no text; 6) That an updated sign plan be submitted following final approvals by the City; and 7) 'Ifiat the applicant gain rezoning/final development approval, prior to making modifications to the existing signs on the building. Mr. Langworthy said Planning recommended that the requested sign options for the east tenant space be disapproved and that the approved sign plan be maintain~l because adequate pedestrian-scale visibility for the signs is provided with the existing sign plan and it is appropriate to the space and location. Mr. Souders explained that it had previously been established that a tenant with rear parking would be allowed three signs; a projecting sign or a wall sign, and then awindow/door type sign and then one wall or projecting sign facing the parking area. Mr. Holtvn asked the applicant if he had any issues with the pole mounted sign. Stan Wielezynski, La Chatelaine owner and the applicant, said he preferred the ground sign with the masonry base matching the bottom of the tower which was similar to area ground signs. Mr. Holton concluded after discussion, that the Board did not have any objection or preference between the two signs proposed and would go with the applicant's preference, the ground sign with a masonry base. Mr. Souders preferred that the sign lighting be inside the masonry base eliminating need for ground landscaping and its maintenance. The other Board members agreed. Mr. Bryan suggested that the proposed ground sign with the masonry base be approved with the condition that the lighting be moved inside the base or if not acceptable, that the proposed post mounted sign be used. Mr. Bryan noted that the Board had previously seen the proposed six-foot sign facing Franklin Street, and the only change was the addition of gooseneck lighting. The Board members agreed that there should be no more than three fixtures. Mr. Bryan confirmed that the awnings proposed could not have print on them because it would be considered an additional sign area. Mr. Holton confirmed that for the east tenant space, two window signs and a blade sign were previously approved in the sign plan and the second floor sign above the awning had been eliminated. 08-0402/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan La Chatelaine Town Center II 65 West Bridge Street Dublin Architectural Review Board May 21, 2008 -~ Minutes Page 11 of 14 Mr. Wielezynski explained that he wanted to give a future tenant a choice of either a blade sign or a sign on the front of the awning and on each side to replace the blade sign so that pedestrians and traffic can see what business is there. Mr. Souders pointed out that the signs on the sides of the awning were considered projecting signs and there is no regulation for two projecting signs. He confirmed that what had been approved met the criteria that the Board used. Mr. Souders said he saw signs on two ends of an awning, no matter what length, as the front and back of one sign. Mr. Souders said he preferred two sets of signs; one on the glass and one projecting, either wall mounted, sticking out from the building or on the front or sides of the awning. Mr. Langworthy said Planning objected to the awning sign having a dark, solid background on striped fabric and the same layout on the ends of that awning, not to allowing a combination. Mr. Souders reiterated that the tenant would have three separate sign options: 1) the approved sign plan; 2) the front awning and window sign; or 3) the sides of the awning and window signs. Mr. Holton suggested the text be solid black, without a background on the striped awning. Mr. Langworthy suggested a solid awning fabric with text. Mr. 1-Iolton suggested making the sign background white with the text on top of it. Ms. Kick confirmed that there would be no change to the originally approved signs for the side where the east side tenant patio was located. Mr. Holton confirmed that the right remained for a parking lot sign without text on the northwest tower awnings. Mr. I,angworthy repeated the conditions for the restaurant sign, awning, and lighting request as amended for the Boacd and applicant: I) That no more than three gooseneck fixtures be used to light the Franklin Street wall sign. White fixtures are to be used; model PR120-850, or better, 2) That if lighting cannot be placed inside the masonry base of the proposed ground sign, the Planning and Zoning Commission's preferred option would be implemented; 3) That the existing wall sign on the northwest tower be removed; 4} 'T'hat each of two approved ground mounted lights (Bullyte, BI.5016, ar better) for the ground sign are screened by no fewer than 3 evergreen shrubs, as approved by Land Use and Long Range Planning (if the Planning and Zoning Commission preferred sign is used); 5) That the awnings proposed for the northwest tower contain no text; 6) That an updated sign plan be submitted following final approvals by the City; and 7) That the applicant gain rezoning/final development approval, prior to making modifications to the existing signs on the building. Motion and Vote #1 Mr. Souders made a motion, including the above seven conditions, to approve this application for the Bridge Street ground sign, the north face awnings, and the Franklin Street wall sign lighting as proposed. Ms. Kick seconded. Mr. Wielezynski agreed to the above conditions. The vote was as follows: Mr. Holton, yes; Mr. Bryan, yes; Mr. Souders, yes; and Ms. Kick, yes. (Approved 4 - 0.) 08-0407./FDP Rczoning/Final Development Plan La Chatelaine Town Center 1l 65 West Bridge Street Dublin Architectural Review Board May 21, 2008 -Minutes Page 12 of 14 Motion and Vote #2 Mr. Souders made a motion to amend the existing sign package regarding the east tenant space to permit a choice of the following three sign options: 1) To keep the existing approved sign plan which includes two window signs and a blade sign; or 2) To permit the front awning sign on a white background with dark lettering and the same design for the side and two 2.2-square-foot window signs; or 3) To permit two side awning signs and window sign with a white background and dark lettering of the same size. Ms. Kick seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Holton, yes; Mr. Bryan, yes; Ms. Kick, yes; Mr. Souders, yes. (Approved 4 - 0.) [Note: Mr. Wielezynski was not asked to agree to the sign package amendment by Mr. Bryan.] 4. Bryan sidence -Exterior iv difications 84 South Rivervi Street 08-03 ARB Exterior diflcations Chair Cla on Bryan recused him f and left the room U re this application w heard since he was a c -applicant. Vice Chai inda Kick presided o r the remainder of th eeting. Gunderman prose ed this application additional exterior odifications. I-Ie rd modifications were a roved in July 2007 b e Board. He said t north and south ele tions have changed ver tttle and reflect what s expected from the nt elevation. He sa' without the additional a on the top of the age, there is a subst tial reduction, but tl stairways, extra decki ,and screened porch ea remain on the eas ~levation. He said t re is a height rcductio "n the connection are ,but it is basically t same square foots involved in this applic on on the first floor. a said the garage doo 's as was proposed pr iously and it can be do in either wood or m al. Mr. Gundennan td wood was recom ended last time and " mg recommended by fanning at this time s the only condition He said from the d gn element standpoint, arming feels this gui line can be met wit the condition on the arage door and that the onstruction guideline are also met as are t site amenities guid nos. He said in Planni s opinion, this propo meets the Ilistvric ublin Guidelines, and ccommends approval w' one condition. Mr. ton asked for an exp ation about the TP oof material use. M . Gunderman said the TP material would app to the flat roof po 'ons, and otherwise t ee-tab asphalt shingly ould be utiliied. Mr. Holton con ed that the easeme and setback issues ad been resolved sin the two parcels had b n combined. He note that the existing stop ace is being used wit cedar siding around the onnection area as prev' usly approved. Mr. underman recalled t previously, the Bo was not as intent • Planning about the re mmendation of woo ver a metal garaged r. Kathleen Bryan, th applicantlowner pointed gut that there are num 'r of existing steel ga ge doors in the neigh rhood, and they are wood- like materials. Sh asked if the choice of oor material could b at the owners' discretion. Mr. 08-0402/FDP Rcwning/Final Development Plan La Chatelaine Town Center II GS West Bridge Street ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BOARD ORDER CITY OF DUBLIN_ MARCH 19, 2008 m.a w. t.w lon. w.,. -~~ seoo s,re~-rangy aaoa Oubfn. Ohio 4301bt236 Phone/TDD:614-I1a~600 Fat: 6144 f 0.4747 Web Stte: www.dub[n.oh.us 'Tire Architectural Review Board informally reviewed the following at this meeting: 2. Town Center II - La Chatelaine 65 West Bridge Street OS-0141NF Informal Review Proposal: This is a proposal for modifications to the sign options for an existing restaurant within the Town Center II Planned Unit Development. The site is located on the south side of Bridge Street, at the southeast corner of the intersection with Franklin Street. Request: [nforinal review and feedback of a potential future application. Applicant: Stan Wielezynski, La Chatelaine. Planning Contacts: Abby Scott, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4654, ascott@dublin.oh.us. RESULT: The Architectural Review Board informally reviewed and discussed the proposed signs and expressed support for changing the existing sign plan. The Board favored ground sign Option A on the north side of the building and recommended the masonry base match the watertable on the building. A change in the location of the wall sign on the tower, in conjunction with a ground sign, was found to be appropriate to the building and the Historic District. Concerns regarding the proposed location of a wall sign above the awning for the tenant space were discussed. The Board was supportive of sign options on both the front and sides of the tenant awning. Awnings over the first-floor windows on the tower were also discussed and supported by the Board. Additionally, there was some discussion about allowing text on the awnings in lieu of a sign on the tower. Lighting proposed for the signs was also supported by the Board. No vote was taken. STAFF CERTIFICATION Abby Sc t Plamtcr 08-040'L/FI)1' Rezoning/Final Development Plan I,a Chatelaine Town Center II 6S West Bridge Street Ms. Kick clariti that ARB wanted school distri Mr. se addressed the two r omm Dublin Architectural Review Board March t9, 2008 -Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10 to meet the best ne s of the community a the editions d explained that this si originally was f separate parcels whi would not require a ranee, but the City re red the adjoi parcels to be combine to one several years a as a condition of rezot ~ g. [ Ie said regar the removal of the ost, if B7_A did not ap ve the variance for th' additional sign, they come back to B with a new sign pr oral, using the old post ecause it was apre-ex' non-confo 'rig use that they can le y do. ~n and Vote Kick made a motion approve this applicatio ith the 1) ~ That the s e of the proposed sign consistent Mr. Close eepted the above condi ' nand assured that with t xception of the letterin hich will be ad_justcd with the exi ng signs on the site. the posed sign will rcmaic re same, Pe[r. Souders seconded th ~ otion. The vote was follows: Mr. Bryan, , Mr. Souders, yes; Ms. Kick, yes; and .Currie, yes. (Approve - 0.) 2. Town Center I} - [,a Chatelaine 65 West Bridge Street 08-014INF Infarma! Review Abby Scott presented this request for informal review and comments to allow modifications to the 'town Center [I Pi1D that will require a rezoning to allow these changes. She said this request was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission (P7,C) this month for an informal review and to determine if rezoning this PUU was supported. Ms. Scott said the PZC indicated they supported a ground sign without a masonry base. She said after the Board formally reviews this as an application for approval, it will be reviewed for approval by the PLC as a rezoning and final development plan. Ms. Scott said the approved sign plan for the Town Center II PUD allows three wall signs for La Chatelaine, one on each facade. She said window signs and a projecting sign on both the north and east sides of the building are permitted for the tenant space east of La Chatelaine, and two of the three approved signs for La Chatelaine have been installed. Ms. Scott said the first modification was to change the location of the existing wall sign from the northwest face of the tower to the north face of the tower. She said this application also includes a request to allow a ground sign on the north side of the building within the landscape bed in front of the tower. She presented three proposed sign options. Ms. Scott said this proposal would result in a total of three signs for L,a Chatelaine, the same number permitted in the approved sign plan and development text. Ms. Scott said another item included in this request is to allow a wall sign above the awning For the tenant space located on West Bridge Street. She said as indicated earlier, window and projecting signs are permitted for this facade. She said this will allow an option to use either the proposed wall sign or proposed window signs, but not both, in addition to the projecting sign. 08-U4U'L/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan La Chatelaine Town Ccntcr II 65 West }3ridge Street llublin Architectural Review Board March 19, 2008 -Meeting Minutes Page S of ] 4 Ms. Scott said five solid red awnings with white awning skirts over the first floor windows in the tower portion of the building are proposed. She said after PZC discussed the text on the awning skirt, it was indicated that it would be eliminated. Ms. Scott said the proposed fabric differs from what was conditionally approved in the sign plan previously. Ms. Scott said the applicant is also requesting to add gooseneck-style fixtures are proposed above the wall signs and up lighting is proposed for the ground and tower signs. She said the development text allows decorative building light txtures with ARB approval. Ms. Scott said the PZC discussed this proposal and suggested that the recommendation of the ARB would guide them in final approval of the rezoning. She said the PZC expressed support for a rezoning for sign and awning modifications, for a ground sign if the total number of permitted signs for La Chatelaine remains the same as originally approved, for awnings without text, and the addition of the lighting. ' Ms. Scott said that Planning and the applicant are requesting feedback and comments on six points. ["The discussion and comments made by the Board on each of the six points follow.) Mr. Souders asked what the existing zoning was and what zoning was being proposed. Ms. Scott reiterated that the existing zoning is PUD, Planned Unit Development. She said the Town Center II PUD will not change, but a change to the specific sign language included in the approved development text attached to it is being proposed which modifies the PUD. Mr. Gunderman further explained that to modify the approved development text; a new zoning ordinance must be approved by City Council with the changed language regarding signs. He said the rest of the text will remain unchanged. Mr. Gunderman said each Dublin PUD has its own unique text. Mr. Bryan asked why it was expected that each PUD have its own sign package. He asked why Town Center II is going to be allowed an eight-foot long sign and Town Center I does not have that option. Mr. Gundennan explained that the Ciry had made unique sign regulations for PUDs in commercial projects many times. however, he said it is probably a different discussion in the Historic District that has not been taken up yet. He said it might be a very good argument when the Historic District Sign Regulations are developed as to whether all the unique sign regulations for the existing PUDs could be eliminated and there would be just one standard for the Historic District adopted in the Iistoric Business District. He said this proposal is not different from what is done in other Dublin PUD districts. Mr. Gundetrnan said for these changes in this particular text, a rezoning is necessary. Ms. Scott said the sign plan can sometimes be changed in other Pi7Ds without requiring a rezoning, but because the development text written for the Town Center II PUD specifically references a sign plan which is very specific in the placement of the signs, the re-r..oning is necessary. 08-0401/FllP Rezoning/Final llcvelopment Plan La Chatelaine Town Center II 6S West Bridge Street Dublin Architectural Review Board March 19, 2008 -Meeting Minutes Page ti of 10 Mr. Souders asked if an addendum could be done to a PUD, so that it does not change the zoning, just the text. Mr. Gunderman said the question was dots the change need to be approved by City Council or not, and whether it was called a rezoning or something else, if it went to City Council, it was about the same process. Mr. Souders asked if all the tenants and the owner of the development had to apply for a rezoning. Ms. Scott said she believed the development was set as a condo-type situation where Mr. Wieler.}mski was the owner of the first floor. Mr. Souders clarified that the rezoning text was for all of the development so all of owners had to be in agreement with the proposed changes. Ms. Scott assured Mr. Souders that when the formal application is submitted, Planning will verify that the required property owners' notarized signatures are included. ;dir. Bryan requested that the Commissioners address each of the four discussion points provided. I.s the groau:d sign identifying one tenant appropriate for this building? Mr. Bryan asked the applicant to provide his rationale for the ground sign. Mr. Wielczynski said the flag pole and speed limit sign prevent pedestrians and trafl•ic from seeing the La Chatelaine wall sign and in the summer, the tree foliage also lodes the sign. He said the only option they had to display their name for vehicles and pedestrians to see was to have a ground sign. Mr. Wielezynski said they preferred Sign Option A which matches the stone on the bottom of the tower and is in harmony with other nearby ground signs. Mr. Souders conunented that on Option A, the base should be no higher than the base of the tower. He said he preferred to see the same two courses of stone as the building used. Mr. Currie confirmed that the Board members agreed that sign Option A was okay. Does the Bvard have any concerns about changing the locativn of the existing tower sigyt if it is in conjunction with the proposed ground sign? Mr. CUITte asked Mr. Wielezynski what was the reason for changing the existing tower sign. Mr. Wielezynski said from the City's new parking area, the sign will not be seen and the proposed mound sign will be perpendicular to Bridge Street and also not visible when facing the building. Mr. Bryan said he woutd like to deal with these signs independently of what the text says, from the standpoint that the Board can go ahead and approve the signs proposed, provided it is within the Historic District Design Guidelines, and then it will be up to the applicant as to whether or not to change the PUD sign text. Mr. Bryan confirmed that none of the Board members objected to the proposed change of location for the to~ver sign. 08-040!/E'DY Rezoning/Final Development Plan La Chatelaine Town Center ti 65 West Budge Street Dublin Architectural Keview Board March 19, 2008 -Meeting Minutes Page 7 of lU Should a wall sign for the eastern tenant space be u permitted option? Mr. Wielezynski said the tenant space is not yet leased, but he wanted to have the sign reviewed and approved at this time to expedite the process and not have to pay another application fee. Ms. Kick confirmed that the PUD allow the tenant to have a window and projection sign, but the applicant wanted to add the option to use a wall sign instead of the window sign. Ms. Scott said the current text indicates amulti-tenant sign located at the second floor entrance and projection signs on the east and west elevations for the second floor. Mr. Souders said he saw no advantage of having the first floor sign option and had a problem with it because it was confusing. He said he would not support the proposed location. !s the Board supportative of the proposed uwnings and the proposed awning color? Mr. Wielezynski asked if the Board was supportative of text on the face of the awning instead of above the awning. Mr. Souders confirmed that a sign on an awning was an option in lieu of the wall sign in the Historic District, and that was a better solution for the first floor. Ms. Kick noted that it was closer to the business entrance. She said the striped awning would need to be changed so the sign text could be seen. Mr. Souders clarified that if the tenant preferred the wall mounted sign, he supported that, but that it would remove the awning sign as an option. Mr. Curve asked if they could have a wall mounted or projection sign and an awning sign. :VIs. Scott said the awning sign is not permitted in the development text. She said the window and projection signs are what the applicant is allowed to install today. She said this is a request for an option to the window sign, while maintaining the projection sign. Ms. Kick said she understood that Mr. Wielezynski`s preference was to have an awning and projection sign so pedestrians would see the projection sign and vehicular traffic would see the building awing sign, instead of the window. She confirmed it was still two signs, but in different locations. Mr. Souders said the Board had never allowed a projection and an awning sign at the same time Mr. Bryan said he could see an awning sign or a window sign and a projection sign because two different types of traffic are being targeted. Mr. Bryan said if text was written on the side of an awning, it was a projecting sign. I-ie suggested making it simple, one sign perpendicular to the face of the building and one sign parallel to the face of the building. Ms. Scott recapped the discussion and said the Board would probably be reviewing for approval an awning sign option to the window suns in this particular elevation for the tenant space. 0$-0407,/FnP Reroning/Final Development flan La Chatelaine 'town Center II 65 West Bridge Street Dublin Architectural Review Board March 19, 2008 -Meeting Minutes f'age8of10 Ms. Scott explained that the applicant is proposing to add five awnings to the building and had submitted text which the Planning and Zoning Commission did not support. Mr. Souders said he was okay with the awnings. Fie pointed out that the existing wall mounted sign was being moved from the angle to the north side. Hite said based on what the Board just said, if the applicant does not want the building sign he could put it on the awning which then brings up the question, if there are five separate awnings, do yvu repeat the name five times or is it just on one awning. Mr. Bryan and Ms. Kick pointed out that it would still be the same business, and the business could only have one awning sign. Mr. Currie confirmed that awning color would be the same color as the existing patio umbrellas. Mr. Wielezynski asked if Bakery, Bristo, etc. could be added on the awnings to better idenrify La Chatelaine. Mr. Bryan asked if elsewhere in Dublin Restaurant was on an awning and it was not considered the name of the business. Ms. Scott said she did not think a precedent had been set. Mr. Souders said if the Board allowed Bar, Bakery, or Cafe, etc. to be painted on the glass, because La Chatelaine was already on the building, it could not be placed on the awning as well. Mr. Bryan said all existing signs in the District have applied to the name of the business only. however, he said new visitors to the District may not have any idea of what La Chatelaine was. Ms. Kick asked if the Bvard had the authority to approve something other than business signs. Mr. Souders said he was concerned about setting a precedent in the District. Mr. Wielezynski said when text on the awning is submitted, the specific text would be proposed. Ms. Scvtt suggested that the awning text issue be discussed further at the time of the format application submittal. Mr. Bryan said the awning text may not came before the Board until they review the other sign issues- He said he thought there was a benefit to the businesses to have the text on the awnings. Mr. Bryan confirmed that the Board members had no objection to the proposed five awnings. Does the Bocrrd support lighting for the existing and proposed signs? Mr. Bryan said he had no problem with the gooseneck light style or the uplighting for the existing and proposed signs. Mr. Souders referred to La Chatelaine's northern building entrance and said with the canopy, he did not know if there were many lighting options. Ms. Kick asked about the approved third La Chatelaine sign shown on the rear on the third floor. 08-0401/FDP Rezoningll~ final Development PIan La Chatelaine Town Center II GS West Bridge Street , Dublin Architectural Review Board March 19, 200$ -Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10 Ms. Scott said it was not installed, but it was an approved location and an option Mr. Wielezynski said he was waiting for a demonstration of a new type of low uplighting for the ground sign and the building which would be different than seen elsewhere in the Historic District. Mr. Bryan said if the owner of the second floor is amenable to give up his sign for the sake of the first floor tenant advertising, he has no problem with the placement of the sign, per se. if they want to have the whole back side appear as that being what the building is. Mr. Souders said the text was being rewritten, so it has to be fair to the second floor tenants. Mr. Wielezynski said there were projecting signs permitted all around the building for the second floor tenants. Mr. Souders said there was nothing to say that the second floor tenants could not come back and rewrite their text for Mr. Wielezynski, unless they get a horizontal separation. Mr. Wielezynski suggested the sign should be placed on the wood structure covering the patio. Ms. Kick pointed out that the existing tree in the summer will prevent the wall sign from being seen. She suggested Mr. Wielezynski think further about moving the sign to the north. Mr. Bryan suggested instead of a wall sign, an awning sign that is not blocked by the tree is still a sign on the same face of the building. He said walking from the new parking lot across the road; a pedestrian would easily see the awning sign, summer or winter. Ms. Scott pointed out that unique sign plans are included in PUD developments because they can create or atter their own individual zoning standards and texts. Mr. Bryan swmmarired that the Board likes the Option A ground sign, and one additional sign parallel to Bridge Street, and on I.a Chatelaine specifically, that they have the option of moving the sign they are proposing to the awning, if that is most desirable. He said he wanted to leave that open because he did not think the Board really had an opinion. Mr. Currie confirmed that the Board agreed that they would allow text on the awning. Ms. Kick indicated that she would suppoR only the large, striped awning sign having the name of the business only and would not support multiple awning signs with various texts. Mr. Currie said he had no problem with the small awnings having text. Mr. Bryan said he did not think he had a problem with multiple awnings having multiple texts on them because it seemed appropriate for this setting. Ms. Kick shared notes as requested by Tom Holton for the record in his absence. The following are Mr. Holton's written comments: OS-040E/FllP Rezoning/Final Development Plan La Chatelaine Town Center II 65 West Bridge Sheet Dublin Architectural Review Board March 19, 2008 -Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10 "I would ask Pat Grabill or his representative why they need to change the sign package from the original approved PUD package. They asked for signs to be done a certain way and now they want to change it after only a year. Why? We (ARB) just discussed signs in the last meeting: maximum of three signs; the words on the awnings are signs and are counted in overall sign coverage. Besides that, isn't that "advertising"? Will we be setting a precedent if we approve? Can Dublin Village Tavern put up awnings with "beer" and "burgers" for example? I see now why P&Z was involved, but this still should have come to ARB ftrst, then to P&Z. They have to rule on the change to the PUD. But it is up to us to make the recommendation." Ms. Scott suggested that the tower sign not be fixed to a particular wall, if the Board agrees, and that the application have the option of a variety of locations, but be limited to three overall. Mr. Souders said he hoped that the text would have some flexibility this time. l;ie added that it should be taken into consideration Mr. Bryan ended this Work Session confirming that the Board had provided ample comments and input for Planning and the applicant to address. He thanked Mr. Wielezynski. AdministraY Business Elevation iscussion Mr. B n confirmed that the evations provided b lanning were to be en as examples of wha evels of detail the Bo d wanted to be able t review and consider ~ approval. Chc Board members greed that the eleva " n examples were ac ptable for review as ng as there was enoufih etail included and we drawn to-scale whet ubtnitted. The mcctit~was adjourned at 9: I,S~p.m Administrative Assistant 08-040Z/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan La Chatelaine Town Center tI 65 West Bridge Street PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSESSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION MARCH 6, Z00$ CITY OF DUBLtN_ tad Use and long Rage Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Rood Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phone: 614.4104600 Fax: 614-410.4741 Web Siie: wrw.deh4n.ah.us 2. Town Center II - La Chatelaine 65 West Bridge Street OS-014INF Informal Review Proposal: This is a proposal for modifications to the sign options for an existing restaurant within the "Town Center II Planned Unit Development. The site is located on the south side of Bridge Street, at the southeast corner of the intersection with Franklin Street. Request: Informal review and feedback of a potential future application. Applicant: Stan Wielezynski, La Chatelaine. Planning Contact: Abby Scott, Planner. Contact Information: (614} 410-4654, ascott@dublin.oh.us. RF,SULT: The Planning and Zoning Commission informally discussed the proposed sign modifications and the addition of lighting and awnings. The Commissioners were supportive of the addition of a ground sign on West Bridge Street, as long as the total number of signs previously approved was maintained. The Commission agreed that the addition of gooseneck light fixtures above the wall signs and the proposed awnings without any text would be appropriate without any text, subject to approval by the Architectural Review Board. STAFF CERTIFICATION Abby S o Planner 08-0402/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Pian La Chatelaine Town Center ll 65 West Bridge Street Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 6, 2007 -Minutes Page 4 of 16 Jill Wad 1, Danite Signs mpany, repcesentir the applicant, Sa y Properties Ltd., cxplai that this was part o ' a nationwide brandi change for Infiniti. a said the monum sign ill have an opaque ckground and only t logo and letters wit c illuminated. 1'he existin si ns this site and ad'a t ro~erties cetilize ' ter•nal illuminatio~r. Does the Commission su rt the continued crse inte~•nal illuminatio or the ro osed si ? Todd 'Lim rman. Warren Fish an, Kevin Walter ar 'fed Saneholtz sup rted the continual use of th internal illuminatio f both of the propos signs. Mr alter suggested in natty illuminating t [-270 sign and exte Ily illuminating th idler oad sign. Mr. Fish an agrecd. Clu'is Amoros Groomes said onl the lettering and go were visible a the opaque background as significant and uld look better th• an externally itlu aced sign. She agreed wi internal illuminatio or the Tuller Road s' n. , Mr. Zimme an confirmed with e Commissioners tl the size of a secon cy image needs to meet Co and be limited to 2 ercent. 2. Town Center II - La Chatelaine 65 West Bridge Street 08-Ol4INF Informal Review WORK SESSION Abby Scott presented this request for an informal review and comments for an existing Planned Unit Development (1'UD) before submitting a subsequent rezoning application. She explained that the next time this application is reviewed by the Commission it will have been reviewed and acted on by the Azchitecturat Review Board (ARB). Ms. Scott said the 0.31-acre site is located on the southeast comer of West Bridge and Franklin Streets. She said the Dublin Cemetery is located to the west, High Street to the east, and Bridge Street to the north. She said the applicant is z~equesting an informal review of proposed modifications to the approved Town Center II PUD sign plan. She said the sign plan pez-mits La Chatelaine wall signs on each of the three facades. She said window signs and a projecting sign on both the north and east sides of the building are permitted for the tenant space east of La Chatelaine. Ms. Scott said two of the three approved signs for La Chatelaine have been installed. She said this request inelezdes multiple changes to the "Town Center II sign plan. She said the first modification proposed is the relocation of the existing wall sign from the northwest face to the north face of the tower. Ms. Scott said in addition to the wall sign change, a ground sign is 08-040Z/FDI' Rezoning/Final Development Plan La Chatelaine Town Center II 6S West Bridge Street Dublin Planning and Toning Commission March b, 2007 -Minutes Page 5 of 16 proposed to be located on the north side of the building, within the landscape bed in front of the tower. She presented a slide of the existing building digitally altered to eliminate the existing wall sign that is currently located on the northwest facade and to show the proposed ground sign. She stated that three options have been provided for the proposed ground sign. Ms. Scott said this proposal would result in a total of three signs for La Chatelaine, the same number in the approved sign plan. Ms. Scott said a wall sign is also proposed above the awning for the currently vacant tenant space located on east side of La Chatelaine on West Bridge Street. She presented a digitally enhanced slide to show the proposed wall sign. She said a window and a projecting sign are permitted for this facade. She said the proposed change would allow either the proposed wall sign or the approved window sign, in addition to the approved projecting sign. Ms. Scott said five awnings with text on the skirt are proposed over the first window In the tower of the La Chatelaine portion of the building. She pointed out if the applicant were to install awnings in the previously approved pattern, Moss Creek and eliminate the text, then only ARB approval would be needed for the change. Ms. Scott said gooseneck-styled light f xtures are proposed above the existing and proposed wall signs and uplighting for the existing and proposed ground and tower signs. She said the development text permits decorative building light fixtures with ARB approval. Ms. Scott requested the Commission's input regarding the discussion points provided be a permitted option? Ms. Scott added that the items requiring only ARB approval include awnings consistent with the PUD text and lighting for existing and proposed signs. She said this item is before the Commission prior to the ARB in order to determine whether the Commission will support a rezoning to allow the modifications to the signs Mr. Walter noted that the building was in a prominent location and asked why additional signs were needed. Tl~e applicant, Stan Wielezynski, owner of La Chatelaine explained that vehicles driving east on Bridge Street could not see the Franklin Street wall sign due to the City of Dublin banner sign. He said a ground sign instead of the tower sibm would be visible. He said the proposed awnings with text would duplicate their Lane Avenue and Worthington restaurants which are identifiable by patrons. Wan•en Fishman had no objection to rearranging the signs, but he was not in favor of any additional signs. 0$-040Z/FDP Rezvning/Final Development Plan La Chatelaine Town Center II 65 West Bridge Street Dublin PIanning and Zoning Commission March 6, 2007 -- Minutes Page 6 of 16 Mr. Zimmerman confirmed with the Commissioners that, as in the past, that they do not want sirs or graphics on awnings. Mr. Walter confirmed ground sign Option A was in a planter with a stone base. Mr. Walter and Mr. Zimmerman stated they were not in favor of Option A. Mr. Zimmerman asked if surrounding tenants had ground signs. Ms. Scott said a preexisting ground sign was located at Jason's, as well as other ground signs located along North and South Nigh Street. Mr. Zimmerman asked if a ground sign would eliminate the wall sign. He said he felt ARB would agree that the awning text should be eliminated. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the proposed ground sign would be in lieu of the sign on the octagonal portion of the building. Ms. Scott said the applicant's preference was to have both a wall sign and a gn'ound sign. Mr. Walter asked about the previously approved location of the third wall sibm. Ms. Scott said a third wall sign was approved for the rear elevation of the building facing the parking lot. Mr. Wielezynski said he would like to have a ground sign at the corner that was not obstructed by the Dublin flags or landscaping. He said a ground sign located perpendicular to Bridge Street would provide great visibility for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed Mr. Wielezynski preference to have a ground sign; white and red awnings without the text, and the addition of gooseneck lighting. Mr. Fishman confirmed that the sign on the northwest side of the tower would be relocated, which would result in two signs along Bridge Street. He said he had no problem with this as long as the currrulative total of signs was not changed. Mr. Fishman asked that the rezoning of this proposal be explained. Ms. Scott said the text included the sign plan and specifically identified the tower sign on the northwest faFade of the building, and to make changes to the signs and awning colors required a rezoning. Mr. Walter clarified that the question before the Commission was their support of a future rezoning for the proposed modifications, following ARB review. He said his opinion was yes. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that as long as the cumulative total of signs does not change, then the Commission would be open to the signs being placed advantageously to profit the business. Mr. Zimmerman asked if the Commissioners had a preference regarding the proposed l,~round sign options. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not want a masonry base on the ground sign. Mr. Zimmerman confirmed that the Commissioners preferred Option C for the I,nound sign. O8-040'L/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan La Chatelaine Town Center II 65 West Bridge Street Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 6, 2007 -Minutes Pagc 7 of 1 b Mr. Fishman pointed out that it was up to ARB to approve the proposed awning colors. Ms. Scott asked about the additional sign option for the tenant space to the east. Mr. Zimmerman confirmed that the Commissioners thought it was logical that they should have the option. He confirned that if chosen, the wall sign above the awning would have gooseneck lighting. Mr. 7,immernran confirmed with Ms. Scott that all the discussion points had been addressed, and thanked everyone. 3. Tartan est - Corazon Clu Spa Tent 7155 C anon Drive O8- 6INF formal Reveew VORK SESSION Tam Noble-Finding pies ed this request fora urfoi•znal review and edback for a propos to nstruct a tent in the uthwest portion of tl site f'or organized ev is such as weddings crd rivate parties for a si month period from until October each ar. She said the 13- e site is part of the Tart West PUD which ' surrounded by rest ntial components o e same development o lc north, east, ands th and an the west Glacier Ridge Metr arks. Ms. Noble-Fladi said the site Curren contains a 46,600- uai•e-foot club facili located in the central po ion of the site. She d these proposed use of this site ar-e currei being conducted on a t porary basis. She aid the applicant is w securing permits rom the Washingto- To ship fiire Departure and usually has the t tin place for 48 to 7 hours. The applic is oposing a more pe ent solution. Ms. Noble-Fladi said that Planning ggested the followi points for the Co issioners' discussion: Todd Zimmerma onsidered a six-mo tent a permanent str tune. He suggested tan open- sided pavilion ould be more appro -gate titan a tent. He aid he never envisio a tent being seen from and-Croy Road six onths a year. Kevi alter said there wa a beautiful vista oft main building archit tore that would be 1 H aid he had reservati s with the proposal. Elite >?reimann a ed why the semi- -~nanent tent was b ng proposed. Tott Anderson, President Cora n Club and Spa, the ppiicant said they c structed the tent ten Zes last year, totaling 40 ys throughout the su er. He said this su mer, he expects the t • twill be used 25 times, w ch becomes extra w rk far the City and ashington Townshi ire Department to inspe it every time. Mr. nderson said he un rstood the concerns ut did not know what be 6t there is by puttin construction crews t every three days t put the tent up and tear it O8-040'!,/FDY RezoninglFi:~al Development Plan La Chatelaine "town Ccntcr II fi5 Nest Bridge Street