07-08 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayiun Legal Blank, Inc Fui m No 3b043
0708
Ordinance No. Passed , 20
~~
Lam'
1
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE 0.7 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BRIDGE AND
HIGH STREETS FROM: CB, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
AND CCC, CENTRAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT, TO: PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
(BRIDGE AND HIGH STREETS DEVELOPMENT, 20 WEST
BRIDGE STREET - CASE NO. 07-099Z).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
State of Ohio, ~ of the elected members concurring:
Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit
"A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PD, Planned
Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in
Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City of Dublin
Zoning Code and amendments thereto.
Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected
property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Exhibit "C", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and
said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith.
Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the
earliest period allowed by law.
Passed this day of -r , 2008.
/ ~ ~ w ~~
Mayor -Presiding Officer
Attest:
Clerk of Council
Sponsor: Land Use and Long Range Planning
1
ORDINANCE 07-08
CONDITIONS APPENDED BY COUNCIL ON 2-19-08
(As Recommended by Planning 8 Zoning Commission in Review of Final Development Plan)
1) That trash be permitted to be stared within Building B only if an offsite refuse
area is not available at the time of tenant occupancy, to the satisfaction of
Planning;
2) That the Sign and Graphics Plan be revised to specify that a maximum of
three colors are permitted on all signs;
3} That the development text be revised to state that all sign dimensions
specified are the maximum sizes permitted; and
4) That the City work with the adjoining owner of 24 Darby Street to minimize
issues related to the size and scope of retaining walls, to the extent feasible.
ADDITIONAL ACTIONS ON 2-19-08
• Motion carried 7-0 to approve Option "D" for the north retaining wall to be
installed around the building occupied by Modern Male.
• Motion carried 7-0 to approve Concept "C" for the water feature.
G
'_ `~~`
li '`-~
1 ..
i
.~
--- ~, ~ f
= ------=- r---' _i
__. _ - =.
m
-~~
-~,
~;~~~~
.. 7,; ,
G. ~ V'~
f ~ ~ \ ~ __
~~ ~~"f ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~
_. ~~ - ~~
r '~. ~~-__\ \ r
-- i ~ ~
~ _ _ - -,
_,~ I '
~~~1-i ;
~-- I _ , ,~
~ t ~ , ~,
___e~.
~ -~,
~~~~
- - -....,_..i-
Office of the City Manager
CITY OF D[1BLIIV_ 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1006
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 M e m o
TO: Members of City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
DATE: February 14, 2008
INITIATED BY: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning
Dan Phillabaum, Senior Planner
RE: Rezoning Ordinance 07-48:
Bridge and High Streets Development - 20 West Bridge Street
(Case No. 07-0992 )
Request
This application is a rezoning request for the Bridge and High Streets Development (application
07-0992) from: CB, Central Business District and CCC, Central Community Commercial
District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. The site consists of three parcels totaling
0.7 acre at the northwest corner of the intersection of Bridge and High Streets. The proposed
PUD zoning allows up to 22,000-square-feet of retail, restaurant and office use.
Additional Information for 2"a Reading
Since first reading of this ordinance, some questions have been raised to members of Council
about the impact of this project on the immediately adjacent business, Modern Male, at 24 Darby
Street. Planning staff is providing additional information on these questions to aid the members
of Council in their deliberations on this rezoning request.
Retcrinina T~alls
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the final development plan on January 17, 2008
with four conditions. Condition 4 states "that the City work with the adjoining owner of 24
Darby Street to minimize issues related to the size and scope of retaining walls, to the extent
feasible."
Condition 4 relates to retaining walls associated with an ADA accessible ramp at the north end of
the proposed development, adjacent to Modern Male. The current tenant of 24 Darby Street has
expressed concerns that these retaining walls create a physical barrier to her site, and could be
detrimental to business operations.
Memo re: Bridge and High Development Rezoning {case 07-0992) 2id Reading
February 14, 2008
Page 2 of 3
The illustration below indicates the existing conditions at 24 Darby incorporated with the initial
proposed wall design.
On June 26, 2002 the owner of 24 Darby Street received ARB approval for site and building
modifications (see Attachment A: Board Order and Staff Report 01-124ARB} and several
associated variances were granted by the BZA on July 25, 2002 (see Attachment A: Board Order
and Staff Report 01-125V). City Council granted a permanent 7.5 foot easement to the owner of
24 Darby Street along the south and east property lines to facilitate the proposed modifications
on September 16, 2002 (see Attachment A: Record of Proceedings}. These modifications
established the existing site arrangement, which orients the main building entrance away from
the public street and toward the temporary municipal parking lot.
The Planning Reports to the ARB and BZA emphasized that the proposed changes were
dependent on the adjacent municipal property for visibility, access and parking. Staff
recommended approval with the clear understanding that such improvements constituted ashort-
term improvement and might be rendered unusable in the future with the expected
redevelopment of the temporary municipal parking lot.
Staff has had several meetings with the owner and tenant of 24 Darby Street to discuss these
concerns and have evaluated several possible options. These options are summarized in
Memo re: Bridge and High Development Rezoning (case 07-0992) 2°d Reading
February 14, 2008
Page 3 of 3
Attachment B: Retaining Wall Options. Staff recommends wall option B be pursued to address
both the Planning Commission condition and the tenant's requests.
Construction Activity
In addition to issues pertaining to the retaining walls, the tenant of 24 Darby has additional
concerns with respect to the construction activities of the proposed development and the
potential disruptions it may cause to normal business operations. Staff has offered the tenant of
24 Darby Street, and will offer to other adjacent businesses, the opportunity to participate in
regular construction coordination meetings to apprise all parties of the nature and schedule of
construction activities for the proposed development. These meetings will help ensure safety,
accessibility and communication throughout the construction period.
S1QnS
Based on changes to the visibility of the existing signs at 24 Darby with the proposed
development, the tenant has expressed a desire for sign modifications. A condition of approval
of the existing signs at 24 Darby Street is that all building signs be brought back to the ARB and
BZA for reconsideration when the temporary parking lot is developed. (See Attachment A:
Board Orders and Staff Reports 03-110ARB and 03-114V) Staff has agreed to meet with the
tenant to gain a better understanding of the specific nature of the requested sign modifications.
Additional information regarding this case is available for public viewing at 5800 Shier-Rings
Road in the offices of Land Use and Long Range Planning.
Recommendation:
Planning recommends approval of Ordinance #07-08 with the four conditions from the Planning
Commission and with two additional conditions:
1. That option B be used for retaining wall details nearest to 24 Darby Street; and
2. That the applicant use the water feature design selected by City Council.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
BOARD ORDER
June 2G, 2002
.lai'1 l-!~ I-l KLt~
Division of Planning
5800 Shier-Rings Road
t)u61in, Ohio 43016-i 236
Fhone/TD D: 614-0 l 0~b00
fax: 614-161-b 566
Web Site: www.duhlin.oh.us
The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting:
2. Architectural Review Board 01-124ARB - 24 Darby Street
Location: 0.09-acre located on the east side of Darby Street, i60 feet north of West
Bridge Street.
Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District.
Request: Review and approval of minor site and architectural modifications to an
existing one-story structure, including storefront windows, doors, entrance steps, and
ADA accessible ramp.
Proposed Use: Renovation of an existing building of 2,636 square feet for retail use.
Applicant: Thelma HiII; 12921 Beecher Gamble Road, Marysville, Ohio 43040;
represented by Jack Eggspuehler, 20 North Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Carson Combs, Senior Planner.
MOTION: To approve this request with nine conditions
1) That City Council approval be obtained for any encroachments;
2) That all required variances be obtained or that Code be met;
3) That the proposed doors utilize though-the-glass muntins;
4) That all existing doors and door/window trim be painted to match;
S) That plans be revised to provide appropriate access from the ADA ramp and east
entrance;
b) That the proposed mechanical screening be limited to five feet in height and incorporate
an alternate board design;
7) That all railings be of consistent design;
8) That the proposed steps be revised to utilise a symmetrical, double-loaded design, subject
to staff approval; and
Page 1 of 2
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
BOARD ORDER
June 26, 2002
2. Architectural Review Board 01-124ARB - 24 Darby Street (Continued)
9) Tllat a Building Permit be obtained prior to installation.
*Jack Eggspuehler agreed to the above conditions.
VOTE: 5 - 0.
RESULT: This application was approved with a clear understanding that such improvements
constitute ashort-term improvement and may be rendered unusable in the future.
RECORDED VOTES:
Janet Axene Yes
Allan Staub Yes
Richard Taylor Yes
David Larson Yes
Thomas I-[olton Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
~ J
Carson Combs
Senior Planner
Page 2 of 2
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Staff Report -June 26, 2002
Page 6
2. Architectural Review Board O1-124ARB - 24 Darby Street
Location: 0.09-acre located on the east side of Dazby Street, 160 feet north of West
Bridge Street.
Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District.
Request: Review and approval of minor site and architectural modifications to an
existing one-story structure, including storefront windows, doors, entrance steps, and
ADA accessible ramp.
Proposed Use: Renovation of an existing building of 2,63b squaze feet for retail use.
Applicant: Thelma Hill, 12921 Beecher Gamble Road, Marysville, Ohio 43040;
represented by Jack F,ggspuchler, 20 North Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
.Staff Contact: Carson Combs, Senior Planner.
Summary and Action Recommended
This is a request for the review and approval of minor site modifications for the installation of
two entrance steps and an ADA accessible ramp. Also proposed are exterior architectural
changes that include the following: mechanical screening, exterior painting, and the installation
of storefront windows and doors. Staff recommends approval of this request with nine
conditions.
Considerations:
• The Old Dublin Design Guidelines recommend door construction of a simple design that
includes wood and glass construction. The proposed doors provide a 3-over-5 paneled
glass design that is found within the Historic District.
• The Guidelines recommend the use of wood construction for windows with real through-
the-glass muntins. The proposed storefront windows meet this and are acustom-built
design with a central plate glass bordered on each side with three tnze-divided panes.
• The proposed improvements re-orient the building's "front door" from Darby Sheet to
the municipal parking lot, which faces Bridge Street and High Street. The architectural
and site changes utilize municipal property to provide access, visibility and direct parking
resources. Future development of the City's interim parking lot may eliminate access and
obstruct all proposed improvements for this request.
• This request utilizes municipal property to link the temporary municipal parking lot with
the proposed south and east entrances, which requires approval by City Council. Based
upon discussion at the June 17, 2002, City Council meeting, staff is proceeding to
develop leases for the proposed encroachments. Further discussion and a final
determination by Council will be made at a later date.
Narrative:
Site Location and Description:
The site is a 0.09-acre parcel located along the east side of Darby Street, 160 feet north of
West Bridge Street. To the east and south of the site is the municipal parking lot located
at the corner of Bridge and high Streets. To the west of the site across Darby Street is
the Dublin Veterinary Clinic, fronting on West Bridge Street, and to the north across the
alley is Tucci's restaurant. The site was previously occupied by Custom Architectural
Mill Work and is now vacant. The site includes 2,636 square foot building that covers
Dublin Architectural Review Boazd
Staff Report -June 26, 2002
Page 7
almost the entire site, which has no pazking. `The building is currently legally non-
conforming with respect to lot coverage, required front yard, required side yards, and
required rear yard. The structure consists of painted concrete block (east half) and brick
(west half). The main entrance and former loading bay faces west onto Darby Street.
That bay has been converted to a window, and a secondary access is located along the
alley at the northeast corner of the building.
Existing Zoning:
The site and Tucci's restaurant to the north are zoned CB, Central Business District.
Permitted uses include residential, offices, personal and consumer services, and retail.
The Dublin Veterinary Clinic to the west is zoned CCC, Central Community Commercial
District, which permits retail, offices, and personal and consumer services. The
municipal parking lot to the south and east of the site is zoned both CB and CCC.
Proposal:
This request includes the review and approval of an exterior color for portions of the
structure constructed of an off-white painted, concrete block. Proposed is "Gull White"
(26E1), a creme color from Do It Best paints. While not specifically from an historic
palette, the proposed color is consistent with the Guidelines.
Three custom-built storefront windows will be installed along the south elevation facing
the municipal parking lot and West Bridge Street. An additional window will face North
High Street on the east elevation. The windows will utilize the same design comprised of
a central plate glass bordered on each side by three vertical panes. The windows will be
constructed of wood and will incorporate through-the-glass muntins, consistent with the
Old Dublin Design Guidelines. Trim will be painted "White" from Do It Best paints.
The existing storefront window along Darby Street will remain in its current condition.
The structure currently provides primary access directly onto Darby Street and has an
informal service area with secondary access onto the alley. Two new entrances are
shown on the east and south elevation that will link to the municipal parking lot. The
doors utilize wood construction with a 3 x 5 full glass panel design. The proposed doors
will utilize materials and construction that is generally compatible with the Guidelines
and is found elsewhere in the District. No clear indication has been made if through-the-
gIass muntins will be utilized, and staff recommends that it comply with the Guidelines.
The proposed doors will be painted "White" to match the window trim, and the existing
doors along the alley and Darby Street will remain as-is. Staff recommends that all
existing doors and trim be painted to match the proposed window and door
improvements.
The site utilizes ground-mounted mechanicals along the south elevation that are
unscreened. Upgrades to the site include privacy screening along the alley (northeast
corner) to consolidate the mechanical equipment. The proposed enclostue is six feet high
and will be constructed of flat 1x6 vertical boards. Screening will be painted with "Gull
White" to match the structure. Staff believes that a height of five feet will sufficiently
screen mechanicals from pedestrian traffic through the alley and recommends that the
Dublin Architectural Review Boazd
Staff Report -June 26, 2002
Page 8
plans be revised accordingly. Part of the charm of historic districts is created by the
variety of different architectural ehements, patterns, scale and colors that are incorporated
into the streetscape. Staff believes that the utilization of narrower vertical slats with a
stain will provide better contrast with the adjacent property and will blend with the brick
portions of the structure. A variance will also be required for installation of the proposed
screening to reduce the required side yard from five feet to 3'-1 I ".
Access for the south and east elevations will utilize concrete entrance steps. The building
is almost on the property line, and the steps will be constructed partially on the municipal
parking site. In January 1998, the City purchased the adjacent gas station site to improve
the visual quality of Old Dublin and its primary intersection at Bridge and High Streets.
Parking was installed as a temporary use until such time as a master plan is finalized for
the corner. When the municipal site is redeveloped, the parking spaces relied upon for
this application may be removed or reduced. Staff needs to emphasize that the proposed
modifications provide only ashort-term solution for this site and the immediate area.
The incorporation of storefront windows along the south and east elevations changes the
orientation of the building away from the public street toward the temporary municipal
tot. Future development of City property will likely obstruct building access and the
proposed improvements. Any encroachments on municipal property also require
approval by City Council in accordance with Sections 150.OS5 and I SO.OS7.
The existing building is currently not ADA accessible. A concrete ramp will be
constructed for the existing Darby Street entrance. A variance will be required to reduce
the required front setback from twenty feet to S'-4". Ali railings for ramps and steps will
be constructed of 3-foot high metal tubing (model F49-C) capped with decorative finials
(models 9-XL and 9-XS-3/4) from Fortin Iron Works.
The existing site is almost entirely covered by impervious surfaces and is legally non-
conforming in this regard. "The proposed south and east entrances will require approval
of a variance to increase the lot coverage from approximately 98 percent to 99 percent.
Variances for the steps will also be necessary to reduce the required southern side yard
and required rear yard from five feet to zero feet. No paved access has been indicated on
the plans from the proposed ramp or east entrance, impacting lot coverage. Staff
recommends that the plans be revised and that unnecessary pavement along the south,
east, and north elevations be removed and restored to green space.
On June 2S, 2001, a letter regarding property maintenance and Code compliance issues
was sent to the property owner. The applicant has indicated a desire to resolve the
following property maintenance issues as part of the proposed improvements:
• All missing handrails must be replaced to comply with Building Code
requirements.
• A variety of construction debris and litter is Iocated around the building and must
be removed.
• Significant peeling of paint was documented on the concrete block portion of the
structure and must be repainted.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Staff Report -June 26, 2002
Page 9
Numerous holes were noted on the exterior of the building and must be repaired
appropriately.
Invasive trees growing around the foundation of the structure must be removed to
prevent structural damage.
All mechanicals must be screened per Code requirements.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff encourages the utilization of existing commercial spaces within Old Dublin. The proposed
architectural and site changes will improve the appearance of a contemporary structure that is
highly visible within the Historic District. Such changes may provide only ashort-term
improvement. Staff emphasizes that these plans are completely dependent upon the temporary
municipal lot for visibility, access and parking. Staff recommends approval of this request with
nine conditions with a clear understanding that such improvements constitute ashort-term
improvement and may be rendered unusable in the future:
1) That City Council approval be obtained for any encroachments;
2) That ail required variances be obtained or that Code be met;
3) That the proposed doors utilize though-the-glass muntins;
4) That all existing doors and door/window trim be painted to match;
5) "That the approved design incorporate awnings above public entrances and that final
awning designs be brought back to the ARB for review and approval;
6) That plans be revised to provide appropriate access from the ADA ramp and east entrance
and that all unnecessary pavement along the south, east, and north elevations be removed
and restored to green space;
7) That the proposed mechanical screening be limited to five feet in height and incorporate
an alternate board design and finish;
8) That all railings be of consistent design and existing railings be replaced to match the
proposed window and door color; and
9) That a Building Permit be obtained prior to installation.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
July 2S, 2002
..C[Tl' OF UC~ii[,t\
D'msion of Planning
5800 Shier•Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016-1136
i?I,w,e/mD: 614.410-4600 ~1'he Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action at this meeting:
Fax: 614-1b 1 X566
Web Sde: wrrw.du6lin.oh.us
3. Variance 01-12SV - 24 Darby Street
Location: 0.09-acre located on the east side of Darby Street, 160 feet north of
West Bridge Street.
Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District.
Request: A variance to the following Code Sections:
1} 153.071(B)(4)(b) to increase the maximum permitted lot coverage
from 80 percent to approximately 99 percent;
2) 153.072(A) to reduce the required front setback from 20 feet to 5'-
4"•
3) 153.071(B}(2) to reduce the required rear yard from five feet to
zero feet for the installation of entry steps;
4) 153.071(B)(2) to reduce the required northern side yard from five
feet to 3'-11"for the installation of mechanical screening; and
5) 153.071(B)(2) to reduce the southern side yazd from five feet to
zero feet for the installation of entry steps.
Proposed Use: Renovations of an existing building of 2,636 square feet for retail
use.
Applicant: Thelma Hill, 12921 Beecher Gamble Road, Marysville, Ohio 43040;
represented by Jack Eggspuehler, 20 North Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Carson Combs, Senior Plaruier.
MOTION: To approve this variance with ten conditions:
1) That all variances apply only to improvements proposed with this application;
2) That City Council approval be obtained for any encroachments;
3), That all required variances be obtained or that Code be met;
4) That the proposed doors utilize though-the-glass muntins;
5) That all existing doors and door/window trim be painted to match;
6) That plans be revised to provide appropriate access from the ADA ramp and east
entrance;
7) That the proposed mechanical screening be limited to five feet in height and
incorporate an alternate board design;
8) That all railings be of consistent design;
Page 1 of 2
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
July 25, 2002
3. Variance 01-125V - 24 Darby Street (Continued)
9) That the proposed steps be revised to utilize a symmetrical, double-loaded design,
subject to staff approval; and
i 0) That a Building Permit be obtained prior to installation.
*Jack Eggspuehler agreed to the above conditions.
VOTE: 5 - 0.
RESULT: "I1iis variance application was approved.
RECU1tDED VOTES:
Brent Davis Yes
Laurie Elsass Yes
Jennifer Malinoski Yes
Jeffrey Ferezan Yes
G. Lynn McCurdy Yes
STAFI:~ CERTIFICATION
~~ ~;. ,
,~. ,:~
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
Page 2 of 2
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
Staff Report -July 25, 2002
Page 7
3. Variance 01-125V - 24 Darby Street
Location: 0.09-acre located on the east side of Dazby Street, 160 feet north of West
Bridge Street.
Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District.
Request: A variance to the following Code Sections:
1) Section 153.07I(B)(4)(b) to increase the maximum permitted lot coverage
from 80 percent to approximately 99 percent;
2) Section 153.072(A) to reduce the required front setback from 20 feet to 5'-
4"•
3) Section 153.071(B)(2) to reduce the required rear yard from five feet to
zero feet for the installation of entry steps;
4) Section 153.071{B)(2) to reduce the required northern side yard from five
feet to 3'-11"for the installation of mechanical screening; and
5) Section 153.071(B)(2) to reduce the southern side yard from five feet to
zero feet for the installation of entry steps.
Proposed Use: Renovations of an existing building of 2,636 square feet for retail use.
Applicant: Thelma Hill, 12921 Beecher Gamble Road, Marysville, Ohio 43040;
represented by Jack Eggspuehler, 20 North Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Carson Combs, Senior Planner.
Summary and Action Recommended:
This is a request for variances to multiple Code Sections in conjunction with renovations of an
existing retail structure within Dublin's historic district. "I'he Architectural Review Board
approved the proposed site and architectural modifications on June 26, 2002 (See Board Order
for Case #01-124ARB). Due to a lack of quorum for the June 2002 meeting, this case has been
carried over. Staff reconunends approval with conditions.
Considerations:
• Section 153.071(B)(4)(b) states that hazd-surfaced or paved areas shall not cover more
than 80 percent of the lot azea within the CCC and CB Districts. No lot coverage data
was submitted, but the site is almost entirely covered by structure. The structure is legally
non-conforming, and staff estimates that the site is 98 percent impervious.
• Section 153.072(A) establishes minimum building setbacks along public rights-of--way.
The right-of--way width for Darby Street varies, but it is 30 feet in width adjacent to the
site. "The centerline, however, is located 10 feet from the property line, and the required
building setback along Darby Street is 20 feet. The building is legally non-conforming in
this regard and is located 10'-8" within that required setback.
• Section 153.071(B)(2) requires a minimum yard space of five feet. Both required side
yards and the required rear yard are five feet. The structure is located within both
required side yards and the required rear yard and is legally non-conforming.
• In January 1998, the City purchased the adjacent gas station site to improve the visual
quality of Old Dublin and its primary intersection at Bridge and High Streets. Parking
was installed as a temporary use until such time as a master plan is finalized for the
property. When the municipal site is redeveloped, parking resources relied upon for this
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
Staff Report -July 25, 2002
Page 8
application may be removed or reduced. Staff emphasizes that the proposed
modifications provide only ashort-term solution for this site and the immediate area.
Future development of City property will likely obstruct building access and the proposed
improvements.
On June 25, 2001, a letter regarding property maintenance and Code compliance issues
was sent to the properly owner. Staff has conveyed to the applicant that all outstanding
issues must be resolved. The applicant has indicated a desire to resolve all property
maintenance issues, including the following, in conjunction with these improvements:
1) All missing handrails must be replaced to comply with Building Code
requirements;
2) A variety of construction debris and litter located around the building must
be removed;
3) Significant peeling of paint on the concrete block portion of the structure
must be repainted;
4) Numerous holes on the exterior of the building must be repaired
appropriately;
5) Invasive trees growing around the foundation of the structure must be
removed to prevent structural damage;
. 6) All mechanicals must be screened per Code requirements; and
7) Staff recommends that the proposed plans be revised and that any
unutilized or unnecessary pavement along the south, east, and north
elevations be removed and restored to green space.
Any encroachments on municipal property requires approval by City Council in
accordance with Sections 150.055 and 150.057.
Staff has not received any calls or correspondence from adjacent property owners
regarding this case.
Narrative:
Site Location:
The site is a 0.09-acre parcel located along the east side of Darby Street, 160 feet north of
West Bridge Street. To the east and south of the site is the temporary municipal parking
lot developed at the corner of West Bridge Street and North High Street. To the west of
the site across Darby Street is the Dublin Veterinary Clinic, fronting on West Bridge
Street. To the north, across the alley is Tucci's restaurant. Custom Architectural Mill
Work used to occupy this building, but it is now vacant. The site includes a 2,636 square
foot building that covers most of the site.
Existing Zoning:
The site and Tucci's restaurant to the north are zoned CB, Central Business District.
Permitted uses include residential, offices, personal and consumer services, and retail.
The Dublin Veterinary Clinic to the west is zoned CCC, Central Community Commercial
District, which permits retail, offices, and personal and consumer services. The
temporary parking lot to the south and east of the site is zoned both CB and CCC.
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
Staff Report -July 25, 2002
Page 9
Site Description:
The site is 80 feet wide and 50 feet deep. The structure consists of painted concrete block
(east half) and brick (west half) exterior finishes, with a main entrance onto Darby Street.
A former loading bay is located along Darby Street that has been converted to a
storefront window, and a secondary access is located along the alley at the northeast
corner of the building.
Proposal:
The structure at 24 Darby Street currently provides primary access directly onto the
public street and has an informal service area with secondary access onto the alley.
Proposed is the incorporation of two additional entrances on the east and south elevation
of the building that will link to the municipal parking lot. Storefront windows will also
be added on the south and east elevations.
The site utilizes unscreened ground-mounted mechanicals along the south elevation.
Upgrades to the site include privacy screening along the alley {northeast corner) to
consolidate the mechanical equipment. The proposed enclosure is six feet high and will
be constructed of flat, 1" x 6" vertical boards. Staff believes that a height of five feet
will sufficiently screen the mechanicals and recommends that the plans be revised
accordingly. The building is legally non-conforming with regard to the required side
yard. A variance is requested for installation of the fencing to reduce the required side
yazd from five feet to 3'-11".
Concrete entrance steps are proposed to be partially constructed on City property. These
will provide access directly from the municipal parking lot. The incorporation of
storefront windows along the south and east elevations changes the orientation of the
building away from Darby Street to the municipal lot.
The existing building is currently not ADA accessible. A concrete ramp will be
constructed for the existing Darby Street entrance. A variance will be required to reduce
the required front setback from twenty feet to 5'-4". The building is currently legally
non-conforming at a distance approximately the same or less than the proposed
improvement.
The existing site is almost entirely covered by impervious surfaces and is legally non-
conforming in this regard. The propased south and east entrances will require approval
of a variance to increase the lot coverage by about one percent to approximately 99
percent. Variances for the steps will also be necessary to reduce the required southern
side yard and required rear yard from five feet to zero feet. No paved access has been
indicated on the plans from the proposed ramp or east entrance, impacting lot coverage.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff could not identify a classic hardship or practical difficulty in this case. However, the
established development patterns in Old Dublin often make it difficult to meet the adopted
Dublin Boazd of Zoning Appeals
Staff Report -July 25, 2002
Page 10
Zoning Code standards while conforming to the recommendations set forth by the Old Dublin
Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The site is
legally non-conforming with regard to a variety of Code provisions, but the proposal will
improve the site drastically with minimal impacts. Although required setbacks are designed as a
sepazation between different land uses, the adjacent property is also zoned for commercial
purposes. Staff encourages the utilization of existing commercial spaces within Old Dublin and
the proposed changes will enhance a contemporary structure that is highly visible.
While the proposed changes will provide ashort-term improvement, staff clearly emphasizes,
however, that such plans are dependent upon the adjacent municipal properly for visibility,
access, and parking. Staff recommends approval of this request with nine conditions, with a
clear understanding that these improvements constitute ashort-term solution that may be
rendered unusable in the future.
Conditions:
1} That all variances apply only to improvements proposed with this application;
2) That City Council approval be obtained for any encroachments;
3} That adl required variances be obtained or that Code be met;
4) That the proposed doors utilize though-theMass muntins;
5) That all existing doors and door/window trim be painted to match;
6) That plans be revised to provide appropriate access from the ADA ramp and east
entrance;
7) That the proposed mechanical screening be limited to five,feet in height and incorporate
an altef•nate board design;
8) That all railings be of consistent design;
9) That the proposed steps be revised to utilize a symmetrical, double-loaded design, subject
to staff approval; and
10) That a Building Permit be obtained prior to installation.
Italics indicate conditions carried forward from the Architectural Review Board on June 26,
2002 (Case #0l -124ARB).
Bold indicates recommended conditions proposed by staffas part of this application.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
September 16, 2002 Page 11
8. i oduc ' n/Publ' ieari of R otution 39
utho ~ .mg the y Ma get to bmit an Ap tcation the D' tri<
Inte clog Co mitiee Fthe O to Public W s Com fission nd to
A cement th the do Pu is Works C unissio for the umose
about the
Outer Business
amount
cst a t; nt in
loan,
yes; Mr/S. tsormg{yes; Ms~Salay, yes.
will
Mr.
9. Revision to Request for Encroachment on City Property to improve Access to
24 Darby Street Property in Old Dublin.
Mr. Ciarochi reported that in June, Mr. Lggspuehler requested an encroachment on City
property in order to make access and window improvements to the property located at 24
Darby Street. At that time, Council indicated they could support a Temporary easement or
lease of three years to accommodate his request. Mr. Eggpuehler's request was reviewed
by BZA and ARB and he was granted variances. In the review of the building pemtit
recently submitted, staff found that the windows would breach the fuewalls within 10 feet
of the property line. After a review of the requirements, staff is recommending granting of
a permanent easement of 7.5 feet along the south and east sides of 24 Darby Street into the
parking lot. The staff report includes three options: 1) sell a 7.5 foot strip of land to the
property owner on the south and cast sides; 2) grant a permanent easement for the 7.5 foot
strip; or 3}deny this request altogether. Staff is attempting to work with_the property
owner to make improvements to a structure in Old Dublin. if Council wants to have the
improvements made, staff would then recommend authorizing a 7.5-foot perntaneat
easement as outlined.
Mr. Lecklider noted that the consensus of Council in June was to approve a temporary
easement. What compensation will be given for this permanent easement? The City
would expect to pay for such an easement if the City needed it.
Mr. Ciarochi stated that staff is seeking Council's direction on the appropriate amount of
compensation. In addition, should Council approve an easetncnt, staff would then take an
undisputed variance request to the state adjudication board.
03-110ARB
24 Darby Street
Modern-Male
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
.. -- - --~..o... ,~..,
._.. _. -__ II i
Held September lG, 2002 Page 12 19
i
Mr. Reiner and Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher indicated that they agree in concept with granting
'~ of a permanent easement.
Mayor McCash stated that in reviewing the potential redevelopment options along that
it site, it would be prudent to have an access drive or parking behind the building, similar to
I~ other locations. To him, the 7.5-foot area will be open under any scenario. The City is
'I not necessarily losing anything, and this is an inexpensive way to induce revitalization of
;, the historic area.
Ms. Salay asked about staff s expectations of the business to be developed on this site and
how it will be beneficial to the district versus art empty storefront.
Mr. Ciarochi stated that staff does have concerns about the present state of the site. On the
other hand, staff is not certain what will happen with the City's property. It is identified as
temporary parking, but is being relied upon by the Old Dublin area for parking. From a
design perspective, staff would prefer that this be a two-story building more in keeping
with the area. If something is later built on the corner, obstntcting the view of this
building, it will impact its visibility and therefore diminish the valor of its retail use.
Mr. Lecklider noted that the City has made a significant investment in Historic Dublin,
and it is in ttte City's best interest to revitalize this area.• But this is aprofit-making
enterprise, and the City has purchased land for more parking to accommodate businesses.
He would suggest asking the market value in exchange for granting the easement- It is a
matter of principle.
Mr. Renter a~~reed.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked what business is planned for the site.
Mr. Ciarochi stated that it will be a retail business, but the specific details are not known.
Mayor McCash requested a motion from Council.
Mr. I,ecklider moved to authorize the City to enter into a permanent casement agreement
with the property owner, assuming the property owner is interested in such an
arrangement, and that in consideration for this permanent easement, the City receives
whatever is dctctntincd to be fair market value compensation.
Mr. Reiner seconded the motion.
Vote nn the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. I,ecklider,
yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes.
Ms. Chinnici-luercher asked if there has been prior discussion with Mr. Eggspuehler
about payment for the easement.
Mc Ciarochi responded that this had been discussed with the applicant.
10. il2enort k Citvtti'id/Traffic <;eflntint? -fCOtlU11Uf11K° Services~dvisort
that the r nununit crvices visory C unission d~ cussed t
S f nnrlatcd Ut
ecotnnten ions i
rged as lh Commissi
f any m difications c nee
n thi topic.
a ut I~ro. 3 larding p actively c sidcring lr is calming
ons. !~ tetr , ep nber ntec ng, they
s ou ncd in th ntcmu. '1' c first four
'o cil; the f th reconu ndation cr e
~ssues. "I' : Coinmis~~on asked s fCi
and th • rfth recon ~endation . afcd t
Ms. C~Sndall st~cd that lhc~Commissigrf was not ~{(ccific on tly~. 1'crhaps
'(vts. Crar all added l al the Divis~ n of Polic
Stealti tats which ' being imp •mcntcd in c t: 03_110ARI3
a pr : cnlalio^ a tc next me utg on its c tabili 24 Darb Street
c prchcnsiv proposal r ,,arding a rc 'dcntial ~ y
Modern-Male
arc r< cd on
~ ~ ~
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
BOARD ORDER
September 24, 20Q3
1Nvlsian of Planniag
5800 Shier-Rings Road
Dublin, Ohia 43016-1236
f'hone/IUD: b14-4104600
kx:6l4-761-b5b6
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting:
4. Architectural Review Board 03-110AKB - 24 Darby Street -Modern Male
Location: OA9-acre located on the east side of Darby Street, 160 feet north of West
Bridge Street.
Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District.
Request: Review and approval of two six-square foot wall signs with gooseneck lighting,
entrance awnings and lighting, and a 3.1-square foot window sign.
Proposed Use: Salon.
Applicant: Thelma 1-liil, 12921 Beecher Gamble Road, Marysville, Ohio 43040;
represented by Jack Eggspuehler, 20 North Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017; and Brenda
Kocak, 8135 Davington Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Carson C. Combs, A1CP, Senior Planner.
MOTION: To modify this request and approve with thirteen conditions:
1) That the second wall sign on the south elevation be approved with the following
conditions, subject to staff approval:
(A) That the second wall sign be as nearly centrally located between the two
storefront windows as possible;
(B) That full public access to the south entrance be provided in conjunction with the
second sign during all hours of operation; and
(C) That variances to Section 153.159(A)(4) for a second wall sign and reduction of
the minimum distance between signs be obtained.
2) That all proposed colors be of a matte or low-gloss finish consistent with the Guidelines;
3) That signage be revised to utilize more appropriate design details consistent with the
Guidelines, subject to staff approval;
4) That any additional building tenant(s) or future development the municipal parking lot
require that all building signage be brought back to the Architectural Review Board and
Board of Zoning Appeals for reconsideration;
5) That a simplified S- or L-shaped gooseneck be utilized for the proposed sign lighting,
subject to staff approval;
Page 1 of 2
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
BOARD ORDER
September 24, 2003
4. Architectural Review Board 03-110ARB - 24 Darby Street -Modern Male
(Continued)
6} That the proposed light fixture for signage utilize acut-off design with no visible light
source, and that the fixture be properly oriented toward the sign, subject to staff approval;
7) That an additional awning with address number and exterior entrance lighting be installed
at the rear entrance along Dazby Street to assist with wayfinding and handicap access to
the building;
8} That the proposed informational window sign be replaced by an appropriate directional
placazd on the south elevation that will indicate handicap access for patrons using the
adjacent pazking lot;
9) That acoach-style lamp fixture for entrance lighting be selected that is compatible with
the Guidelines, subject to staff approval;
10) That a sign permit be obtained from the Division of Planning prior to installation;
11) That a building permit for the proposed lighting and awnings be obtained from the
Division of Building Standards prior to installation;
12) That final, scaled, dimensioned plans and elevations be submitted in conjunction with all
permit requests, subject to staff approval; and
13) That all necessary variances be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, or that the
proposed signage be brought back to the Architectural Review Board for further review.
*Brenda Kocak agreed to the above conditions.
VOTE: 4 - 0.
RESULT: The application was approved.
RN:CORUF.ll VOTES:
Janet Axene Absent
Allan Staub Yes
Richard Taylor Yes
David Larson Yes
Thomas Ilolton Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
~~--~=~`
Carson C. Combs, AICP
Seiuor Plaruier
Page 2 of 2
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Staff Report -September 24, 2003
Page 8
4. Architectural Review Board 03-1 lOARB -- 24 Darby Street -Modern Male
Location: 0.09-acre located on the east side of Darby Street, 160 feet north of West
Bridge Street.
Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District.
Request: Review and approval of two six-square foot wall signs with gooseneck lighting,
entrance awnings and lighting, and a 3.1-square foot window sign.
Proposed Use: Salon.
Applicant: Thelma Hiil, 12921 Beecher Gamble Road, Marysville, Ohio 43040;
represented by Jack Eggspuehler, 20 North Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017; and Brenda
Kocak, 8135 Davington Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Carson C. Combs, AICP, Senior Planner.
Summary and Action Recommended:
This is a request for the review and approval of two six-square foot identification signs with
gooseneck lighting, a 3.1-square foot window sign, exterior entrance lighting, and two entrance
awnings. Staff has significant concerns regarding the overall compatibility of this request with
applicable portions of the Dublin Zoning Code and the Old Dublin Design Guidelines, and
recommends approval of an amended version of this request with thirteen conditions. As
proposed, this request requires variances to three provisions of the Dublin Zoning Code. A
recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the September 25, 2003, meeting is
requested by the applicant.
Considerations:
• The Old Dublin Design Guidelines generally limits signage to one per business or use.
The Guidelines, however, do provide the opportunity for an additional sign when the
business has a rear patron entrance. The Dublin Zoning ("ode also generally limits wall
signs to one per business or use, unless the property has suffzcicnt frontage along two
public rights-of--way. The site includes only frontage along Darby Street, and a variance
to Section 153. i 59(A){4) wi 11 be necessary to permit the additional wall sign. The
proposed locations of the two wall signs will also require an additional variance to
Section 153.159(A)(4) to reduce the maximum required distance between wall signs from
approximately 46 feet to 43 feet.
• The Guidelines indicate that signage must in design and appearance complement the
Early American character of the Historic District. The Guidelines further state that
signage creating a predominantly contemporary impression that conflicts with that
character should not be permitted. The Guidelines suggest that appropriate signage-must
takes cues from the historic character, but can still be designed to communicate the
image/message of a particular business. Staff believes that the proposed wall signage
does not appropriately integrate into the overall character of the District.
• The Guidelines recommend that lighting for signage be of a traditional "gooseneck"
fixture or other similar, simple design. Staff believes that the proposed fixtures, while
contemporary in nature, can be modif ed slightly to blend with the overall character of
the District.
• Section 153.157 of the Dublin Zoning Code limits infozrrzational window signs to two
square feet in area. A rear entrance sign measuring 3.1 square feet to identify handicap
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Staff Report -September 24, 2003
Page 9
access to the building that includes the business name is proposed, which is considered
identification signage by Code. The proposed sign will require a variance, and staff will
not support this variance to the Code.
While the Guidelines do not specifically address exterior entrance lighting, the overall
intent of the Guidelines and applicable portions of the Dublin Zoning Code are to
promote use of appropriate design elements that reflect the historic integrity and character
of the District. Staff believes that the proposed cylindrical tube lighting is not consistent
with the traditional use of coach-style lighting throughout the District.
In January 1998, the City purchased the adjacent gas station site to improve the visual
quality of Old Dublin and its primary intersection at Bridge and High Streets. Parking
was installed as a temporary use until such time as a master plan is finalized for the
property. When the municipal site is redeveloped, parking resources and visibility for 24
Darby from North High Street and West Bridge Street may be reduced or eliminated.
Throughout public review in 2002 of the proposed building modifications, staff
emphasized that the proposed building upgrades and re-orientation of tenant spaces
provided only ashort-term solution for the site and immediate area. This process
included design review by the Architectural Review Board (Case #01-124ARB), granting
of five variances by the Board of Zoning Appeals (Case #O1-125V), and the granting of
encroachments onto municipal property. Future development of City property will likely
obstruct or limit building access and/or visibility of 24 Darby Street.
lvarrative:
Site Location and Description:
The site is a U.09-acre parcel located along the east side of Darby Street, 160 feet north of
West Bridge Street. To the east and south of the site is the municipal parking lot located
at the corner of Bridge and High Street. To the west of the site across Darby Street is the
Dublin Veterinary Clinic, and across an alley to the north is Tucci's Wood Fired Bistro.
The site is nearly covered by a 2,636 square foot building that once housed Custom
Architectural Mill Work. A number of variances were granted for building renovations
that are currently under way. (See Board Order 01-125V).
The site fronts on Darby Street and is SO feet wide, with a depth of 80 feet. The structure
consists of t<vo exterior finishes that include white-painted concrete block (east half) and
red brick (west half). The main public entrance to the building has been relocated to the
east elevation, with a secondary entrance on the south elevation. Access from parking to
these entrances is provided from the temporary municipal parking lot. The south
entrance will not be immediately used as a patron entrance, but is intended to once
operations for the business have normalized. Storefront windows have been added to the
east and south elevations, and a former loading dock along Darby Street (west elevation)
will also be converted to a window. Frontage along Darby Street also includes a
handicap accessible ramp, which now serves as the rear entrance to the primary tenant
space. Future space within the building is available for expansion or a potential second
tenant. As part of the on-going exterior renovations, an encroachment agreement was
obtained from the City to provide access from the municipal parking }ot.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Staff Report -September 24, 2003
Page 10
Existing 7,oning:
The site and Tucci's restaurant to the north are zoned CB, Central Business District, with
permitted uses that include residential, retail, offices, and personal and consumer services
(including salons). To west, the Dublin Veterinary Clinic is zoned CCC, Central
Community Commercial District. To the east and south is the municipal parking tot that
is zoned both CB and CCC.
Proposal:
This request includes the review and approval of two six-square foot wall signs with
gooseneck lighting, a window sign, exterior entrance lighting, and two awnings.
Identification signage for the main entrance facing North High Street includes asix-
square foot wall sign (18 inches by 44 inches) that will be centrally located between the
entrance door and northeast corner of the building. The proposed size complies with the
Guidelines, and the sign face will be constructed of high-density urethane foam. The
Guidelines recommend that signs be constructed of materials that give the illusion of
natural or painted wood, tin, or iron. This material has been approved for numerous other
sign requests in the District.
The signage will include a black background and border with lettering colored "Turban
Shell," a creme color manufactured by Pittsburgh Paints. While not specifically from an
historic palette, the proposed colors are compatible with the overall character of the
District. All proposed colors should be of a matte or low-gloss frnish. Lettering will
include the text "Modern Male" in an elongated text style similar to Arial. The proposed
text is not similar to the approved fonts within the Old Dublin Design Guidelines. The
Guidelines recommend that signage complement the nineteenth century character of the
Historic District. The image and message of a particular business should be
communicated while taking appropriate cues from the unique architectural quality and
character of Old Dublin. Staff believes that the sign does not properly address this
unique character and should be revised to utilize either a more appropriate text style
and/or other design details that would result in better visual harmony with the Historic
District.
A second, identical wall sign will be located along the south elevation between the
storefront windows. Section 153.159(A}(4) of the Dublin Zoning Code limits wall sigms
to one per business or use. The Code permits businesses or uses with 100 feet of frontage
along two public rights-of--way to also obtain a second wall sign as long as separation
requirements are met. Standards for the Architectural Review District are more
restrictive and permit one sign per business or use. The Guidelines indicate that for rear
parking areas, a second sign may be requested to indicate the location of rear patron
entrances. This particular site is unique due to its visual frontage on three streets and a
rear entrance onto the only public right-of--way adjacent to the property. The Guidelines
also indicate that all proposed signage should be architecturally integrated with the
proposed building. Staff recommends that due to the orientation of current parking for
the site that a second identificativn sign be approved on the south elevation and that the
signage be centered between the two storefront windows. Modifications should be made
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Staff Report -- September 24, 2003
Page 11
to the existing gutters and downspouts to properly accommodate the signage. Staff also
recommends that in order to meet the overall intent of the Guidelines and Code,
incorporation of the second wall sign on the south elevation must be in conjunction with
full public access to the entrance on that elevation. Any future changes to the municipal
parking lot or additional building tenants should also require a reconsideration of the
identification package for this site.
Lighting for the proposed wall signs will consist of two goosenecks with aseven-inch
wide conical spotlight fixture manufactured by Progress. The fixtures are from the
Newport II series (#P5242-31} and will be painted black. Proposed goosenecks are 27
inches in height and will extend 13 inches from the building elevation. Staff
recommends that a more simplified S-shape or starved L-design be utilized for the
gooseneck. The proposed fixture must also be of a cut-off design (no visible tight source}
and should be swiveled to direct light toward the sign only. Staff believes that the above
modifications will provide lighting that will meet Zoning Code requirements and the
general intent of the Guidelines.
This request also includes the incorporation of a 3.1-square foot vinyl applique window
sign at the rear entrance along Darby Street. The proposed sign will be 2'-4" wide by 1'-
4" in height and reads "Handicap Enhance for Modern Male." The Dublin Sign Code
defines signage as including any text that identiftes the name of the business or use. The
Old Dublin Design Guidelines also indicate that signage should be limited to one per
business or use with exceptions for rear parking entrances to the business. Section
153.157(M) of the Dublin Zoning Code also limits informational window signs to a
maximum permitted area of rivo feet. A text style similar to Axial Black will be used for
"Handicap entrance for," while "Modern Male" will use the same logo font as the
proposed wall signs. Staff believes that any informational signage would be more
appropriately located adjacent to the municipal parking lot to better direct handicapped
patrons. Staff does not believe that the proposed window signage warrants an additional
variance and recommends that an appropriate directional signage indicating only the
handicap entrance be utilized.
Lighting is proposed for the entrance points facing the municipal parking loi. The
proposed fixture is a five-inch, bracketed cylinder manufactured by Progress. The
fixtures are from the Newport II series (#P5674-31) and will be painted black. The
proposed fixtures are contemporary in nature and are not characteristic of the Historic
District. Staff recommends that an exterior coach lamp fixture be utilized that is more
traditionally found in the district with an overall contemporary design that will blend with
Old Dublin and the more contemporary image of the business. Submitted elevations
include the installation of lighting for two of the three potentially usable entrances. Staff
recommends that any approved lighting also be installed at the rear entrance on Darby
Street to assist handicap access to the building. Primary emphasis in the Guidelines is
placed upon the visual quality of structures from the public right-of--way. Staff believes
that a consistent level of treatment should be provided along Darby Street.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Staff Report -September 24, 2003
Page 12
This request also includes the review and approval of awnings above the doors on the
south and east elevations. The proposed awnin~s are to be constructed of a solution-
dyed, woven fabric manufactured by Sunbrella . The awnings will be colored "Jet
Black" (#4608} and will have a width of five feet and a height of 2'-10". The awning will
project four feet over the entrance. Wayfinding for the proposed entrances is problematic
due to the reversed orientation of the building. The Guidelines generally recommend that
addresses be incozporated into signage, but this would create confusion in the proposed
locations. Staff recommends-that an additional awning with appropriate address number
be installed at the Darby Street entrance to facilitate wayfinding for motorists.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff has substantial concerns about the overall character and placement of the proposed
improvements. While the Guidelines acknowledge the need to convey the image/message of a
particular business, such proposals must be made within the context of an Historic District. The
purpose of both the Guidelines and the review process of the Architectural Review Board is to
ensure that all alterations, including signage, lighting, and awnings, are done in a compatible
manner with the overall integrity of the District. Staff believes that the signage and lighting, as
proposed, do not meet the general recommendations and intent of the Guidelines. Staff believes
that tenant space layout, applicable standards, and pedestrian patterns have not been carefully
considered within the context of wayfinding and the potential for future adjacent development.
Staff rccommends modifications to this request and recommends approval with thirteen
conditions:
1) That the second wall sign on the south elevation be approved with the following
conditions, subject to staff approval:
(A) That the second wall sign be centrally located between the two storefront
windows;
(B) That any necessary reconfiguration of gutters and downspouts to accommodate
the proposed sign be completed in conformance with the Guidelines;
(C) That full public access to the south entrance be provided in conjunction with the
second sign during all hours of operation; and
(D) That variances to Section 153.159(A)(4} for a second wall sign and reduction of
the minimum distance between signs be obtained.
2) That all proposed colors be of a matte or low-gloss finish consistent with the Guidelines;
3) That signage be revised to utilize a more appropriate text style and/or other design details
consistent with the Guidelines, subject to staff approval;
4) That any additional building tenant(s) or future changes to the municipal parking lot
require that all building signage be brought back to the Architectural Review Board and
Board of Zoning Appeals for reconsideration;
5) That a simplified S- or L-shaped gooseneck be utilized for the proposed sign lighting,
subject to staff approval;
6) That the proposed light fixture for signage utilize acct-off design with no visible light
source, and that the fixture he properly oriented toward the sign, subject to staff approval;
7) That an additional awning with address number and exterior entrance lighting be installed
at the rear entrance along Darby Street to assist with wayfinding and handicap access to
the building;
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Staff Report -September 24, 2003
Page 13
8) That the proposed informational window sign be replaced by an appropriate directional
placard on the south elevation that will indicate handicap access for patrons using the
adjacent parking lot;
9} That acoach-style lamp fixture for entrance lighting be selected that is compatible with
the Guidelines, subject to staff approval;
10) That a sign permit be obtained from the Division of Planning prior to installation;
11) That a building permit for the proposed lighting and awnings be obtained from the
Division of Building Standards prior to installation;
12} That final, scaled, dimensioned plans and elevations be submitted in conjunction with all
permit requests, subject to staff approval; and
13) That all necessary variances be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, or that the
proposed signage be brought back to the Architectural Review Board for further review.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD OItI)ER
September 25, 2003
..C[TY OF !)CLiLih
Division of Planning
5800 Shier-Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 4301 b•1236
Phone/TDD:b14-410-4600
fax: 614.761-6566
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
The Board of Toning Appeals took the following action at this meeting:
3. Variance 03-114V - 24 Darby Street -Modern-Male
Location: 0.09=acre located on the east side of Darby Street, 160 feet north of West
Bridge Street.
Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District.
Request: A variance to the following Code Sections:
1) 153.159(A)(4) to permit a second six square foot wall sign; and
2} 153.159(A)(4) to reduce the minimum required distance between two wall
signs from 45.67 feet to 43 feet.
Proposed Use: Salon.
Applicant: Thelma Hill, 12921 Beecher Gamble Road, Marysville, Ohio 43040;
represented by Jack Eggspuehler, 20 North Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017; and Brenda
Kocak, 8135 Davington Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Mark Zuppo, Jr., Planner.
MOTION #1: To amend the application to eliminate the variance request to Section
153.157(M} for the 3.1-square foot window sign.
V01`E: 4 - 0.
RESULT: The request to amend the application was approved.
MOTION #2: To approve both variances to Section 153.159(A)(4) with 14 conditions:
1) 'T'hat any future modification to this sign be subject to review and approval by the
Architectural Review Board, and if necessary, the Board of Zoning Appeals;
2) "That the second wall sign on the south elevation be approved with the following
conditions, subject to staff approval:*
(A) That the second watt sign be centrally located between the two storefront windows;*
(B) That full public access to the south entrance be provided in conjunction with the
second sign during all hours of operation;* and
(C) That variances to Section 153.I59(A)(4) for a second wall sign and reduction of the
minimum distance between signs be obtained.*
Page 1 of 3
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
September 25, 2003
3. Variance 03-114V - 24 Darby Street -Modern-Male (Continued)
3) That all proposed colors be of a matte or low-gloss fuush consistent with the Guidelines;*
4) That signage be revised to utilize a more appropriate design details consistent with the
Guidelines, subject to staffapproval;*
5) That any additional building tenant(s) or future changes to the municipal pazking lot
require that all building signage be brought back to the Architectural Review Board and
Boazd of Zoning Appeals for reconsideration;*
6) That simplified S- or L-shaped gooseneck light fixture be utilized for the proposed sign
lighting, subject to staffapproval;*
7) That the proposed light fixture for signage utilize acut-off design with no visible light
source, and that the fixture be properly oriented toward the sign, subject to staff
approval;*
8) That an additional awning with address number and exterior entrance lighting be installed
at the rear entrance along Darby Street to assist with wayfinding and handicap access to
the building;*
9) That the proposed informational window sign be replaced by an appropriate directional
placard on the south elevation that will indicate handicap access for patrons using the
adjacent parking lot;*
10) That acoach-style lamp fixture for entrance lighting be selected that is compatible with
the Guidelines, subject to staff approval;*
11) That a sign permit be obtained from the Division of Planning prior to installation;*
12) "I7iat a building permit for the proposed lighting and awnings be obtained from the
Division of Building Standards prior to installation;*
13) That final, scaled, dimensioned plans and elevations be submitted in conjunction with all
permit requests, subject to staff approval;* and
14) That all necessary variances be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, or that the
proposed signage be brought back to the Architectural Review Board for further review.*
*All conditions as listed in the Board Order for Case No. 03-110ARB.
*Brenda Kocak, tenant, agreed to the above conditions.
VOTE: 4 - 0.
Page 2 of 3
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
September 25, 2003
3. Variance 03-114V - 24 Darby Street -Modern-Male (Continued)
RESULT: This amended request was approved.
RECORDED VOTES: MOTION #1 MOTION #2
Brent Davis Yes Yes
Jeffrey Ferezan Yes Yes
G. Lynn McCurdy Yes Yes
Ray Harpham Yes Yes
Drew Skillman Absent Absent
STAFF CI;R'I'IFICATION
1~.~?~L~
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
Page 3 of 3
Dublin Boazd of Zoning Appeals
Staff Report -September 25, 2003
Page 7
3. Variance 03-114V - 24 Darby Street --Modern-Male
Location: 0.09-acre located on the east side of Darby Street, 160 feet north of West
Bridge Street.
Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District.
Request: Review and approval of two six-square foot wall signs with gooseneck lighting,
entrance awnings and lighting, and a 3.1-square foot window sign.
Proposed Use: Salon.
Applicant: Thelma Hill, 12921 Beecher Gamble Road, Marysville, Ohio 43040;
represented by Jack Eggspuehler, 20 North Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017; and Brenda
Koeak, 8135 Davidington Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Mazk Zuppo, Planner.
Summary and Action Recommended:
This case also requires approval from the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and is being heard
as Case No. 03-110ARB on September 24, 2003. Any additional conditions and/or amendments
to the conditions appended by the ARB will be distributed before the Board of Zoning Appeals
meeting.
This is a request for variances to Code Section 153.159(A)(4) to permit a second six-square foot
wall sign, and to reduce the minimum required distance between two wall signs from 45.67 feet
to 43 feet. The applicant is also requesting a variance to Code Section 153.157(M} to increase
the permitted area of an informational window sign from two square feet to 3.1 square feet. Staff
recommends approval of variances to Code Section 153.159(A}(4), but staff respectfully
recommends disapproval of the variance to Section 153.157(M).
Considerations:
• Section 153.159(A)(4) limits wall signs to one per building per use, unless the site has
100 feet of frontage on two public streets. This site does not qualify for two signs. The
Board recently granted one similar variance within Historic Dublin for arear-facing sign
for Tucci's restaurant (See Record of Action 03-075V}.
• Section 153.159(A)(4) also requires wall signs to be separated by at least two-thirds the
length of the longest facade. "the intent of this Code Section was to prevent signs from
being visible simultaneously. Tn this case, the wall signs need to be 45.67 feet apart.
• Section 153.157{M) limits informational window signs to a maximum area of two-square
feet. A 3.1-square foot rear entrance sign to identify handicap access is proposed. The
window sign includes the business name. This is considered identification signage by
Code.
• Section 153.161(H) refers to the Uld Dublin Design Guidelines for sign requirements
within the Architecture Review District. "1'he Guidelines limit each business or use to one
sign. An applicant can request a second sign to identify a public entrance from a rear
parking area. In addition to the North high Street entrance, this building will have a
south entrance facing the temporary municipal parking lot, and a west entrance facing
Darby Street.
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
Staff Report -September 25, 2003
Page 8
In 1998, the City purchased the site at the northwest corner of Bridge Street and High
Street to improve the visual quality of Old Dublin at this main intersection. The old gas
station was razed, and parking and landscaping were installed as a temporary use pending
agreement on a master plan for the property. When the corner is redeveloped, parking
resources and visibility for 24 Dazby Street may be seriously reduced. "I~hroughout a
recent public review of the proposed building modifications for this site, staff emphasized
that the proposed upgrades and re-orientation of tenant spaces will provide only ashort-
term solution for the site and immediate area. This process included the granting of five
variances by the Board of Zoning Appeals (See Record of Action 01-125V), and the City
Council approval of encroachments onto municipal property. Future development of City
property will likely obstruct or limit building access and/or visibility of 24 Darby Street.
Narrative:
Site Location and Description:
The 0.49-acre site fronts onto the east side of Darby Street, 160 feet north of West Bridge
Street. A 2,636-square foot building covers the site, and the site itself has no parking.
The temporary municipal parking lot borders the site to the east and south. Across Darby
Street to the west is the Dublin Veterinary Clinic, and across an alley to the north is
Tucci's Wood-Fired Bistro. A number of variances for this site were granted for building
renovations that are currently underway (See Board Order O 1-125 V).
The main public entrance to the building is on the east facade, and additional entrances
will be constructed on the south and west facades. Access to these entrances is actually
through the asphalt lot. Future space within the building is available for expansion or a
potential second tenant. As part of the on-going exterior renovations, the City of Dublin
approved an encroachment agreement to provide access from the temporary parking lot.
Existing Zoning:
This site and Tucci's restaurant to the north are zoned CB, Central Business District.
Permitted uses include residential, retail (including restaurants), offices, and personal and
consumer services (including salons). To the west, the Dublin Veterinary Clinic is zoned
CCC, Central Conununity Commercial District. To the east and south is the municipal
property zoned both CB and CCC.
Proposal:
This is a request fora 48-inch by 18-inch {six-square foot), rectangular sign on the south
facade. It will be hung between two storefront windows at a height of 12 feet. The
proposed distance between this sign and the main identification sign on the east (front)
facade is 43 feet, which does not meet the distance required by Code. The "Modern
Male" wall sign will be black and creme, matching the main identification sign. The
proposed sign will utilize gooseneck light fixtures for illurnination.
This request includes the incorporation of a 3.1-square foot vinyl applique window sign
at the west (rear} entrance along Darby Street. The 28-inch by 16-inch sign will read
"Handicap Entrance for Modern Male," and Code Limits it to two square feet.
Dublin Boazd of Zoning Appeals
Staff Report -September 25, 2003
Page 9
Staff Recommendation:
Staff believes that any informational signage would be more appropriately located adjacent to the
municipal parking lot to better direct handicapped patrons. Staff has been unable to establish
wither hardship or practical difficulty standards for the window sign. 'T'his section applies to
every business in Dublin, and the circumstances here are not extraordinary with regard to the
requested window sign. Staff is respectfully recommending disapproval of a variance to Section
153.157(M) for the window sign.
"T'he incorporation of the second wall sign appears to meet the intent of Code, and the proposal
works in conjunction with current public access to the entrance on that elevation. Future changes
to, or redevelopment of, the temporary parking lot or additional building tenants should require
reconsideration of the identification package for this site. Staff recommends approval for both
variances to Section 153.159(A)(4) with 14 conditions:
1) That any future modification to this sign be subject to review and approval by the
Architecture Review Board, and if necessary, the Board of Zoning Appeals;
2) That the second wall sign on the south elevation be approved with the fallowing
conditions, subject to staff approval:
(A} 'That the second wall sign be centrally located between the two storefront windows;*
(B) "That any necessary reconfiguration of gutters and downspouts to accommodate the
proposed sign be completed in conformance with the Guidelines;*
(C) That full public access to the south entrance be provided in conjunction with the
second sign during all hours of operation;* and
(D) That variances to Section 153159(A)(4) for a second wall sign and reduction of the
minimum distance between signs be obtained.*
3) That all proposed colors be of a matte or low-gloss finish consistent with the Guidelines;*
4) That signage be revised to utilize a more appropriate text style and/or other design details
consistent with the Guidelines, subject to staff approval;*
5) That any additional building tenant(s) or future changes to the municipal parking lot
require that all building signage, lighting, and awnings be brought back to the
Architectural Review Board and Board of Zoning Appeals for review;*
6) That simplified S- or L-shaped gooseneck be utilized for the proposed sign lighting,
subject to staff approval;*
7) That the proposed light fixture for signage utilize acut-off design with no visible light
source, and that the fixture be properly oriented toward the sign, subject to staff
approval;
8) That ail awnings indicate " 24 Darby" and that an additional awning with address and
exterior lighting be installed at the rear entrance along Darby Street to assist with
wayfinding and handicap access to the building;*
9) 'That the proposed informational window sign be replaced by an appropriate directional
placard indicating handicap access be located on the south elevation to direct patrons
from the parking lot;*
10} That acoach-style lamp fixture for entrance lighting be selected that is compatible with
the Guidelines, subject to staff approval;*
11} That a sign permit be obtained from the Division of Planning prior to instaliation;*
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
Staff Report -September 25, 2003
Page 10
12) That a building permit for the proposed lighting and awnings be obtained from the
Division of Building Standazds prior to installation;*
13) That final, scaled, dimensioned plans and elevations be submitted in conjunction with all
permit requests, subject to staff approval;* and
14) That all necessary variances be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, or that the
proposed signage be brought back to the Architectural Review Board for further review.
*All conditions as listed in the Staff Report for Case No. 03-110ARB. Board Order 03-110ARB
with additional and/or amended conditions will be distributed before the meeting.
Evaluation Option A
Criteria (Initial Pro osal)
Wall North side of project boundary/South
Characteristics side of 24 Darby building:
• Stacked limestone with flat top
,~ w aii ~pLio
Option B
Recommended
North side of project boundary/South side of
24 Darby building:
• Stacked limestone with flat top
• Remains 3' tall, 42" to the south of •
the 24 Darby building
• Where necessary, wall is capped
with hand railing along the steps
out of the 24 Darby doorway •
Remains 3' tall, 42" to the south of the
24 Darby building until the ramp
landing/steps to the formal green, then
lowers to 2' tall going east
Where necessary, wall is capped with
hand railing along the steps out of the 24
Darby doorway
Option C
North side of project boundary/South side of 24
Darby building:
• Stacked limestone with flat tap
• Remains 3' tall, 42" to the south of the 24
Darby building until the ramp landing/steps
to the formal green, then lowers to 2' tall
going east
• Where necessary, wall is capped with hand
railing along the steps out of the 24 Darby
doorway
West side of project boundary/East side of 24
Darby:
• Additional retaining wall runs 28' to the
north at a height of 2'
• The wall is interrupted by a set of limestone
steps connecting the plaza to the concrete
sidewalk adjacent to the building
Landscape West side of project boundary/East
Characteristics side of 24 Darby:
Turf installed on a 3% slope on the
east sidewalk of the 24 Darby
building
West side of project boundary/East side of
24 Darby:
• Ornamental grasses and flowering
shrubs installed on a 3% slope along the
east sidewalk of the 24 Darby building
West side of project boundary/East side of 24
Darby:
• Ornamental grasses and flowering shrubs
installed along the east sidewalk of the 24
Darby building
Continued -
Retaining Wall Options
Evaluation Option A Option B Option C
Criteria (Initial Pro osal} (Staff Recommended O tion}
Pros: • Approved by ARB • Addresses Planning Commission desire • Most closely matches tenant's request
• Keeps access to all entrances to 24 for increased visibility from formal • Addresses Planning Commission desire for
Darby Street green by reducing wall height from 3' to visibility from formal green by reducing
2' where feasible wall height from 3' to 2' where feasible
• Keeps access to all entrances to 24 • Keeps access to all entrances to 24 Darby
Darby
Cons: • Does not meet Planning • If 24 Darby building redevelops, these
Commission condition #4 improvements may require removal or
become useless due to reorientation of
entrances
• Additional expense and use of public
property exclusively benefits the private
property
Costs • As planned in landscape budget • Negligible -additional landscape • Estimated cost $5,545
material costs, reduced hadscape costs
Complete removal of the wall would require extensive reworking of the grading plan and would likely result in removal of the ADA
ramp and/or a reduction in the size of the formal green. Further, this will result in significant costs and delay to the project. Staff does
not recommend removal of the wall.
_~
-~~~
Date: November 30, 2007
To: Gary Sebach, -Tony Slanec
From: Diane Marin
Subjech Bridge 8~ High: Thelma Hill Property
The Thelma Hill property is located in the Northwest corner of the Bridge 8~ High project area.
The sidewalks, steps & landings that belong to this property along its south & east property lines
encroach onto the Dublin property. These encroachments fall within a 7.5 feet easement that was
granted to the property owner from The City of Dublin. This is a summary of the construction
elements on the Bridge & High project that will affect the Thelma Hill property (please see the
attached drawing depicting this property):
• North side of Bldg (facing Wing Hill Street): A sanitary sewer will be installed within the
Wing Hill Street which will result in pavement replacement of the alley. The existing mulched
area and steps will remain undisturbed.
• East side (facing the proposedl High Street bldg): The existing walk and steps will remain
undisturbed. The existing landscaping 8~ trees located on Dublin property will be removed &
replaced with ±5 feet of lawn.
• South side (facing court yard 8~ proposed Bridge Street bldg): A 3 feet high wall will be
installed (±1.5 feet thick) just off the existing walk. The existing walk east of the steps/bldg
entrance will remain undisturbed and will be connected with steps south, down to the
proposed courtyard. The existing steps 8~ walk west of the building entrance will be filled,
eliminating 2 steps and 3 feet of handrail, to maintain acceptable grade/positive slope to the
west where there is new curb installed at Darby Street. Any affected utility services along the
building that may be affected by raising the walk will be coordinated and adjusted
accordingly.
• West side (facing Darby Street): New walk and curb are proposed along Darby Street. This
results in eliminating existing asphalt "parking" area and raising the grade of new walk area
to positively slope to the road. In doing this we will need to eliminate about 5.5 feet of the
ramp area & it's handrail, located on the southwest corner of the building and filling this area
with concrete to maintain positive drainage away from the building. A handicap ramp will
also be installed at the intersection of Wing Hill & Darby Streets.
.. -O ~ • : ' ; area:
.~
W Existing Walk ~ _ ~
Q1
Q
Q}
L
('~
W
~.
^I.,
L
r~-„
{./~
~_
Ex, yL-tilch
,•Areb'.-.• £x. Hondrarl
Property -/
.... ...~'a.~.. Line
£x. Hondrait
~oQ.-
Ex. Bldg. ~~
'rl rr-f t I A , + 4t t
1'7c-t.,virr c.. (Jh.c.
u.G. 'vt/i ts, vvL
.•,•,•o'.'. •
w.. ...•.
~ ,•~.
N ,•..'. .4F • . • .
~ '.
~. '•
O
a> •' •~~
4,i
.C .-.
w
y :~.
~i
~A ~~
£x. Canopy £~ x. Handra~Y
£~x. Ramp^
IIII --
Ex. Asphalt Parking
' ~'xistirig `~~ ' ~ ~ ~ '
~as~xrreri'~ ' .~ ;
£x. Handrail
ling Edge of Poved Lane
~• .: .
~•
~' , ~ ; ,
• ~ • ,ExLawh
~. •-;` .
i
Ex. Curb
Darby Stree t
-o .
v
o,
.c
w
.~
W
Asphalt ~ ~ .Concrete .~~ Concrete
Drive - 'Drive; • Wa/k
Proposed ~ h. ..
Light ~~, // Proposed Gbwn }~, .
~O , fx.~Alultli
,C _AiePi'.•.•
Qo
0
L
N
~~
~_
Z
..~~.'-
;,4ifa~.
:~~
. _ ,rF~.•.•.•.•:
a
0
~~:®:
~ •'~~
vA~'
.~
~. •~•
.H
W
•~: Ex~Jkileii
Fill Romp Area ~;. ~•.Y :;::.
.~
._
Remove 5' of _
~.
ex. handrail * ~ ~ ~ "
_;_ _
~ v.~
£x. Romp 8.55
_ ,:; ~ .'
Y. V ~'
•~Pr'vposed'~:Cdnci~ete~ I~Go>'k:.
z. ` ... ~ V ••~ V~
Proposed Curb
Prop. Sawcu: &
Pavement Replacement
4~
O
3
~~1
(to be
Darby Street
h
0 of
3 h
-~.:
t
h
ti
Ex. Curb
emoved
•
Property
Line
Ex. Bldg.
ri mry ~ ~ ~ , i n/ ~
i f)i.t.~wr, t.. flic.t.
n ~~tir~ ~r+ tin7
Fi// Two Steps
(eliminate 2 steps-
remove associated
hondrai/, adjust
uti/ities as needed)
_ :~. .:
y ~Y
~ ~
"`V S~~ ..
Existing 7.5'
Eosemen t
~9 a
3
""
•':; ••~
.'~:
~~
:_,
....
G
Retaining Wall:._ ion A
(Initial_Frbposal)
F ----_
G
Retaining Wall Option B
(Staff Recommended Option)
-~- Retaining Wall Option C
G
C1TY OF DUBLIN_
Office oFthe City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490
TO: Members of City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
DATE: January 31, 2008
INITIATED BY: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning
Memo
RE: Ordinance 07-08 Rezoning- Bridge and High Streets Development,
20 West Bridge Street (Case No. 07-0992)
Request
This application is a rezoning request for the Bridge and High Streets Development
(application 07-0992) from: CB, Central Business District and CCC, Central Community
Commercial District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. The site consists of three
parcels totaling .7 acre at the northwest corner of the intersection of Bridge and High Streets.
The proposed PUD zoning allows up to 22,000-square-feet of retail, restaurant and office use.
Description
The site plan proposes two separate two-story mixed-use buildings located parallel to West
Bridge and North High streets. A formal public green will be located in the middle of the
block, framed by the existing building at 24 Darby Street and the two proposed buildings
along the south and east property lines. A public plaza is proposed at the southeast corner of
the site providing physical and visual access to the interior public space. Two water features
are proposed in this southeast plaza, as well as an area for future public art.
Patio space and potential balcony space is proposed along both buildings to serve the patrons
of future tenants, as well as the general public. Parking for these uses will be provided in off-
site municipal lots and designated on-street parking. A valet station and patron drop off area
is proposed at the western edge of the site, along Darby Street.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this rezoning on December
b, 2007 with the following seven conditions:
1. That Exhibit B of the development text and the preliminary development plan be
revised to include the location and size of the non-exclusive patio space area prior to
review by the ARB;
2. That the development text be revised to include the Sign and Graphics Plan prior to
review by the ARB;
3. That the applicant address the dumpster location by administering rules of operation
with pre-determined pickup schedule or relocation;
4. That the Landscape Plan include a cohesive street tree treatment that would begin at
this site to continue throughout the district;
Memo to City Council re Ordinance 07-08 Rezoning-Bridge & High
January 31, 2008
Page 2 of 3
5. That the development text be revised to require that patio fencing be of a consistent
character throughout the project;
6. That the development text be revised to require ice guards on areas of the building
with standing seam metal roofs; and
7. That the Sign and Graphics Plan be brought back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for Final Development Plan review.
The applicant has addressed Conditions 1, 2, 5, and 6 by modifying the development text and
associated exhibits. At the final development plan stage, Condition 3 was modified by the
Commission and Condition 7 was satisfied by the applicant. Condition 4 will be addressed by
City staff prior to installation of street trees.
For this case, staff is also providing background information from the final development plan
revie~~~ by the Planning and Zoning Commission and development review by the Architectural
Ret%iew Board.
Final Development Plan
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the final development plan on January 17,
2008 with the folio«~ing four conditions:
1. That trash be permitted to be stored within Building B only if an offsite refuse area is
not available at the time of tenant occupancy, to the satisfaction of Planning;
2. That the Sign and Graphics Plan be revised to specify that a maximum of three colors
are pei7nitted on all signs;
3. That the development text be revised to state that all sign dimensions specified are the
maximum sizes permitted; and
4. That the City work with the adjoining owner of 24 Darby Street to minimize issues
related to the size and scope of retaining walls, to the extent feasible.
The applicant will address Conditions 2 and 3 by revising the development text and associated
exhibits, and Conditions 1 and 4 will be addressed by staff, prior to issuance of occupancy
and building permits, respectively. The approval of the final development plan will not take
effect until the rezoning/preliminary development plan has been approved by City Council.
Recommendation of the Architectural Review Board
The Architectural Review Board approved the proposed architecture and site modifications on
January 9, 2408, with four conditions:
1. That the base design presented for the south end of Building B is approved as
currently depicted, but that the applicant coordinate with staff to determine if the
addition of a gable to the east and west elevations of this facade is architecturally
appropriate;
2. That limestone slab be the preferred stair tread material, but at the applicant's option,
the permitted materials be expanded to include concrete or other natural stone.
Memo to City Council re Ordinance 07-08 Rezoning-Bridge & High
January 31, 2008
Page 3 of 3
3. That at the applicant's option, the permitted paving materials for the public plazas be
expanded to include exposed aggregate colored concrete, concrete or brick pavers, or
natural stone subject to planning approval; and
4. That the applicant work with interested parties to develop design recommendations for
the future southeast plaza, utilizing the proposed patio foundations, and that the design
be returned to the ARB for further consideration.
The applicant will address Conditions 1, 2, and 3 prior to issuance of building permits.
Condition 4 will be satisfied through a public input session on February 4, 2008 and joint
work session of the Architectural Review Board and City Council on February 19, 2008.
Additional information regarding this case is available for public viewing at 5800 Shier-Rings
Road in the offices of Land Use and Long Range Planning.
Recommendation:
Approval of Ordinance No. 07-08 at the second readingt`public hearing on February 19, 2008.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ordinance 07-08 -BRIDGE AND HIGH STREETS DEVELOPMENT
Rezoning/Final Dev Plan (Case 07-0992)
1. Zoning Map & Site Details
2. Rezoning Application
3. Rezoning History -December 6, 2007
a. Record of Action
b. Meeting Minutes
~. Planning Report
4. Development Text
5. Final Development Plan History -January 17, 2008
a. Record of Action
b. Meeting Minutes
~. Planning Report
d. Correspondence from Stonehenge re: refuse removal program
e. Memo from City Forester re: Street Trees
6. ARB History -January 9, 2008 Special Meeting & December 19, 2007
a. Board Order
b. Meeting Minutes
~. Planning Report
d. Board Order
e. Meeting Minutes
t. Planning Report
g. Correspondence from the Historic District Consultant
7. Concept Plan History
8. Attachments
a. Final Development Plan
b. Architectural Elevations
~. Site Material Selections
a. Exterior Finish Selections
so ~ cB
so
J - f_ - ----- ~,
Darby Street - ~ ~ R-4
R-4
CB
CB
R-2 ~'
I R-4 '~
~1 ~ C B
-'_~ ----
CB - --
,Z
'y - - O \,
HB ~ CCC
`r Bridge Street
~ ~ ~ PUD
~ ~
I 1
~ CCC ,, ~i
~ ~~
'~ R-4
c~
CCC
_~
CCC '~
-n, PUD ~1
., I PUD
v ~.
x ~~ ~__
__ `j ',
c~
~~ ~' CB
PUD
- - -
~ y ~~
CB
HR
HR
N
City Of Dublin 07-0992/FDP A
Land Use and Rezoning/Final Development Plan
Long Range Planning Bridge and High Streets Development 0 75 15Feet
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
o~-o~~9zili UP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Budge Street
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN
07-099Z/FDP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 Wcst Bridge Street
'`-- _ ~J _ _- - ----
PROPOSED BRIDGE STREET BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
For color elevations please refer to the packet attachments
07-099"L/FU1'
Final Development Plan
Bridge and high Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
BRIDGE STREET BUILDING • SOUTH ELEVATION
PROPOSED BRIDGE STREET BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
E RIDDE STREET BUILDING -EAST ELEVATION
07-0997,/FDP
Final Development Plan
F3ridge and High Streets Development
2U West Bridge Street
BRIDDE STREET BVROINO - WEST El sNATpN
PROPOSED HIGH STREET BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
For color elevations please refer to the packet attachments
07-0)9Z/FDP
Final Development Plan
F3ridge and Eiigh Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
NqN 6i0.GGT ~NlAWO. iA~i it[VAl10N
PROPOSED HIGH STREET BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
HKiH STREET BUILDING -NORTH EL.GVATION
HIGH STREET BUILDING-SOUTH ELEVATION
Q7-099GL~ DP
Final Development Plan
I3ridgc and High Streets Development
20 West I3ridgc Street
PROPOSED SIGNS
2X PAINTED OR NDU SIGN
3"
- GOOSENECK iJGFiT
FIXTURES 3'
--
cn = -
~ v o
_
-
b - MAX ublin Villa ~ 6' M ~ ~ ~
-
M
- ~
~
- `~ ~
~ _
EQ
~ ~
I ~
I' Tl'P ~ ~
I
I _ -
- T-O' MAX. _ _ ~
~
* - 8'
O' MAX w
-
-
3'-6'
7' ax.
~ ~ - WROUGHT -
IRON
- ~ -~ ~ BRACKET
- R Ct1A1N
~~ ~I
Dublin ZX
--
°g- I ~ - PAINTED
C9: cn N I •
> N Village ~ o °oU
m I ' SIGN
a ~ _ "~~- - -- - - - ------~
' T ---~
Qi
~ ~ 3' -I-- __.-.. 2'-6' ---- .. 3.
. ~ - - -- 3'-O' MAX.
W
8B SIGNAGE -Wall Mounded Bracket Signage - Optional
2X PAINTED W000
OR FiDU SIGN
~ I ~ Dublin
o
N ~.~ Village
,- (V 1- C~~~ ~ 2..
C 31GNAGE - ,f I ~-6' MAx.
Wall Mounted Directory sign Detail
* For additional sign detail including colors, materials, and locatic
please refer to the Development Text. 07-o99ziF>UP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
CITY OF DUBLIN,.
January 2007
EXHIBIT "B"
REZONING APPLICATION
(Code Section 153.234)
TO EXPIRE
ORDINANCE NUMBER
land Uta and
long RangePlanning _
CITY COUNCIL (FIRST READING) ' ~'~. 4 2~8
5800 Shier-Rings Rood
Dublin. Ohio 43016.1236 CITY COUNCIL (PUBLIC HEARING) ?,Gt7~j
Phone/TOO: 614-410-4600 CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Foz:614-410-4747
web Sita: wMrv.UUbl'v~.oh.ui
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.
I. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION:
[~ Preliminary Development Plan (Section 153.053)
^ Other (Please Describe)
II. PROPERTY INFORMATION: This section must be completed.
Property Address: ~ U ~~Il QG ~ r ~ ~ ~~jY ST
Z73 - QO ~ ~ ~~3 - odGo6y
Tax ID/Parcel Number(s):
273- oo a oo z ~-~ - ooa /yt G .$
Parcel Size (Acres): ~}-
Existing Land Use/Development: ~~~ S~rdl(i~ ~~A/` Lp
Proposed Land Use/Development: ~ ~ X ~ _ Uf lC
Existing Zoning District: ~ ~ G~ Requested Zoning District: ~ Total Acres to be Rezoned: 6 ~ f/
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:
S~~ .R'TTA~H-r~~
B. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the existing and potential future land use character of the
vicinity: ~~,,~ ^.~-.~.,~~~ '~
~ t'~~ ~T J r r-"'~s r~t~
C. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan and, if applicable, how the proposed
rezoning meets the criteria for Planned Districts (Section 153.052(8)]:
S i ~ /~}Tfx1~FYF,~
D. Briefly address how the proposed rezoning and development meet the review criteria for Preliminary Development Plan approval by
the Planning and Zoning Commission as stated in [Section 153.055(A)] (SEE ATTACHMENT A): ~'~° ~ ~j
Page 1 of 5 ~ , (~~~j ~~~~
(, I t ut uur X11
LAND USE &
LONG RANGF p? ANNING
Has a previous application to rezone the property been denied by City Council within the last twelve months? ~ Yes No
if yes, list when and state the basis for reconsideration as noted by Section 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 AND THIRTEEN (13) COPIES Please notarize agent authorization, if
necessary.
^ FOURTEEN {14) COPIES OF A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
~] FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A TAX PARCEL ID MAP indicating property owners and parcel numbers for all parcels within 500 FEET of
the site (Maximum Size 11X17) Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance.
^ FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LIST OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET of the perimeter of the property
based on the County Auoitor'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 Oublin to notify surrounding property owners of pending applications under public
review. Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance.
^ FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF THE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
^ FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE {24X36) COPIES OF SCALED SITE/STAKING PLANS SHOWING:
a. North arrow and bar scale.
b. Location, size and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping,
structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking).
c. Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, number of dwellings, building/unit types, square footages, parking,
open space, etc.).
d. Size of the site in acres/square feet.
e. All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights-of-way, easements, and other information related to the site.
f. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries.
g. Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties.
^ tF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14} SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING SCALED
PLANS:
a. Grading Plan.
b. Landscaping Plan.
c. Lighting Plan.
d. Utility and/or Stormwater Plan.
e. Tree Survey, Tree Preservation and Tree Replacement Plans
IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL {11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) SCALED, ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS
with proposed colors and materials noted.
IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN {14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF SCALED DRAWINGS
SHOWING:
a Location of signs and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window).
b. Sign dimensions, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grade.
c. Copy Layout and lettering styles (fonts) of signage.
d. Materials and manufacturer to be used in fabrication.
e. Total area of sign face (including frame)
f. Type of illumination
^ MATERIAUCOLOR SAMPLES (swatches, photos, plans, or product specifications). Include manufacturer name and product number.
REC~~rl~D
Page 2 of 5 ~ ~1 .}'Y,i~„~G~ ~ ~„ (J
1.1 l t u+ uu ~l~ ' 1~~1)
t.or'dG RAT c~p~, ~r~ING
V. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER(S): This section must be completed. Please attach additional sheets if needed
Name {Individual or Organization): G (~ ~•-- ~ ~(~
Mailing Address:
(Street, City, State, Zip Code) ~tr,/ Sr'T ~~i~..' }~(J~(~p,~ ~~,.(N d ~ y 3V /
Daytime Telephone: / ~ _ '! ~U ~ ~~~f7 Fax: /~~ ~ ~/0 ~ ~~~
~J
Email or Alternate Contact Information:
VI. APPLICANT: Please complete if applicable. This is the person(s) who is requesting the zone change if different than the property
owner(s).
Name: {~Q 1~. ~ Qv~
Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): -~~ STGf~.(~~lf~~ Go
/~~• i
Mailing Address: r~
(Street, City, State, Zip Code) / I/
/~I~}- ~-~'(G/-~ ~ ~j~-~,~.~~ Q ?,, ~~d
Daytime Telephone: ~O~ ` g~0~ Fax: ~D~ ~ pa//
Email or Alternate Contact Information: 1~'1D, DIpU1CF ~ 5,.1-o~fF~t~MGF ~GGl~tpk}~~(. GdM
VII. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF OWNER/APPLICANT: Please complete if applicable. This is the primary contact person who will
receive correspondence regarding this application. If needed, attach additional sheets for multiple representatives.
Name: ~al` ~G~^(;Z,gr' ~1
Organization: ~I~h ~.}~'~ ~^t ~ ~_}7r~~jA~`~
` ailing Adtdyress: p ) ~ ~-~/ ~ ~ `~~~ ~ ~{„ ~` ~ ' ~~ ~' „
Street, Ci ,State, Zi Code t ( ~C Vim (~
Daytime Telephone: ~ i~ ~. , { '~ ~L Fax: ~~ 4 . ~ g i 4
Email or Alternate Contact Information: (~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I t^~ ~ ~'~ , Gf~
~~~~~~~
Page 3 of 5 (~ ~,T ~ 2~Q7
l.il1 Vf uU UI.I IV
LONG RaN°c,F PEANr~ING
VIII. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE(S): If the applicant is not the property owner, this
section must be completed and notarized.
~t' +~~~~~` V ~ (~' "v t G,~j~KN`~r"'t`" ~G7~(~ ~~ ~~~ i N ,the owner, hereby authorize
`~ V ' ` ) ~~ ~~~~1 'l~~j w~ 17 ~~~ to act as my applicant representative(s)
rtaining to the processing and approval of this application, including modifying the project. I agree to be bound by all
representations and agreements made by the designated representative.
Signature of Current Property Owner T f ~~~~ I Date: ~ ~~ /z ~ /~~,ry I
Subscribed and sworn to before me this .,~ day of ~~I~CJ , 20
State of ~ ~/ ~ - p"~ Pt F9
/ S A
County of ~i'R-r~ ~ 6 / Notary Public ~' ~ -1 . ~H L. GLICK
t Notary Public -State of Ohio
~~'~,`:; ~~~'-~= ;~ v ~ My Commission Expifes May 19, 2409
~r ~~
IX. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property~'tYy ~tlFp'tO'epresentatives are essential to process this
application. The OwnerlApplicant, as notarized below, hereby authorizes City 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 andlor Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of
Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said OwnerlApplicant.
and notarized.
information submitted is complete and
Signature of applicant or authorized
rJ'ty ~Tl, the owner or authorized representative, have
ion contained in this application, attached exhibits and other
to the best of my knowledge and belief.
i~
Subscribed~a~nd sworn to before me this 1 - day of
State of y, ~ ~ U
County of ~'n.L : ~1 (~-~ 1 r'1 Notary Public
Date: 1 ~/~QJO
ROBYN D. HARP
Notary Public, State of Ohio
Commission Expires 09/09/200
NOTE: THE OWNER, OR NOTED REPRESENTATIVE IFAPPLICABLE, WILL RECEIVE A FACSIMILE CONFIRMING RECEIPT OF THIS APPLICATION
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Amount Received: Application No: P8Z Date(s): P&Z Action:
Receipt No: MIS Fee No: Date Received: Received By:
Type of Request:
N, S, E, W (Circle) Side of:
Nearest Intersection:
Distance from Nearest Intersection: ,~
if,~ .rq ~ ?1 r~ i
Page 4 of 5 - - ~~~'
or. T o ~ 200
~~If~~~; 9~~G~1~~~~'d'
LONG IfiANp F p~>t~i+`lelletr_
ATTACHMENT A: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA
§ 153.055
(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 with 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;
(Q) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the city so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will
be safeguarded;
(5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan;
(6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the
site;
(7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention andtor necessary facilities have been or are being provided;
(i3) 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} The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and structures, yard space, design
and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overall 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, wafer courses and drainage areas;
(12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard devel-
opment regulations included in the Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent
of the Planned Development District regulations;
(13} The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable
appearance standards of the city;
(14) The proposed phasing of development 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 deveiopment 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 contributions to the public Infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service
the new development.
REG~w~+~0
OCT 01 2007
Page 5 of 5 (,I I r ~, ,,,~„~~~~
~.ONG RAND F PE &
alunllNG
l,ONING DESCRIPTION
O.C,8f ACRF,S
SITUATE IN TE {E STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, CITY OF DUBLIN, LYING IN
VIRGINIA M]L[TARY SURVEY 2512, BEING ALL OF LOT 144, LOT 145, PART OF LOT l46 AS
CONVEYED TO T}IE CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO BY DEED OF RECORD IN INSTRUMENT
NUMBER 199801090006648, (ALL REFERENCES REFER TO TEiE RECORDS OF THE
RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO) BEMG MORE PARTICULARLY
llESCR[BEU AS FOLLOWS:
BEGLNNING AT THE SOU'PI (EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 144, BEING THE RIGHT-OF-
WAY IN"tERSECTION OF HIGH STRF.F.T AND BRIDGE STREET;
THENCE SOUTH 81 ° 42' S5" WEST, A DLSTANCE 166.33 FEET, WITH THE NORTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID BRIDGE STREET AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT
144, TO A SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER TEIEREOF,'BEING TFIE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY
LIN)~: OF A 30' WIDE ALLEY;
THENCE NORTH 08° 24' l2" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 154.00 FEET, WITH THE WESTERLY LINE
OF SAID LOTS, BEMG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF•WAY LINE, TO A SOUTHWESTERLY
CORNER OF TEiAT TRACT AS CONVEYED TO THELMA L. HILL BY DEED OF RECORD 1N
DEED BOOK 3560, PAGE 602;
TE~NCE NORTH 81 ° 42' SS" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET, WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE
OF SAID THELMA L. HILL TRACT, TO A SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER THEREOF;
THENCE NORTH 08° 24' 12" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 50,00 FEET, WITH AN EASTERLY LINE
OF SAID THELMA L. HILL TRACT, TO A NORTHEASTERLY CORNER THEREOF IN THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF A 16.5' WII1E ALLEY;
THENCE NORTIE 81 ° 42' S5" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 86.33 FEET, WITEE TFEE NORTHERLY LINE
OF SAID LOT 146, BEING THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID ALLEY, TO A
NORTHEASTERLY CORNER THEREOF, BEING M THE WESTERLY RIGHT-0F-WAY LINE OF
SAID HIGH STREET;
TEiENCE SOUTH 08° 24' 12" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 204.00 FEET, WITH THE EASTERLY LINE
OF SAED LOTS, BEING THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HIGH STREET, TO THF.
POEiv'T OF AEGINNING, CONTARJING 0.65 ACRE, MORE OR LESS,
THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED USING RECORD DOCUMENTS ONLY AND IS
NOT TO BE USED FOR TRANSFER.
HLK:TBiSEPTEMBER 27, 2007
0 6R AC 71058
O~C~1 1~~007~~
i.AND USE &
f.ONr. ane~.r,r- ~~ ANNING
Z4NlNG EXH/B/T
VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY 2512
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton A THton, Inc,
Englncers • surveyor • Pmnnen . saenthK C/TY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
5500 New A~bony Road, Columbw. OM dJOS~
Phone: d1/J75./500 fmC dU,71S,/e0p
M c M x v s OsM: Obaember3, 2007 Job Ab, 2007-IOSB Sarb• 1'"40•
t ~.,.~...~~' 86.33' 1
"'~ N81'42'55"E
ALLEY (16.5 ~
~ __ 2
~ The/ma L. Hi/l ~~ ~ '"~-
D.B. 3560, Pg, 602 0'° : (p/D 271 1000065)
N
~ ~
u 80.00' ~
N81 42'55 "~ .a
~ ~ --~-~--" ^' z
~. ' a Z a
~ ~ ~ N Lo( 145 ~
nS w ~ 1
N ~ r; ` ~ The City of Dublin, Ohio N ~ n~ 1!. f
^ ~ N l.N. 199801090006648 ~ y
~ ~ ~ `, 0/.681 Ac. _ _ $ I
~' / ~ 4
v ~A, ~ (( I 1
p oa~J` ~ Lot 144
J
166.33'
58142 55"
~ L.,,
~ __------- _ S_~•--
~~ BRIDGE I
~ i
0
0
40' 0 40' 80' Note:
This survey wos prepared using
record documents on/y and is
GRAPHIC SCALE NOT to be used for transfer.
(lN FEET)
Stonehenge Company / Dublln Town Center ALTA ~ Topo Survey / 2007-1058 / 71058zn1
Proximity Report Results
Proximity Report ResuNs
The selected parcel was 273-00014x.
To vrew a fable sfiowig the 79~a[u~i
witldn the displayed pro~ornity, swop down.
~ Print window
0 ~dc_to Proxirnihr R@~
Page 1 of 3
Disdaimee
This rtsap is prepared for the real property ixttrCOry widen this county. It is compiled from recorded deeds, survey pmts, and other pubFc records and data. tlsets of '
ih15 nBp are rwtYted M1at fhe publlC primary information SoUILe Sf Wt/d bC CIXKt~ted fOt 1Rf1f~On Of the IrfOT1at10f1 mfdaRlC(1 On II~S Rlap. The ~y alYl tl12
llLapprng cnrtQaNes assure rW legal resporesibAities for the Infamlatlam COntalned an this map. Please notIIy the Frarddin t..ouKy GLS Drviston d arty diSII'[~alYleS.
Proxiimity Parcels
pNr~ To coPY this report !o another program:
1. Hold down the Idt mouse buttlon aver the Lop~eft corrkr of the area you warrt fn get
2. Drag fhe mace m the battnrrt-leR comer of the desired area.
3. !Zt go of the mouse button.
4. Select f~ SPpY from the memr bar.
You can then Pas1E the report into another appliption.
Parcel Owner Name Address
273-OOOOlb 25 NORTH CO LTD 24 NHIGH
273-000071 25 NORTH 00 LTD 28 NHIGH
273-000003 25 NORTH COMPANY LTD 56 NHIGH
273-000018 37 DARBY Ca LlU 37 DARBY
273-000088 37 WEST BRIDGE STREET LLC 37 BRIDGE
273-004081 72 HIGH COMPANY LTD 20 NORTH
273-000028 72 HIGH COMPANY LTD 72 NHIGH
273-000027 84 HIGH CO LTD 84 NHIGH
273-004080 84 N HIGH COMPANY LTD 94 HIGH
273-000034 ALLESPACH SIEGBERT A TR ALLESPACH R
273-000093 ALLESPACH SIEGBERT A TR ALLESPACH R 55
273-005565 B E T INVESTMENTS I LLC 62 NRNERVIEW
273-000073 8 E T INVESTMENTS I LLC 45 NRNERVIEW
273-000042 B E T INVESTMENTS I LLC 37 NRNERVIEW ~UL 0 2 ~nn7
273-000107 B E T INVESTMENTS I LLC 17 NRNERVIEW f~(o~
u~ [1UBLiN
C
273-00006
S E T
V
ENT
LL 40 EBRIDGE CI I
Y
8
IN
ESTM
S I
C LA
273-000048 BAILEY JONATHAN D BAILEY TASHA M 55 SRNERVIEW NNING
LONG RANGE P
273-000024 BASSETT THOMAS L ET AL 41 WBRIDGE ~ EILE COPY
http://249.51.193.87/scripts/mw5rer.pl 7/2/2007
Map Search Real Estate Seazch Mrditor Home
Image Date: Mon ]u12 10:59:312007
Proximity Report Results
273-000012 BASSETT THOMAS L LYDEN VICKI E 35 SHIGH
273-000029 BLARNEY BROTHERS LTD : 53 NHIGH
273-000099 BUSH JOHN BUSH MICHELLE K 36 NHIGH
273-000109 CASSADY BETTY J 40 FRANKLIN
273-000079 CASTRAY TIMOTHY E 25 SRIVERVIEW
273-005566 CITY OF DUBLIN 62 N RIVERVIEW
273-003513 CITY OF DUBLIN 62 N RIVERVIfW
273-000062 CITY OF DUBLIN 27 SHIGH
273-000037 CITY OF DUBLIN 25 SHIGH
273-009979 CITY OF DUBLIN 1 WBRIDGE
273-000111 CTTY OF DUBLIN OHIO 34 FRANKLIN
273-000148 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 20 WBRIDGE
273-000002 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO NHIGH
273-000064 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO E BRIDGE
273-000065 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO NHIGH
273-003680 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 35 DARBY
273-000310 CiiY OF DUBLIN OHIO DARBY
273-000098 COFFMAN COMPANY L7D 53 NRIVERVIEW
273-000032 COFFMAN COMPANY LTD 27 NRIVERVIEW
273-004507 COLUMBUS METRO LIBRARY 8D OF TRS 75 NHIGH
273-000010 COLUMBUS METRO LIBRARY BD OF TRS 75 NHIGH
273-OOOOZS CANGREGATIONAL CHURCH 811NBRIDGE
273-000044 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF W BRIDGE
273-000113 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF DUBLIN 81 WBRIDC~
273-000096 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF DUBLIN Si WBRIDGE
273-000077 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF Ot1BLJN OHI W BRI
273-000096 ODNGREGATiONAL CHURCH OF DUBLIN 81 WBRIDGE
273-000089 CULLEIV THOMAS 32 SHIGH
273-000008 CULLEN T}{p~ 30 SHIGH
273-OOOi22 DUBLIN COMMUNITY CHURCH 59 FRANIa1N
2T3-000022 DUBLIN MARATHON SERVICE 00 9 SHIGH
273-000072 G&S PROPERTIES & SANFORD J SOLOMON 38 SHIGH
273-012158 GRABILL & CO LLC
273-000023 GUTHRIE TRACEY J 32 WBRIDGE
273-000040 GUY INVESTMENT 0~ LTD 14 SHIGH
273-000102 GUY JOHN A & HERMANNA M 22 SHIGH
273-000121 HAYDOCY KATHRYN H 56 FRANKLIN
273-000112 HILL THELMA L 24 DARBY
273-000054 HILL THELMA L 35 NHIGH
273-000014 JACOBY BEN & BETTY J CO-TRS 58 SHIGH
273-000759 JACOBY BETTY J & BEN CO-TRS SHIGH
273-000053 .K LAND COMPANY LTD 22 NHIGH
273-000051 JENKINS DUBLIN LLC 6 SHIGH
273-000080 JONES BRION D LANNAN KATHLEEN M 37 SRNERVIEW
273-000047 JONES HERBERT W & LEONA M 19 SRTVERVIEW
27'3-000100 LAPIERRE JAMES M DDS INC 40 NHIGH
273-000138 MALOOF MICHAEL F & VANESSA G 16 EBRIDGE
273-000177 MALOOF MICHAEL F & VANESSA G 16 E BRIDGE
273-000069 MCCORMICK CHERYL L 8 EBRIDGE
273-000056 PRICE JACK A 24 SHIGH
273-000087 RAY MICHAEL LTD 48 SHIGH
273-000092 RICHARDS JOYCE M TOD 63 SHIGH
Page 2 of 3
http://209.5 t .193.87/scripts/mw5rer.pl 7/2/2007
Proximity Report Results
z73-oooooa RIVERS EoG~ Two
273-005564 RIVERViEW STREET INVESTMENTS LTD
273-000097 BOBBINS GLEN A
273-000084 SHANGHI ENTERPRISES LLC
273-000050 SONKSEN PROPERTIES LLC
273-003411 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN
273-003410 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN
273-000001 WASHINGTON L S D BOARD OF EDUCATION
273-000036 WILAND ELAINE M
MetaMAE
94 NHIGH
6z N RIVERVI
54 SHIGH
50 WBRIDGE
45 NHIGH
19 S RIVERVIEW
S6 S RIVERVIEW
80 WBRIDGE
3B WBRIDGE
Page 3 of 3
http:/!209.5 ! .193.87/scripts/mw5rer.pl 7/2/2007
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
DECEMBEK 6, 2007
CITY OF DUSL[[Y_
tuna use ana
long Range Phnaing
5800 Shier-Rings Road
Duhlin, Ohio 4301b-1236
Phone: 614-410-4600
Fax: 614-410-0747
Weh Site: www.duhhn.ofi.us
The Planning and "Coning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
8. Bridge and Iligh Streets Development 20 West Bridge Street
07-099Z/FDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
Final Development Plan
Proposal: A mixed-use development with approximately 22,000 square feet
of retail and office space and associated site improvements located
at the northwest corner of Bridge and High Streets.
Request: Review and approval of a rezoninglpreliminary development and
final development plan under the Planned District provisions of
Code Section 153.050.
Applicant: City of Dublin, represented by Mo M. Dioun, The Stonehenge
Company.
Planning Contact: Abby Scott, Planner.
Contact Information: {614) 410-4654, ascots@dublin.oh.us
MOTION #1: To approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development plan because the proposal
complies with the applicable criteria and the existing development standards within the area,
with seven conditions:
1) That exhibit B of the development text and the preliminary development plan be revised
to include the location and size of the n.on-exclusive patio space area prior to review by
the ARB;
2) That the development text be revised to include the Sign and Graphics Plan prior to
review by the ARB;
3) That the applicant address the dumpster location by administering rules o{'operation with
pre-determined pickup schedule or relocation;
4) That the Landscape Plan include a cohesive street tree treatment that would begin at this
site to continue throughout the district;
5) That the development text be revised to require that patio fencing be of a consistent
character throughout the project;
6) That the development text he revised to require ice guards on areas of the building with
standing seam metal roofs; and
?) That the Sign and Graphics Plan be brought back to the Plaru~ing andI.oning
Commission for Final Development Plan review.
*Sara Ott, representing the applicant, agreed to the above conditions.
Page 1 of 2
PLANNING AND 7,UNING CUMMISSIUN
RECORD OF ACTION
DF,CEMBF,R G, 2007
8. Bridge and High Streets Development 20 West Bridge Street
07-099Z/FllP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
Final Development Plan
VOTE: 5 2.
RF,SULT: 'I~his Rezoning/Preliminary Development Ptan was approved.
MUTIUN #2: "I'o table this Final Development Plan in order for the project to be reviewed and
approved by Architectural Keview Board before returning to the Planning and Zoning
Commission, no later than January 17, 2008.
*Sara Ott, representing the applicant, agreed.
VOTF,: 7 - 0.
RESULT: The Final Development plan. was tabled
STAFF CFRTiI~ ICA"PION
_ ~C..~1
Abby S~ t A
Planner
Page 2 of 2
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 6, 2007 - Mis~ntes
Page t 2 of 18
Motion and Vo
Mr. Zimme an made a motion to pprove this Corridor D elopment District app ' anon
because a proposed building co inates with the archite ral design of the ovcra shopping
cent development and meet a review criteria for the orridor Development D- rict with one
dified condition:
l) The archi tural details for the o oor cooler and servic area match the origin•
propo with the addition of idow's walk detail ~ ng the top of the pro sed
~~aneholtz seconded the otion. Mr. Ford agree o the above condition. he vote was as
ollows: Mr. Walter, ye , r. Fishman, yes; Ms. morose Groomes, ycs; . McCash, no, after
confirming that m tuns in the windows ere not being require Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr.
Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes Approved b -- 1.)
8. Bridge and High Streets Development 20 West Bridge Street
07-099Z/FDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
Final Development Plan
Mr. Gerber swore in those intending to testify in regard to this case.
Abby Scott presented this request for review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary
development plan and final development plan for 22,000 square feet of mixed-use development
to be located at the northwest corner of Bridge and High Streets. She said this project is a public
private partnership between the City of Dublin and the Stonehenge Company. She said the
concept plan for this development was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on
August 9, 2407. Ms. Scott said major points from that discussion included the size and use of
plazas, building and window location, site accessibility, building height and materials.
Ms. Scott said the site is located in Historic Dublin and is currently zoned CB, Central Business
District and CC, Community Commercial District. She said the applicant is requesting to rezone
the property to a Planned Unit Development District. Ms. Scott said the site consists of three
parcels totaling 0.7 acre and the proposed site plan shows the buildings in relation to the street,
the internal public green space and the public plaza at the corner. She said the building
footprints will be owned by the Stonehenge Company and the rest of the site will be City owned.
Ms. Scott said the existing building on the northwest corner. is not part of the proposed
development, but was incorporated into the overall design of this site. She said two water
features are proposed at the southeast comer of the site between the proposed buildings and the
public plaza, a patron drop-off area is located on the west side of the site, and the sidewalks
along Bridge and High Streets will he brick and will include street trees. Ms. Scott said that
vehicular access to Wing Hill from North High Street will be removed that the parking lot for
this development is located northwest of the site. She said a significant change to the initial site
plan is the improvement of the accessibility of the site, which was made by eliminating the stairs
between the two plazas and at the corner of the site.
Ms. Scott said the proposed elevations of the Bridge and 1-sigh Street development indicate
buildings, which are designed to appear like a series of srnaller coruiected buildings. She said
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 6, 2007 -Minutes
Page 13 u#~ 18
suggestions from the Commission regarding the architecture, building height and materials were
considered and incorporated into the revisions. Ms. Scott said that it will be the responsibility of
the Architectural Review Board to review the architectural details of the plan for compliance
with the historic Dublin Design Guidelines. Ms. Scott presented a slide showing all possible
patio locations for the development, which allows a maximum of 3,000 square feet of patio area
as a permitted use. She said that Planning is anticipating that some of the patio spaces will be
associated with the tenants and some will be available for public use.
Ms. Scott said the landscape plan for proposed development relies on use of more handscape
materials to support the high level of pedestrian activity. She said the center of the site will have
an open grassy area with trees on the north and west sides, additional landscaping will be located
throughout the site in raised planters and in beds along the building foundations. Ms. Scott said
street trees will be located along both West Bridge and North Nigh Streets. She said the sign
details are similar to what is currently used in the Town Center 1 development across the street.
Ms. Scott said the first floor tenants may have a wall sign and a projecting sign on the street
elevations and one or the other of those signs on the interior elevations. Ms. Scott said no signs
are permitted on the ends of the buildings and the second floor tenants will have a directory sign
by the entrance. She said Planning has requested that the applicant prepare a sign and graphics
plan with locations colors, materials and design details.
Ms. Scott said that this request combines the rezoning/preliminary development plan and final
development plan steps and will require two motions. She said that this proposal was evaluated
based on the criteria for the review and approval for arezoning/preliminary development plan,
the Community Plan and the Land Use Principals, which are summarized in the Planning Report.
She said in Planning's opinion this proposal complies with the applicable criteria set forth in the
Zoning Code and approval with two conditions as summarized is recommended.
Ms. Scott said evaluation of this project is also based on the criteria for the review and approval
for a final development plan. She said in Planning's opinion this proposal complies with the
applicable criteria sei forth in the Zoning Code and approval with two conditions is
recommended.
Mr. Gerber asked why this case was before them tonight as he was under the impression that the
Architectural Review Board would review all the details before the Commission is asked to vote
on a final development plan. He said procedurally he has a hard time approving a final
development plan which in reality is not really final. Mr. Gerber said the Architectural Review
Board may want to make changes to the presented plans.
Mr. Gunderman said taking this case to the Architectural Review Board first is an issue which
Planning considered. He said there were a number of things which were critical in terms of the
layout of the property and Planning did not feel it was appropriate to give this case to the
Architectural Review Board if the Commission determined the layout of the site needed to be
restructured. NIr. Gunderman said the layout seems to be more of the issue in terms of this
project. He said it was a logical decision to bring this case to the Commission first to try to come
to a conclusion concerning the open areas, landscaping material and access. He said the basic
components of the architecture are what the Architectural Review Board had weed to in the last
meeting.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 6, 2007 -Minutes
Page 14 of 38
Mr. Gerber said if this case was only rezoning or preliminary hearing he would see why that
thought process would make sense. He said he has a hard time delegating the review of a final
development plan to another board when the responsibility falls on the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Mr. McCash reminded the Commissioners 'that this site is City-owned and the City is not
generally required to go through the public approval process on land it owns. He said that it has
always been City policy to subject ourselves to the same rules as anybody else.
Mo Dioun, Stonehenge Company, said that the plans being presented are the result of various
recommendations made by the Architectural Review Board. He said Stonehenge has modified
the architecture to the best of their ability to ensure every aspect meets Code requirements. Mr.
Dioun said he has created a balance between the market place approach to the two buildings
along the public plaza space that the City wanted to create.
David Garcia, 109 S. Riverview Street, asked how large the corner plaza will be and if it will
accommodate the intended public uses. Ms. Scott said the plaza is 1,1 U{) square feet. Mr. Garcia
asked if the size will change. Ms. Scott said the building footprints have been previously
established by the development agreement. Mr. Gerber asked if Mr. Garcia is questioning if the
area is not large enough to accommodate the potential activities. Mr. Garcia responded yes. He
asked if the community will lose anything if the site is too small. Mr. Garcia asked what will
happen to the holiday tree location ones a structure is erected at that location. Sara Ott said staff
has been discussing the relocation of the holiday tree with the Community Relations department.
She said a number of options are being explored to find a safe gathering place for the Historic
Dublin.
Craig Barnum, representing Oscar's and Tucci's restaurants, said he is concerned about the
proposed dumpster area in close proximity to Tucci's restaurant. Mr. Dioun said the buildings
were designed to hide dumpsters internally. Mr. Barnum saki he is concerned that smells will
become an issue no matter how well the dumpster is enclosed. He asked if it is possible far the
dumpster to be placed in an alternative area. Todd Zimmerman said this is the first time he has
heard anything about the dumpster location posing a problem. He said the dumpster location is a
legitimate concern for the neighbors, and there will need to be a resolution. Mr. Zimmerman
requested that alternative locations for the dumpsters be submitted.
Mr. Barnum said prior to this proposed development there are 86 parking spaces in the area and
the new lot has 104 parking spaces. He said there is not enough parking fora 22,000-square-foot
develapment, which will contain another restaurant, or bar. Warren Fishman said he is concerned
with the parking because there is not enough room for additional vehicles. Mr. Fishman said it
was not proposed but it needs to be addressed. Mr. Zimmerman asked that the distance
pedestrians are willing to walk needs to be taken into consideration.
Chris Amorose Groomes said it has been previously discussed that trash pick-up cannot interfere
with pedestrian walkways. She said she would like to discuss that problem first.
Mr. Fishman said that the businesses need to get together to discuss how to handle parking. He
said he is concerned that proposed site is too small for all that has been suggested. Mr. Fishman
said he feels that the patios are not going to be utilized due to their location.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December b, 2007 -Minutes
Page 15 of 18
Mr. Gerber said the property poses a very intense use for such a small space. He said he is
having problems digesting the general layout.
Mr. Fishman said the intent was to have a community gathering center in this area. He is
concerned that the proposed plan will not have a great turnout over time.
Kevin Walter questioned if an `L' shaped retail center is wanted at the heart of the City.
Mr. Fishman said he is concerned that a sense of community will be lost without the current open
area.
Mr. Walter said the north-south building ties into the current streetscape. He said putting a
building in the east-west corner will cause the loss of the community feet.
Ted Saneholtz asked what the closest point is between building A and B. He said he feels that
the view shed will be lost. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it will be between 20 and 25 feet. Mr.
Saneholtz asked if he is stopped at the intersection will he be able to see the internal green space.
Ms. Ott said the design is intended to allow people to see in between the buildings and want to
explore the internal green area. Mr. Saneholtz said he is concerned with the site line between the
buildings. He said in order to support the present idea he needs to understand the visual concept
of the plan. Mr. Waiter said he is proposing the corner is opened up.
Mr. Walter said the expectation of those in Historic Dublin is to have a gathering place for the
community. He said no matter how a structure is placed on the Iot it will cause the atmosphere
to change, and the community feeling will be last and it is important to maintain a sense of the
community.
Mr. Saneholtz said he does not feel the community will like the idea of placing a building in that
area because it will cause the loss of the community gathering place. Ms. Amorose Groomes said
the distance between building A and B will be less than the size of this room. She said it is
unfortunate the piece of property in question is not larger, if it were it would fit everything which
is envisioned for the lot.
Mr. Saneholtz said he likes everything about the proposal except the small square for activities.
He said he feels the architecture is great and that the space will look great with the proposed
layout. Mr. Saneholtz said he has heard from those in Historic Dublin that the area is supposed
to be a place for gatherings, but he does not feel that will occur with only 25 feet between the
buildings.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said the green currently there is as large as it is going to get. She said it
is necessary to determine if placing a building on the lot will outweigh the current use of the
land. Mr. Zimmerman said when he looked at the plan he determined it would not be an open
space for gatherings, but it would become an area which caters to the restaurants. He said there
are plenty of areas within Historic Dublin for activities.
Mr. Fishman said the area would be more functional if 20 feet could be removed from the
buildings to make them more functional. Tom McCash said if the green space is not enough for
Planning and Zoning Commission
December G, 2007 -Minutes
Page Z 6 of i 8
gatherings than another location can be found. He said when this project started it was known
that the green space would change.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said this idea is in the Community Plan which is about to be approved
and therefore, the plan needs to move forward as previously agreed upon. She said she is
opposed to having the dumpsters internally because it will interfere with pedestrian walkways.
She said the City of Dublin needs to work with the restaurants in the area to determine a suitable
dumpster area to keep pedestrians safe. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she would like to see the
building scaled back in order to see the vista.
Mr. McCash said there is more open space in the proposed green area than there is currently in
the area now. He said currently the area is not family friendly due to the noise and potential
hazards from the passing traffic. Mr. McCash said the proposed building creates a safe
environment for people to gather. He said from a parking stand point there is plenty of parking,
it should not be expected that one will not have to walk to reach their destination. Mr. McCash
said the new structure will provide a parking valet so pedestrians do not have to worry about
where to park. Mr. McCash said the parking ratio will adjust depending on the time of day. He
said the parking space that a dentist office might use during the day can be utilized by the
restaurants during the evening. He said this plan will need to be thought of differently than most
projects which take place within Historic Dublin. Mr. McCash said the dumpster situation is an
issue which needs to be addressed. He said there needs to be a dumpster which may have a
central location for the business in the area.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she is concerned abaut the trees, which will align Bridge Street;
currently the trees are Ash which will need to be replaced in the near future. She said the plan
proposed Ginkgo trees, which are known to become overwhelming to their environment. She
said she would like the City Forester to be consulted in regard to the trees placed along the
Bridge and High Street corridor.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said tree grates are proposed and she is concerned because currently the
City is not monitoring the tree grates which will in time affect tree growth. She said she wants
the tree grates to be managed to ensure they are properly maintained.
Mr. McCash said a railing design needs to be standardized. He said the standing seam metal
roofs need to have ice guards placed on them to prevent harm to pedestrians. Mr. McCash said it
is important to ensure that the signage is going to be limited to I S feet. He said projection signs
are supposed to be pedestrian-oriented and the proposed signs seem large. Ms. Scott said the text
reflects that of Town Center I.
Mr. Gerber asked if the language in Condition 2 contemplates the issues Mr. McCash is referring
to. Ms. Scott said the development text is very number specific. She said the text is similar to
development text for Town Center I, which has the elevation and indicates the location, color
and font.
Mr. Gerber asked if it is possible to go ahead with the rezoning tonight and have the
Architectural Review Board review the architecture. He said the issues which need to be
addressed will need to come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Gerber asked if
the applicant would object to the approach. Ms. Ott requested they are kept together.
Planning and Zoning Commission
llecember b, 2007 --Minutes
Page 17 of 18
Mr. Gerber said he does not feel comfortable keeping them together because he feels if the plan
goes to the Architectural Review Board the design may be changed. He said it is policy that the
Architectural Review Board review and adopt the ,package before the Planning and Zoning
Commission approves the final.
Mr. Zimmerman asked why the rezoning cannot be passed tonight and let the Architectural
Review Board hear the case and it comes back for the rest of the final development plan. Mr.
Gerber said he does not want the architecture changed and he cannot anticipate what the
Architectural Review Board will do.
Mr. McCash said if it is passed tonight, the Architectural Review Board will review the other
piece and sends it back to this board, than both pieces can be added to the agenda at the same
time. Ms. Ott said the Final Development Plan does not typically go to Council. Mr- Gunderman
said there has been enough time in the process that the case can be taken to the Architectural
Review Board, return to the Commission and then presented to City Council.
Mr- Fishman said he would like the buildings to lose 1,500 square feet each. He said otherwise
the building is okay. He said ARB looks only at the architectural aspect of the building, they
cannot change the footprint.
Mr. Gerber called for a five minute recess to give the applicant an opportunity to discuss how to
proceed.
Ms. Ott said that the separating the rezoning from the final development plan will work.
Mr. Gerber said that the Commissioners need to review the conditions for the rezoning. He said
condition three should address the dumpster problem, perhaps ground rules in regard to pick up
times and capacity maybe need. to be discussed. Ms. Amoroso Grooms said condition four must
require a cohesive street trees treatment, which will be carved through the balance of the Historic
District. Mr. Gerber said that condition five should require that the text be amended in regard to
the patio fencing and it needs to be consistent throughout the project. IVIr. Gerber said condition
six requires ice guards for the metal roofing. Mr. Gerber said that condition seven should require
that the sign package be brought back to the Commission.
Ms. Ott agreed to the conditions below.
Motion and Vote - Rezoning/Prelimiuary Development Plan
Mr. Gerber made a motion, seconded by Mr. Zimmerman, to approve this rezoning/preIiminary
development plan because the proposal complies with the applicable criteria and the existing
development standards within the area, with seven conditions:
1) That exhibit B of the development text and the preliminary development plan be revised to
include the location and size of the non-exclusive patio space area prior to review by the
ARB;
2) That the development text be revised to include the Sign and Graphics Plan prior to review
by the ARB;
3) That the applicant address the dumpster location by administering rules of operation with
pre-determined pickup schedule or relocation;
4) That the Landscape Plan include a cohesive street tree treatment that would begin at this site
to continue throughout the district;
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 6, 2(107 -Minutes
Page t 8 of 18
5) That the development text be revised to require that patio fencing be of a consistent character
throughout the project;
6} That the development text be revised to require ice guards on areas of the building with
standing seam metal roofs; and
7) That the Sign and Graphics Plan be brought back to the Planning and Zoning Commission
for Final Development Plan review.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Walter, no; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Saneholtz,
no; Ms. Amoroso Groomes, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 4 - 2.)
Ms. Ott requested that the final development plan be tabled.
Motion and Vote Final Development Pian
Mr. Gerber made a motion to table this final development plan in order for the project to be
reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board before returning to the Planning and
Zoning Commission no Inter than January 17, 2008. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. The
vote was as follows: Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; lair. Fishman, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes;
Ms. Amoroso Groomes, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Tabled 7 -- 0.}
9. COIC 7,g~n~ District ~ /Contra! Ohio I}fiiovation Center
Mr. Gerber oved to table this dministrative Req st since it would b reviewed January _.
He revue ed that it be added o the January 3 W Session and that arameters for Janu 12
also b iscussed. Mr. Lan orthy suggested i e done as part of t Administrative R ort and
Mr. erber agreed. M . Saneholtz second the motion, and e vote was as fo ws: Mr.
lter, yes; Mr. Fist an, yes; Mr. McC h, yes; Mr. Saneh tz, yes; Ms. Amor se Groomes,
es; Mr. Zimmerm ,yes; and Mr. Ger r, yes. {Tabled 7 - .)
Administrati~ Business
Mr. Gerbe toted that this was ouncilmember T McCash's last C emission meeting. e
thanked r. McCash for his wo terms on the mmission as Coun liaison, and Dub ~ ~ is a
better lace for his servic Mr. Gerber wishe r. McCash luck. e presented a pla e to Mr.
M ash which read: arming and Zoni Commission - J nary 2006 throng December
~ 07. Ms. Rogers e plained that it was or this service pert and that one for e last service
period had been g~ en to him already.
The meetin~dGas adjourned at 10: T2 p.m
Respectfully submitted, /
~. /
Libb Farley
Administrative Assistant
and
Ebony Mills
Staff Assistant
PLANNING REPORT
crnr of uusr.tr~_ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
~~~
~a R~ P~
seoos~i.r-a.~R.ad DECEMBER 6, 2007
o~, OIi~ 43Q16-1236
FAme: bia~ia46aa
Fex: E14~1D-4147
Belt Sib: rrr.du611nohus
SECTION I -CASE INFORMATION:
8. Bridge and high Streets Development 20 West Bridge Street
07-099Z/FllY Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
Final Development Plan
Proposal: A mixed-use development with approximately 22,000 square feet
of retail and office space and associated site improvements located
at the northwest corner of Bridge and High Streets.
Request: Review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development and
final development plan under the Planned District provisions of
Code Section 153.050.
Applicant: City of Dublin, represented by Mo M. Dioun, The Stonehenge
Company.
Planning Contact: Abby Scott, Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4654, ascott`c~dublin.oh.us
Case Summary
This is a request for review and approval of a rezoning (preliminary development plan) from CB,
Central Business District and CCC, Central Community Commercial District to PUD, Planned
Unit Development District for a proposed mixed-use development with approximately 22,000
square feet of retail and office space and associated site improvements located on the northwest
corner of West Bridge and North High Streets. The applicant is also requesting review and
approval of a final development plan for this proposal.
Case Background
This project is apublic-private partnership between the City of Dublin and The Stonehenge
Company. A development agreement between the City and Stonehenge that was approved on
June 18, 2007 by City Council outlines the details of this partnership and development of the
project. "the Concept Plan for the development was presented to the Architectural Keview Board
(ARB) on July 25, 2007 and to the Planning and 7.oning Commission on August 9, 2007 (see
attached history). Major points of discussion included the size and use of both plazas, windows,
site accessibility, and building location, materials and height.
Planning and "Coning Commission
December 6, 2007 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-099Z/FDP
Page 2 of 13
Plan Revisions
Changes made to the plan based on the Commission's comments are summarized for ease of
review. Based on feedback from both the Commission and the ARB, the building heights have
been reduced to be consistent with other recent in-fill projects in the District. The accessibility
of the site was improved by replacing the stairs between the two plazas with a ramp. T'he corner
plaza was redesigned to allow accessibility from the sidewalk. The elimination of the steps
separating the upper and lower plazas has resulted in greater connectivity between these areas,
expanding the appreciable size of the lower plaza. The exterior materials proposed now are
mainly stone, brick and wood siding; and the amount of stucco proposed for the buildings was
significantly reduced. The south end of the High Street building was initially proposed with a
two-story window. The plans were revised to include windows on the first and second floor
consistent with other windows on the building.
Site Description ,
Location
The 0.7-acre site, consisting of three parcels, is located at the northwest corner of Bridge and
1-ligh Streets, and has approximately 200 feet of frontage on Bridge Street and approximately 170
feet on High Street.
Site Character
7'he land is relatively flat with a slight slope from northwest to southeast and currently includes
an open grassy area and a temporary municipal parking lot. A stone wall is located on the
southeast corner of the site. Existing landscaping includes an evergreen hedge, deciduous trees,
evergreen trees, and planting beds around the parking lvt.
Surrounding Zoning and Uses
The site is zoned CB, Central Business District and CCC, Central Community Commercial
District. Modern Male is located adjacent to the northwest portion of this site, in the same block,
and is zoned (:B. 'T'here are several businesses to the north of this site also zoned CB. Parcels to
the east and west of this site are zoned CCC, and "Town Center I to the south is zoned PUD,
Planned Unit Development District.
Community Plan
This site is part of the Old Dublin Area Plan within the 1997 Community Plan and the draft
Historic llublin Area Plan in the 2007 Community Plan Update. "1'he main goal of these area
plans is to focus on creating a "strung" sense of place with a central focal. point. The area plans
also encourage quality streetscapes and environments unique to the District, safe vehicular and
pedestrian choices, shared parking, and amixed-use and civic character.
The proposed project meets the goals outlined above through the creation of a new town square
within the traditional town center of the City. Streetscape improvements will be made along
both Bridge and Thigh Streets that will include brick sidewalks and street trees to provide
pedestrian separation from city streets.
Planning and1.onittg Commission
December 6, 2007 - Plarming Report
Case No. 07-099L/EDP
page 3 of 13
The Future Land Use Map in the 1997 Community Plan shows this site as "Existing Non-
Residential" indicating that future development was not anticipated in the area. The draft Future
Land Use Map in the 2007 Community Plan Update assigns a future land use designation for this
site as "Mixed-Use, Village Center."
Plan Description
Overview
The site plan indicates two separate, two-story mixed-use buildings totaling approximately
22,000 square feet to be located along the sidewalks on both West Bridge and Norih High
Streets. A formal public green will be located in the middle of the block, framed by the existing
Modern Male building at the northwest corner of the site and the two proposed buildings along
the south and east property lines. There is a public plaza at the southeast corner of the site that
provides access to the interior public space.
Patio space will be provided along both buildings to serve patrons of tenants and the general
public. The site plan indicates two water features located in the plaza space and an area
designated for a future public art piece or display. Parking will be provided off-site in municipal
lots and designated on-street parking. A valet station and patron drop-off area is indicated at the
western boundary of the site along Darby Street.
Development Text
The approved development agreement stipulates certain aspects of the project including building
size and location, patio use and size, and parking. The applicant has produced a development
text that incorporates requirements from the development agreement and regulates the
development of~the proposed PUD.
Building Placement, Mass and Scale
The proposed buildings are oriented parallel to West Bridge and North High Streets, framing
these streets in a manner consistent with the placement and orientation of existing adjacent
structures and cross streets. The building massing and scale are designed to continue the
pedestrian orientation reflected in similar buildings located in the Historic District.
Architecture, Building Materials, Signs and Lighting
The Architectural Review Board is responsible for reviewing the proposed architecture, building
materials, signs, lighting and the additional aesthetic details associated with this proposal to
ensure that the architectural features of the site are preserved and the character of the District is
maintained. 'i'he proposed streetlights and public plaza lights indicated on the plans are
decorative, cut-off fixtures, painted black, which are compatible with existing lighting in the
Historic District. The signs will be coordinated throughout the development according to the
development text. The applicant will have to provide a sign detail as an exhibit to the text.
Patios
The approved development agreement allows up to 3,000 square feet of patio space as a
permitted use, which is reflected within the proposed development text. The proposed
development text also designates patio space for both exclusive use by future tenants and non-
Planning and 7.oning Commission
December 6, 2007 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-0997./FDP
Page 4 of 13
exclusive use that is open to the .general public. The site plan indicates approximately 1,600
square feet of exclusive use patio space for both buildings located adjacent to the formal green
space and plaza area. The total square footage intended for the non-exclusive use patio space is
not indicated on the site plan or in the development text and must be provided. Patio details such
as tables, chairs and fencing will be reviewed by the ARB.
Landscaping
The proposed landscaping for this development consists predominantly of hardscape materials in
order to support a high degree of pedestrian activity. Brick sidewalks with street trees are
proposed along West Bridge and North High Streets, consistent with the character of the District.
Interior to the site is a formal green with shade trees relocated from the southern and eastern
edges to the northern and western edges of the green. Additional plant material will he located
throughout the site in raised planters and in beds along the building foundations. Benches and
seat walls are provided throughout the plaza spaces and along the sidewallcs.
Tree Replacement
Code requires any trees removed that are greater than six inches in diameter, and considered in
good or fair condition be replaced inch-for-inch. The plan indicates the removal of 118.5 caliper
inches, of which 15 caliper inches will be replaced on site. The remaining inches will need to be
mitigated through financial means, additional replacement trees, or a combination of the two
options.
Access for People with Disabilities
As proposed, the entire site is accessible for people with disabilities, including the plaza at the
southeast corner. The main access to the site is proposed from Darby Street due to the larger
District parking lots located to the northwest, across the Darby Street and Wing Hill intersection.
"There is also a valet station on the western edge of the site, along Darby Street, which meets the
Americans with Disabilities Act recommendations (ADA) by providing five accessible parking
spaces in the newly constructed public parking lot at Darby Street and Wing Hill. ADA
compliant ramps are proposed in the internal public space area and provide access to both
buildings.
Parking
The parking provisions for this proposed development are addressed within the approved
development agreement between the City and The Stonehenge Company and within the
proposed development text. While no on-site parking is required for this development, the
developer was required to contribute toward the construction of the newly opened 103 space
municipal parking lot at the northwest corner of Darby Street and Wing Hill. This parking lot
will be open at all times for public parking and include 24 spaces that are posted with atwo-hour
time limit between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
I/ehicular Access
As part of this development, Wing Hill will be restricted to traffic traveling from Darby Street to
North I-ligh Street. This portion. of Wing Hill located to the north of the site will serve as a
pedestrian and service alley.
Planning and "Loving Commission
December 6, 2007 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-0997,/FDP
Page 5 of 13
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
The entire development will be accessible to pedestrians from all directions. New brick paver
sidewalks will be installed along Bridge and High Streets with an average width of 12 feet
between buildings and the curb. Bicycle parking will be provided as part of the development of
the municipal parking lot northwest of the development. Additional bike racks should be
provided near the service area on Wing Hill.
Mechanicals and Service Areas
All rooftop mechanicals will. be incorporated in roof wells and will not be visible from the street
or adjacent properties. Existing lighting control boxes currently located on the sidewalk along
High Street will be incorporated into the proposed raised planter along the sidewalk. Refuse
containers will be screened within designated service areas located within the buildings. The
proposed access to the containers is provided through small overhead doors located on the Wing
Bill and Darby Street elevations.
Utilities
The project site is adequately served by all utilities. Approximately 110 feet of public sanitary
sewer will be constructed with this project. Electricity for the site will be provided by a
proposed pad mounted transformer located in the southeast corner of the municipal parking lot.
Stormwater
The City of Dublin Stormwater Management Ordinance, Section 53.070 (j) provides an
exemption from the City's Stormwater quantity and quality regulations for sites located within
the Historic Dublin area that have less than an acre of disturbance area. The area of this site is
Tess than an acre; however, this proposal provides for site drainage by a storm sewer that will
connect to a 12-inch existing storm sewer at the northwest corner of West Bridge Street and
North High Street.
SEC'T'ION 1I -REVIEW STANDARDS
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
The purpose of the PUD process is to encourage imaginative architectural design and proper site
planning in a coordinated and comprehensive manner, consistent with accepted land planning,
landscape architecture, and engineering principles. The PUD process can consist of up to three
basic stages:
l) 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} Fina117evelopment Plan (Commission approves/denies).
The general intent of the preliminary development plan (rezoning) stage is to determine the
general layout and specific zoning standards that will guide development. The Planning and
Zoning Commission must review and make a recommendation on this preliminary development
plan (rezoning) request. 'T'he application will then be forwarded to City Council fora #irst
Planning and "Coning Commission
December 6, 2007 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-099G/f'DP
Page 6 of 13
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 Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan. Following is an evaluation by Planning based on
those criteria. The criteria are 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) The proposed development is consistent with
the Dublin Zoning Code; is in conforrniry with the Community Plan; advances the general
welfare of the City; and the proposed uses are appropriately located in the City so that the use
and value nfproperry within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded.
Criteria met: The proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the 1997
Community Plan, which suggest a public open space and•commercial development at this
location. "I'he draft 1~uture Land Use Plan of the 2007 Community Plan update identifies
the land use for this site as "Mixed-i;se, Village Center." In Planning's opinion, this
project will enhance the historic District and benefit the surrounding neighborhoods.
Parks and Upen Space (Criteria S and 6) The proposed residential development will have
sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; and the proposed
development respects the unique characteristic of the natural jeatures and protects the natural
resources of the site.
Criteria met: This requirement is not applicable to commercial development; however,
the proposal includes two water features and public open space through the site.
Traffic, Utilities and Stormwater Management (C'riteria 7, 8, and 11) Adequate utilities, access
roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; and
adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding
public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike
circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non-
conflictingcirculation 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: "1'he site will have access to adequate utilities. Access to Wing Hill from
North High Street will be removed to improve traffic patterns on North high Street. The
alley will be utilized as a pedestrian walkway and loading area. Constructian drawings
and final details will be required at the building permit stage.
Development Standards (Criteria 9, and 10) The relationship of buildings and structures
provides j<~r the coordination and integrative of this development to the community and
maintains the image ~f Dublin as a quality community; and the development standards, and the
Planning andLoning Commission
Dec;embcr C,, 2007 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-099ZJrDP
Page 7 of 13
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 City.
Criteria maY be met through condition: The building location in the PUD is consistent
with the development patterns of the Historic District and the proposed development
standards contribute to the orderly development of this site, including proposed uses,
setbacks, and density. The plans also indicate adequate provisions for parking and
pedestrian access.
The proposed development text provides standards that will contribute to the orderly
development of this site, including proposed use, setbacks, and density. The location of
exclusive and non-exclusive patio areas should be delineated in the development text,
which only depicts the exclusive patio area (Condition #1).
Design Standards (12, and 13) 1'he design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the
proposed development justify any deviation from 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 of the
city.
Criteria may be met through condition: The development text outlines all applicable
development standards for this project. The proposal complies with the text requirements
of high-quality, four-sided architecture which complements the existing buildings in the
Historic District. The construction of a municipal parking lot at Darby Street and Wing
Hill satisfies the parking requirement for this development as outlined in the development
agreement and development text. The development text should be revised to include a
sign and graphics plan (Condition #2).
Infrastructure (Criteria 14, 15 and I G) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for
the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various
phases tv ultimately yield the intended overall development; the proposed development can be
adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements; and the applicant's
contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are
sufficient to service the new development.
Criteria met: There are adequate services in place for the proposed development. The
proposed development includes the closing of the North lIigh Street and Wing Hill
intersection, consistent with Engineering's direction.
Evaluation and Recommendation based on the Land Use Principles:
On August 21, 2006 City Council established ten Land tlse Principles to be utilized as
development guidelines in conjunction with the existing Community Plan in the evaluation of
pending development applications. The ten Land iJse Principles are to be consulted in order to
adequately address policies and decision-making processes that may arise during the Community
Plan update process and are categorized and summarised as follows:
Planning and 7_oning Commission
December 6, 2007 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-049Z/FDP
Page 8 of 13
Quality and Character (Principles 1, 6, 7, and 9): High quality design for all uses, recognizing
density has important economic implications, but is essentially an outcome not a determinant of
creating a quality place; preserving the rural character of certain areas of the community,
including the appearance of roads, as well as the landscape; developing streets that create an
attractive public realm and make exceptional places for people; and creating streets that
contribute to the character of the community and move a more reasonable level of tru~c.
Land lJse Principles met: The proposed project creates an attractive public realm with
multiple gathering spaces for public use and enhanced streetscapes, making it an
exceptional place for public interaction. The building locations fit the character of the
1listoric District, reinforcing the traditional downtown development pattern important to
this area. As a prominent corner site within the city, the design and details of the project
reinforce the area as a strong focal point.
Connectivity (Principles 2, 8 and 10): Creating places to live that have a stronger pedestrian
envirnnrnent, connections to convenient services, and are conducive tv multi-generational living
and social interaction; creating better connected places, in part, to improve the function of the
street network and also to better serve neighborhoods; and providing opportunities to walk and
bike throughout the community.
Land Use Principles met: In addition to the strong pedestrian orientation of this
proposal, it also improves pedestrian connectivity throughout the District by utilizing
unique visual features and elements that will draw patrons to the area. This project also
provides a variety of open and intimate spaces for public use that are desirable
destinations for pedestrians and cyclists.
Integration (Principles 3, 4, and S): Creating places with integrated uses that are distinctive,
sustainable and contribute to increasing the City's overall visibility; providing some retail
services in closer proximity to residential areas as an important amenity to residents; and
creating u tivider range of housing choice in the community, as well as in new neighborhoods.
Land Use Principles met: The proposed mixed-use project is an important, high quality
development that provides a needed mix of services and civic spaces in the center of the
community. "Phis project will enhance the dynamic energy of the District and contribute
to the area's long-term sustainability.
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. "I'he PUD process
consists of up to three stages:
1} Concept Plan (Staff, Commission, and/or City Council review and comment};
2) toning Amendment Request {Preliminary Development Plan; Commission recommends
and City Council approves/denies}; and
3) Final Development Ptan (Commission approves/denies).
The intent of the final development plan is to show conformance with and provide a detailed
refinement of the total. aspects of the approved preliminary development plan (rezoning). The
Planning and Toning Commission
December 6, 2007 - Planning Kcport
Case No. 07-0997./FDP
Page 9 of 13
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. "I-his action will be considered a new application for review in
all respects, including payment of the application fee. Appeal of any action taken by the
Commission shall be to the Court of Common Pleas in the appropriate jurisdiction. Following
approval by the Commission, the applicant may proceed with the building permit process. In the
event that updated citywide standards are applicable, all subsequently approved final
development plans shall comply with the updated standards if the Planning and Zoning
Commission determines that the updated standards would not cause undue hardship.
Evaluation and Recommendation based on Final Development Plan Criteria
Section 153A55(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 fallowing categories and may be in a different order than listed in the Code:
Adopted Policies and Plans (Criteria 1, 3, 9, & 10). The proposed modifications conform to the
approved preliminary development plan, have adequate public facilities and open spaces, are
carried out in progressive stages, and conform to all other applicable zoning text and Code
requirements.
Criteria met: "I'he proposal conforms to the preliminary development plan in terms of
permitted use, lot coverage, and setbacks.
Site Safety and Circulation (Criteria 2 & S). The proposed modijgcations provide for safe and
efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation and provide adequate lighting for such uses.
Criteria may be met through condition: The site provides adequate lighting, and
vehicular and pedestrian circulation for the proposed uses. Additional bike racks should
be provided near the service area on Wing Hill (Condition #1).
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 may be met through condition: 1~he proposal conforms to the preliminary
development plan requirement for appropriate landscaping details, and provides adequate
stonnwatcr management. "I•he applicant will be required to meet the tree replacement
ordinance by mitigating 103.5 caliper (Condition #2).
SECTION III -PLANNING OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION: Approval
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
In Planning's opinion, this proposal complies with the rezoning/preliminary development plan
criteria and the existing development standards within the area. Approval with two conditions is
recornmcndcd.
Planning and 7_.oning Commission
December 6, 2007 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-0997_/fllP
Page 10 of i3
Conditions:
1) Exhibit B of the development text and the preliminary development plan should be
revised to include location and size of the non-exclusive patio space area prior to review
by the ARB; and
2} The development text should be revised to include a sign and graphics plan prior to
review by the ARB.
Fina! Development Plan
In Planning's opinion, this proposal complies with the final development plan criteria and the
existing development standards within the area. Approval with two conditions is recommended.
Condition:
i} Additional bike racks should be provided near the service area on Wing Hill, subject to
approval by Planning; and
2) The remaining 143.5 caliper inches will need to be mitigated through financial means,
additional replacement trees, or a combination of the two options.
Planning and 'Coning Commission
December 6, 2007 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-099Z/FDP
Page l l of 13
Preliminary Development Plan
Review Criteria:
Section 153.050 of the Toning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan. In accordance with Section 153.055(A) Plan
Approval Criteria, Code sets out the following criteria of approval fora preliminary
development plan (rezoning):
1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards
of the Dublin Zoning Code;
2) The proposed development is in conformity with the Community Plan, Thoroughfare
Plan, Bikeway Plan and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and
will not unreasonably burden the existing street network;
3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the City and immediate
vicinity and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the
surrounding areas;
4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the City so that the use and value of
property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded;
5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open. space areas that meet the
objectives bf the Community Plan;
6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and
protects the natural resources of the site;
7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been
or are being provided;
8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to
minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public
safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the
proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non-conflicting circulation
system for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians;
9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities
provides for the coordination and integration of this development within the PD and the
larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community;
10} The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between
buildings and structures, yard space, design and layout of open space systems and
parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overall
acceptability of the development plan's contribution to the orderly development of land
within the City;
11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to
maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swalcs, water courses and drainage
areas;
12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development
justify any deviation liom the standard development regulations included in the Dublin
7,oning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with
the intent of the Planned Development Uistrict regulations;
Planning and Toning Commission
December 6, 2007 -Planning Report
Case Vo. 07-0~'/,.SDP
Page l2 of 13
13) "I~he 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.
Land Use Principles
1) High quality design for all uses, recognizing density has important economic
implications, but is essentially an outcome not a determinant of creating a quality place.
2) Creating places to live that have a stronger pedestrian environment, connections to
convenient services, and are conducive to multi-generational living and social interaction.
3) Creating places with integrated uses that are distinctive, sustainable and contribute to
increasing the City's overall vitality.
4) Providing some retail services in closer proximity to residential areas as an important
amenity to residents. The design considerations are very important.
5) Creating a wider range of housing choice in the community, as well as in new
neighborhoods.
6) Preserving the rural character of certain areas of the community, including the
appearance of roads, as well as the landscape.
7) Developing streets that create an attractive public realm and make exceptional places for
people.
8) Creating better connected places, in part, to improve the function of the street network
and also to better serve neighborhoods.
9) Creating streets that contribute to the character of the community and move a more
reasonable level of traffic.
10) Providing opportunities to walk and bike throughout the community.
Panning and Zoning Commission
December 6, 2007 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-099L/FDP
Page 13 of 13
l+'inal llevelopment flan
Review Criteria:
In accordance with Section 153.055(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 sign plan, will be coordinated within
the Planned Unit llevelopment 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'he 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.
NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST BRIDGE AND NORTH HIGH STRF,ETS
DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Approved:
~`
~`~,
i
G~
S
r-
DEVELOPMENT TEAM
The City of Dublin
5800 Shier-Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43ozb
6i4.4io.46o0
i.vunu.dublin.oh.us
Bird-Houk Collaborative
60o Creekside Plaza
Gahanna, Ohio 43230
6i4.4i8.oboo
www.bird-houk.com
Stonehenge Land Company
147 North High Street
Gahanna, Ohio 43230
614.509.9000
www.stonehenye-company.com
EMH&T, Inc.
550o New Albany Road
New Albany, Ohio 43054
b14.775.4500
www.emht.com
. ;
TABLE OF CONI'F.NI'S
GENERAL OVERVIEW ..................................................................... .............................................. i
General Development Standards ....................................................... .............................................. i
Special Parking Provision .................................................................. .............................................. i
Maintenance Agreement .................................................................... .............................................. i
SUBAREA A-Public Areas (.436 acre) ............................................ ............................................. 2
I. Permitted Uses ................................................................... ............................................. 2
II. Circulation and Access ................................................................................................... 2
III. Patio Areas (Exclusive and Non-Exclusive) ................................................................. 3
IV. Landscaping .................................................................................................................. 4
V. Waste and Refuse ........................................................................................................... 4
VI. Storage and Equipment ................................................................................................ 4
VII. Site Lighting ..................................................................................... ............................ 4
SUBAREA B-Buildings and Building Footprints (.25i acre) ............................ ............................ 4
I. Permitted Uses .................................................................................... ............................ 4
......................................................................
II. Density ........:................
............................S
III. Setbacks ............................................................................................ ............................5
IV. Building Lighting .............................................................................. .............................5
V. Circulation and Access ....................................................................... .............................5
VI. Waste and Refuse .............................................................................. .............................5
VII. Architecture ..................................................................................... .............................5
VII. Signs and Graphics .......................................................................... .............................~
APPENDIX
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit D
Subarea Plan
Site/Staking Plan
Architectural Elevations
Patio Plan
Sign and C'Traphics Plan
NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST BRIDGE AND NORTH HIGH STREETS
DEVELOPMENT TEXT
GENERAL OVERVIEW
This development text applies to the proposed development (the Development) generally
located at the northwest corner of West Bridge Street and North High Street. The Development
is further divided into of two (2) sub-areas, Subarea A, containing .436-acre (the Public Areas),
and Subarea B, containing .25i-acre (the Buildings), for a total of .68~-acre. The Development
does not include the existing building at 24 Darby Street, and that building shall not be
governed by this development text; however the Development will be sensitive to the presence of
this building.
The Development is intended as a vertically integrated, mixed-use project within two 2-story
buildings, which is anticipated to include various offices, retail spaces, restaurants, and other
associated uses, as permitted by this text.
The Development is intended to provide highly functional and attractive commercial and public
spaces which complement the surrounding area. The Development is further intended to be a
catalyst for further mixed-use developments in the area, and to advance the goals of the Dublin
Community Plan and Historic Dublin Design Guidelines.
The Development will be of a high quality design, consisting of materials, lighting, and sign
features which reinforce Historic Dublin's character, with special attention to the use of natural
and natural appearing materials in all visible structural components and to architectural
standards which are consistent with, complement, and enhance the surrounding neighborhood.
General Development Standards
All matters not covered by this development text shall be regulated by the requirements and
standards contained within the City of Dublin Zoning Code and Historic Dublin Design
Guidelines. If these General Development Standards conflict in any manner with the City of
Dublin Zoning Code, then the provisions of this development text shall prevail.
Syecial Parking Provision
In accordance with the Development Agreement, parking requirements for this development
will be met through the developer's contributions toward, and construction of, the municipal
parking lot located at 37 Darby Street, but the foregoing shall not be construed to restrict such
parking within the municipal parking lot for the use by the occupants of the Buildings to the
exclusion of the public. The municipal parking lot shall have no reserved parking spaces and
shall be open at all times for public parking.
Maintenance Agreement
In accordance with the Development Agreement, maintenance of building exteriors, the Public
Areas, and public improvements shall be governed by a maintenance agreement negotiated and
entered into by the Developer (as defined by the Development Agreement) and the City of
Dublin.
SUBAREA A-Public Areas (.436 acre)
Subarea A consists of a City-owned public plaza and will be principally comprised of all land
exterior to the Buildings as depicted in the attached Exhibit A.
This space ~zll be developed as plaza space for the use and enjoyment of the owners of the
Buildings and their tenants as well as the general public.
I. Permitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted within Subarea A:
a) Public Parks and Plazas
b) Public, Community, and Special Events
As governed by the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances.
c) Outdoor Patios
Outdoor seating areas, including outdoor dining and restaurant patio spaces in
conjunction with the uses permitted within Subarea B.
d) Public Art Display
Certain portions of Subarea A are permitted for use as display of public art as
approved by the Dublin City Council.
e) Valet Parking Operations
A valet service area maybe located and operated on the east side of Darby Street
within Subarea A. This area may be leased for operation to any owner of Subarea
B or any other appropriate provider at the choice of the City. A small structure to
facilitate this use shall be permitted in the location indicated on the Final
Development Plan. Maintenance of this structure shall be pursuant to the
Maintenance Agreement to be negotiated between the City of Dublin and the
Developer.
f) Vendors
Mobile vendors shall be permitted to operate ~~ithin Subarea A, as approved by
the City Manager under the General Licensing Provisions of the City of Dublin
Codified Ordinances.
II. Circulation and Access
a) Vehicular
i. Wing Hill Access. The City will take the necessary steps to close Wing
Hill at North I-Iigh Street to public traffic in order to create a service court
for deliveries and refiise removal.
ii. Valet Station. A valet station and vehicle pull-off area may be located
along Darby Street within Subarea A, as indicated on the Final
Development Plan.
h) Pedestrian
Circulation. Access to and from Subarea A shall be through public
rights-of-way along West Bridge Street, Darby Street, Wing Hill, and
North High Street.
ii. Building Access. Pedestrian access to certain portions of Subarea B will
require the location of steps and ramps and associated handrails within
Subarea A. Handrails may encroach not more than 24 inches into the
public right-of-way, as shown on the Final Development Plan.
III. Patio Areas (Exclusive and Non-Exclusive)
The owners of Subarea B, their successors and assigns (the Buildings) shall have the right, but
not the obligation, to use certain portions of Subarea A (the Public Areas} for patio seating areas,
some of which shall be designated for use exclusively by the owner or their tenants (Exclusive
Patio Areas), and some of which shall be designated for their use on anon-exclusive basis
together with the general public (Non-Exclusive Patio Areas) (collectively, the Patio Areas).
a) Size and Delineation
The Patio Areas shall contain in the aggregate up to three thousand (3,000)
square feet of patio space, and the actual square footage of Exclusive and Non-
Exclusive Patio Areas shall be designated on attached Exhibit D. The Exclusive
Patio Areas shall be physically separated from the Non-Exclusive Patio Areas by
fences and/or seat walls.
b) Modifications
In the event a Subarea B owner or tenant desires to relocate or modify all or any
portion of the Patio Areas following initial approval of the Final Development
Plan, it shall be such owner's obligation to obtain any approvals necessary for
such relocation from the Planning & Zoning Commission, the Architectural
Review Board, and the Dublin City Council.
c) Patio Furnishings, Fencing/Enclosure Materials.
Provision. It shall be the owner's responsibility to place patio furniture,
including tables, chairs, umbrellas, or other accessories typically found in
comparable outdoor seating areas, within the Patio Areas. Fencing or
other enclosure materials as approved by the City shall be required to
separate the Exclusive Patio Areas from the Non-Exclusive Patio Areas.
ii. Approval. All site furnishings, fencing or other enclosure materials
placed in the Patio Areas require approval of the Architectural Review
Board.
iii. Fence Character. All fence materials shall be of a consistent character,
typical to the Historic District. A variety of fence options will be included
for reference in the Final Development Plan.
d) Maintenance
The owners shall be exclusively responsible for the maintenance, repair, and
replacement of the Patio Areas, including the maintenance, repair, and
replacement of all furniture and other items of personal property placed in the
Patio Areas by the owner or any occupant, and any fencing or other enclosure
materials.
IV. Landscaping
The Developer shall install landscaping in Subarea A as well as street trees within the right-of-
way in compliance ~~~ith the Final Development Plan.
V. Waste and Refuse
All waste and refuse shall be contained at all times within the Buildings. Doors for accessing
waste and refuse storage areas ~a-iihin the Buildings are to remain closed when not in use. No
exterior dumpsters are permitted in any part of Subarea A.
VI. Storage and Equiument
No placement or storage of materials, supplies, equipment, or products shall be permitted in any
part of Subarea A.
VII. Site Lighting
Subarea A lighting shall utilize decorative fixtures with a maximum pole height of twelve feet
(i2'). The site will be appropriately lighted to ensure safe access and circulation. Lighting shall
comply with the Final Development Plan.
SUBAREA B-Buildings and Building Footprints (.25i acre)
Subarea B consists of two z-story buildings, one oriented parallel to West Bridge Street, and one
oriented parallel to North High Street. Each building will be located on separate legal and tax
parcels as depicted in the attached Exhibit A.
Building placement will create two open space "plaza" areas, one at the immediate intersection
of West Bridge and North High and one as a central courtyard, included within Subarea A. The
Buildings will be linked by these plaza areas and the sidewalks, creating pedestrian access
through and around the Development.
I. Permitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted within Subarea B:
a) Those uses listed in City of Dublin Zoning Code §i53.o36, Historic Business
District, excepting those listed under Institutional, Child Care, Bed and Breakfast
Establishments, and Dwellings.
b) Specialty /neighborhood /miscellaneous food stores /retail food stores
II. Density
Subarea B shall contain two buildings with a maximum combined size of twenty-t~vo thousand
(22,000) square feet and a maximum combined building footprint area of eleven thousand
(u,ooo) square feet.
III. Setbacks
No property or rights-of--way line setbacks are required for the Buildings. Stair handrails may
encroach a maximum of twenty-four inches (24") into the public right-of-way (sidewalk).
IV. Building Lighting
Lighting attached to the Buildings shall utilize decorative light fixtures appropriately sited
according to the Iistoric Dublin Guidelines. Lighting shall comply with the Final Development
Plan.
Site lighting shall be as required in Subarea A.
V. Circulation and Access
Each Building will be accessible from both the public rights-of--way and from within Subarea A.
Access to certain portions of the Buildings ~~ill require the use of steps and ramps. The
associated handrails may encroach into the public right-of--way consistent with the Final
Development Plan, not to exceed twenty-four inches (24").
VI. Waste and Refuse
All waste and refuse shall be contained at all times within the Buildings. No exterior dumpsters
are permitted in any part of Subarea B.
VII. Architecture
The architectural design of the Buildings shall be traditional in look and feel. The architecture
shall be of high quality, consistent in visual impression, and fit with the character of the Dublin
Historic District. The Building design will utilize a variety of natural or natural appearing
materials, textures, finishes, and colors, and have the appearance of storefronts constructed over
a number of years, as typical of walkable downtown environments.
a) Mass and scale
Buildings will be characterized by extensive use of natural materials, common
walls, and colorful storefronts within the range of 2-story and 21/z-story
structures. Building forms should take design cues from both traditional
residential detailing consistent with the Historic Dublin Guidelines and existing
architecturally consistent buildings within Historic Dublin. Roof shapes will be
varied t0 help break up the massing and add architectural interest. The final
architecture for the Buildings shall be similar to that shown in Exhibit C.
b) Height
No structure shall exceed thirty-five feet (35') in height as measured by the City of
Dublin Zoning Code.
e) Exterior Colors
Exterior colors shall be selected from a palette of "historic" or "natural" colors
included as part of the Final Development Plan.
d) Materials
Permitted exterior materials include brick, natural and synthetic stone, wood
siding and trim, engineered wood composite (e.g., Hardiplank, Smartside, etc.),
or any combination thereof. Stucco is permitted as an accent material in limited
quantities. Permitted roofing materials are described belo~~. In all cases,
materials used shall be natural or be natural in appearance.
e} Roofs
Roofing materials shall consist of architectural asphalt shingles, cedar
shakes or shingles, copper, prefinished standing seam metal, natural or
synthetic slate, or ceramic, all of which shall be of a color and style which
are complementary to and/or compatible with the neighboring buildings.
ii. Use of dormers, vertical vents, detailed trim treatments, and other
architectural features is encouraged.
iii. All standing seam metal roofs will be required to utilize snow/ice guards
as a safety measure.
t~ Balconies
Balconies are permitted. Balconies not constructed during initial construction
may be constructed with approval of the Architectural Review Board. Any
balcony space will be included as part of the total permitted area for Exclusive
and \on-Exclusive Patio Areas.
g) Wall Articulation and Fenestration
The buildings should be designed so as to break up facades and storefronts by
minimizing continued stretches of a single material, applying vertical elements to
individual storefronts, staggering building facades, and utilizing a range of
natural building materials which complement each other and read as individual
pieces of the whole.
Articulation, fenestration, patterns, and structural expression on the Buildings'
end walls should be visually balanced, but the artificiality conveyed by strict
symmetry is neither required nor desired. Elements such as recesses, false-
fences, pilasters, variety in shape and nature of lintels and arches aver doors and
windows, columns beneath balconies, etc., are encouraged.
h) Windows
The facades of each Building should incorporate many windows and doors at
both the first floor level and the second, ~~~ith a higher concentration of glazing
preferred for the first floor. The second floor level shall take on a more
residential-style window pattern.
VII. Sims and Graphics
Unless otherwise detailed herein, all signs shall comply with the sign provisions of the City of
Dublin Zoning Code, §i53.150, et seq. In the event of a conflict between the City of Dublin
Zoning Code and this text, this text shall control.
Signs permitted for the Buildings shall comply with the Sign and Graphics Plan with exhibits
conforming to these guidelines, as provided in attached Exhibit E. Signs meeting all
requirements of the approved Sign and Graphics Plan will not require indi~~idual approval by the
Architectural Review Board. Owners and/or tenants will be required to obtain a sign permit
prior to installation.
The following sign standards recognize the unique configuration and design of the buildings to
promote effective means of identification of uses to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
Vehicular traffic will view the front facades of the buildings from public streets, but will be
required to park in an offsite public parking lot. The ability to utilize wall signs on the street
facing facades will enable passing traffic to identify building tenants. Pedestrian traffic will also
view the front facades of the buildings from the public streets, but also from within Subarea A,
the public plazas. Pedestrian-scale projecting signs hanging perpendicular to the building will
effectively identify the building tenants.
Signs shall be subject to the following requirements
a) Type
Permitted sign types include single-sided flush wall mounted signs, double-sided
wall mounted projecting `blade' signs, and single-sided flush wall mounted
directory signs. Permanent window signs are prohibited.
b) Design
Design of signs will be consistent with the details included in the Sign and
Graphics Plan.
e) Size
Wall mounted signs. All wall mounted signs shall be not more than
sixteen inches (i6") tall. The maximum width for all wall mounted signs
shall be ninety-six inches (g6").
ii. Projecting signs. ~~11 projecting signs shall be twenty-seven inches (2~")
tall by thirty-six inches (36") wide.
iii. Directory signs. All directory signs for upper story tenants shall be
eighteen inches (i8") wide by twenty-four inches (z4") tall.
d) Number and Location
All signs shall be architecturally integrated into the Building facade where they
appear. The permitted number and location of signs is a function of the
orientation of the Building facade and floor location of each tenant space as
follows:
West Bridge Street and North High Street Facing First Floor
Tenants. Tenants located on the first floor with facades facing West
Bridge or North High streets shall be permitted one (i) projecting sign
and one (i) wall mounted sign, on this facade.
ii. Public Plaza Facing First Floor Tenants. Tenants located on the
first floor with facades facing the public plaza shall be permitted either
one (i) projecting sign or one (~) wall mounted sign nn this facade.
iii. Second Floor Tenants. One (i) directory sign shall be placed adjacent
to each first floor doorway accessing these tenant spaces (or in a location
approved by the City). All second floor tenants shall be identified on a
directory sign.
iv. End Unit Tenants. No signs shall be permitted on the facades of the
end units of the Buildings.
v. Height. No sign shall be permitted to exceed fifteen feet (i5'} in height to
the top of the sign as measured from established grade.
e) Color
A total of three (3) sign colors shall be permitted. Colors for sign backgrounds
shall be low-chroma, subdued colors as selected from a sign color palette as
approved in the Sign and Graphics Plan. The sign lettering and border color
palette shall also be as approved in the Sign and Graphics Plan.
f) Lettering
All lettering is to be centered in relation to the height and width of the sign.
Lettering height shall be consistent ~tiZth the Sign and Graphics Plan.
g) Lighting
All signs throughout the Subarea shall be externally illuminated using a
consistent gooseneck light fixture specified in the Sign and Graphics Plan. Signs
shall not be internally illuminated or electrically backlighted.
Final
Accepted By Date
(Applicant-Stonehenge Company)
Accepted By Date
(Applicant-City of Dublin)
EXHIBIT A
1
.S I
~11
J
io
Bridge Street LEGEND
Subarea `A'
.43G Acre
Subarea `B'
.251 Acre
N
Sole: i" = 40'
I 'hie Stonchen~e Comfumy ~> ( 7 Lam' ~~ B1flD H~UK
~~_ r '. y { I~~~~I F3ndr:eendHic~hProject ~.A.~1_]~Jl.~ ~ ~ COIIgbOfGIIvP.
I ll;ih!iri. CV~in
0
Wind Hill _
I l_ I I
C~
4
O'
l
fD
t0
~,inq Hill
Z
O
1
Z
.251 acre ~
tX~i i tsl I l~ ,
1 `~ ~•~~~ i ~~ I f..B,aq. cx zso: ~,., ~ ~ ~
-- •~ I.
I' ,
I 1 1
----'---t- -' - ' ,a ~ _ ~ b
~ . ,~
~
' -.
... h~F
L
~
I~ ~ ~a
~a
~
V, ~
h ~~ I
~
a
~
i
I ~
C ~ i
-
N W ,
W I" :-':
I~ I
. I~
q~~ ~ "
k° I
N "1 :) ei
•)
`~ I_
v ff Y ~ I m
K:A I~ ~; o
. I
..
J',
II-
I ~
-_i
~ ~
i
~
J
11'e
fr
II tddq
~~ ,
~_
~ ~
I ~ ~~
~,
I
I
I I ~
Prap Gipht
~
ll ~ ~
e
I I
--' lignf;ng
Sa
Pfai II
~ ~
I- -----
, ~ -
- - - - - ~t
i\i
- - I ~ _ - `{ ~ ~I--_
7E.:~" .. lQ:. ~ ~ F
cd JS.S", r E.-2
_ ~_
- - -~J ~° -} - - ~`
~~
a ~i
Buildrrg A'
_
_ ex. antx ~mermx~ Pr Cu2J fr. Face olCub-r
l0 8a Rnno~rd k oP
RMOnSW.tCdJ ..-- _-
FX UEST LV8'DG~ S1RfET fr. Pv+nt Stripaq
- ~-
b M i
Q M
-
--.__-
I
fx.Sidewedk
~ ~
.~ ., .f~l_
v ~
r ,
_
~
• I I:
I fr ~,~, ~
f L: :C~;OCw.~;:CS
I ~~ ~ I I
~ h b~ .4
~ Q
T- -- GRAfr/i!C SCALE
(4 ~ (IN RE7J
~
~ ~ .
I G. &dq.
4 ~ o L w+:ww"`"5`.+~970~
'ii
n I ~~~
~
u I 4
~
I I~-fr. &d¢
^Y..
°aas,3,,;:ias0
~ /~~ f
~~~-L - -
- p II i~ _ -..._ -
,
~ ~ I
m F I ~~ ` ~Fx. Brag.
oe I
lU ~
h
--I~~-'-___ ---v...
I
J
~ fx. Or%ve
--~ _..-. ~-_
~ 1
_
,
T r.
~ rI I
~
I
~~--£x D/dq.
W ~ ~
:,..~. ~..r, ~:~5
{
,
i
I
I"_ ~t__-I -' -' -- -'- -
/
f
_~
-E.. BW9.
~ ~ , ~~R.: G :~~.~ i
f,. M;ve ...,.,,~,3757~-....
j ~ I
~I
I
I
--
'_ -----
~ V
\
~ i ~
_ J..-. _.. ._------
~ I' '~_-
g1F DAT
fd:tw,q Zai+g: A rr~ec£
CF7/cc(.
Pruposad Zmbr¢• Plnnoel Distn'ct
Icx Orstric! and Pond Numbn: 27J-00005.5 17J-0001iR
273-0017851 17J-000002
RNA Frm Community Pme1.~ J9019C01161F
f~roctite Dote: Much 16 7001
Ruod Zone X~ Areo detemraed fo be outside
0,2 onnuaf chonca Roocylo~n
Prrcd bea 0687 Aa(?9,9J1A0 SF.J
&•adhq Area A• 0099 Ac(4,J002B Sf.J
8eddnq Aroo & 8152 Aa(5,5J4 7J SF.J
Prnemsnt Aren• OJtN Ac(16,725I5 SF.J
Tetd Impeniovs Area' 0.5JB Ac.(ZI,I:12.51 Sf.J
Inrulu teen 5%~ece 0.05 Ac(?,1JH96 SF:J
A~'ao Prov+ded.
Lo! Cowoge Provided.' 93X
Summary of Parkiny~paces Prodded
At Darby Straef Povking Got
LEGEND
(!a defadS sec sheet 3J
&ick Pater Walk
P
(Harringba+e
atlemf
&ick Povcr Walk
- -~ (Running Band PuttonrJ
AsDhdt Povrnmt
L ._' Canaete Pomnrrt
94erdk
Pavmmf !'lanMq/ovcvloy
~
C Prgo. Sa~rcut and Prrmonrnf
! Povrrnenf R,Xrlucemwrt
Convcte CoDNr Pavers
~~ Ragstana
s
o
;I
U
W
7
~J
a a
0 7
maQ ~
goo =
Q J LL.
°o z
fQ Q
~Z W
LL I_
D
m
z
a
J
a
Z
Y
Q
N
I
4
6
EXHIBIT C
6'~0'
-k--r,-
~~Q:phG
Y IpC-q• _
9~d~,-~ I
i.:CIOK~
~~
AM IXf
%ORI
~I
2 BRIDGE STREETBUILDINO•WEST6L6VATN)N
4 BRIDGE STREETBUILDING•EASTELEVAiION
SLUE: ~/n' - ~-o
~ m K ,~
~.~ ~~
o~_
_.~ ~ ~
o~ ~
a
m° ~
U S
I~,~ ~
~~ \ BRIDGE STREET BUILDING • NORTH ELEVATION
~/ :cur: +/a• . r-o.
n BRIDGfi STREET BUILDING • SOUTH ELEVATION
v.c.r~. ~n - i-o
EXHIBIT C
~m
~o~~~~
~L Q y
m
O L N$-
- m'
M ~ F
W U
M • -
~~~ 'e
HIGH STREET BUILDING • NORTH ELEVATION
~ NIGH STREET BUILDING • SOUTH ELEVATION
U
W
0
a
c~
w
0
m
z_
J
m
w
w ~ 0
w ~z
(~ D]
ai U o
fob no: 0602)
dale: 01.04,06
A2.02
of
n HIGH STREET BUILDING • EAST ELEVATION
/1 HION STREET BUILDING • WEST ELEVATION
vSCN F: t/n ~ 1-0
EXHIBIT C
BRIDGE STREET BUILDING •SOUTN ELEYATNNI
scac. ,~a~ - ~ o
HIGH STREET BUILDING •EAST ELEVATION
3 sent Vu' - r-Y
BRIDGE STREET BUILDING • EAST ELEVATNN
C scn~s :ie-- + o'
n HIGH STREET BUILDING • SOUTH ELEVA110N
f scat: i/e• . r_o.
~m
>`, ~>
Qro ~
~~~~
-~
L
I
~ Q~
~
~
• ~ d
~f ~ ~ LL
F
9
~/,
~ ,
1~~ 8
~
lr1
I _'~
~
/
r/
~I
I ~I
I
~I O
~':
~~ V
~I 2
~~~
~'i ~M
W
I
Z
J
m
~~ ~ LL
woo
w~z
z m
~~Uo
~b no: 06023
nlo: 11.16.07
heel:
A2.03
~>< of
EXHIBIT D
`t 1
BUILDING 'D'
•
PLAN-INC HEDGE
TO SEPF~~, E
PEUESIIiIA.+, FLOW
fROM SEAT;NG
-~ ~ ~~~
I 0
I ~
I ~`'
,.
/ ~
~~~OTENTIAL STREET-SIDE PATlO SPACE @ BLD6.'B',
5CALC~ ~~, ~~.Ia
PAVER HARDSCAPE
BUILDING 'A' PATIO SPACE
,. _
~ __
_ R.4'y- ..r • .I1~-7. - - _
=~ f BRIDGE STREET
~=
2~ POTENTIAL STREET-SIDE PATIO SPACE ~ BLDG. 'A'
U SCALE: I~=Ia
PATIO ~V L EGEND:
~fr~1 S7j ..
;;.
PATIO SPACE, (NOi TO EXCEED 3,00050. FT, TOTAL
t 'r' WHICH INCLUDES 2ND FLOOR BAICONY SPACE)
2ND FLOOR BALCONY SPACE, MOT TO EXCEED I, 125 50.
FT. TOTAL)
FINAL SIZE AND LOCATION OF POTENTIAL BALCONY SPACES
ARE SUBJECT TO 5EPARATE REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW EOARD
Wing. Hdl
I - "T, ~~
~~
~~
o
0
Q I
I
~ I
~ I
* I ,.
sridge Street
Wing Hilf
~~ F
~.~
~ro E€~
Z~ a
D Y
U
Qro F A
~o~~
mo 3
Ill
we,u aw»
eae,~,o.
f II
u~aa
Scale; I" = 16~
` ' " L-09
City of Dublin
Bridge & High Project
Signage Package
December 11, 2007
Revised: January 3, 2008
Signage base colors based on awning colors:
PMS 7421
Sherwin Williams Paint -
Rookwood Red SW 2802
PMS 553
Sherwin Williams Paint -
Dard Hunter Green SW 0041
PMS 7519
Sherwin Williams Paint -
Rookwood Dark Brown SW 2808
PMS 433
Sherwin Williams Paint -
Tricorn Black SW 6258
Lettering and Border Color 1 for Signage -
Chromatic Gold Paint -
Gold Leaf
PMS 7508
Lettering and Border Color 2 for Signage -
Sherwin Williams Paint -
New Colonial Yellow SW 2853
PMS 7499
Lettering and Border Color 3 for Signage -
Sherwin Williams Paint -
Classical White SW 2829
r ~ B~,RD H~UK PROJECT NAME Bride ~ Huh Project ,REVISION OI -03-08 SALES DATE 12-I 2-07
LOCATION_Location DESION SCALE NTS
collaborative CITY Dublin STATE Ohio SHEET I of 8 SIZE PROJECT# 06023
2X PAINTED OR f1DU SIGN Specifications Sign A
• Sign Panel= Single Faced, 1.5" thick Redwood wlgraphic "V-Cut" ±112" deep into background
3" -GOOSENECK LIGHT 3"
by hand chiseled method & machine routed 1"wide perimeter detail.
FIXTURES • Installation= Signs installed flush to wall wlcountersunk 5/16" Hilti style expanding anchors.
I • Gooseneck Fixture =Hanover 37492EF (see cut sheet)
- ~
~ p 'MAX • • 6"M =
- _- ubhn Villa -~`
__ - _ g __
EQ
I " NP.
T-0" MAX.
~ 8'-0" MAX.
A SIGNAGE -Wall Mounted Signage -Required for all Tenants- ~4 SCALE
2X PAINTED WOOD
oR r~IDU SIGN
3'-6"
0
w
0
O
~n
0
-'
~~~
~ _~ Dublin
~ N ~
cn
N g
.Villa e
m
-~ _ - ---
3~~ - 2'-6" - -
3'-0" MAX. -
IRON
BRACKET
~ CHAIN
2X-
PAINTED
WOOD
OR 11DU
SIGN
3"
B SIGNAGE_- Wall Mounted Bracket Signage - Optional
o Color Sign A
~ ~ • Sign Overall= See Sheet 1 of 8
~ ~ • Routed Perimeter= See Sheet 1 of $, same color as graphic
~ ~ • Graphics= See Sheet 1 of 8
_ • Bracket & Hardware= Black
~ ~ • Maximum Height Above Grade=15 feet
~ m • All finishes to be Matte
_~
w Specifications Sign B
• Sign Panel= Single Faced, 2" thick Redwood wlgraphic "V-Cut" ±112" deep into
background by hand chiseled method & machine routed 1"wide perimeter detail.
• Hanging Bracket=1.5"-1.5" sq, Steel tubelwallflangeassembly wlfabricated 114"
aluminum scroll, finial cap & synthetic ball ~ signs suspended beneath bracket wl1/2' eye
--~ bolts.
• Installation= Bracket installed perpendicular to wall w~/a' Hilti style expanding anchors
• Installation= Signs installed flush to wall wlcountersunk 5116" Hilti style expanding
~~ `~ '~ anchors,
' Color Sign B
~ ~ ~ • Si n Overall= See Sheet 1 of 8
~ Dublin g
p • Routed Perimeter- See Sheet 1 of 8, same color as graphic
~ ~~ Village Gra hics= See Sheet 1 of 8
iv ~ ~: p
i~ {.~ • Bracket & Hardware= Black
~~ ~.~- ., j All finishes to be Matte
"= I` „'
N ~ y,~ y,~ 2 ~ Maximum Hei ght Above Grade=15 feet
C SIGNAGE - ~ ~ I ~-6° MAX ~
Wall Mounted Director y si gn Detail
APPROVED SHAPES FOR SIGN B
_f
APPROVED END SHAPES FOR SIGN A
Signage - Detail
Specifications Sign C
• Sign Panel= Single Faced,1"thick Redwood
wlgraphic "V-Cut" ±114" deep into background by hand
chiseled method & machine routed 1"wide perimeter
detail.
• Installation= Signs installed flush to wall
wlcountersunk 5116" Hilti style expanding anchors.
Color Sign C
• Sign Overall= See Sheet 1 of 8
• Routed Perimeter= See Sheet 1 of 8, same color as
graphic
• Graphics= See Sheet 1 of 8
• Bracket & Hardware= Slack
• All finishes to be Matte
r , Ba R D H 0 U K PROJECT NAME_Bridge ~ h~~h Project REVISION0 I -03-08_ SALES DATE 12- 12-07_ _
LOCATION_Location DESIGN SCALE NTS
collaborative CITY Dublin STATE Ohlo SKEET 2 of 8 SIZE PROJECT# 06023
SIGN TYPE A
16"X92" SINGLE
FACED SIGN
MOUNTED FLUSH
TO WALL
North Elevation Building A ~%8" Scale
Concept Sign Locations
XII.Si~na~e and Graphics. Except as provided herein, all'signage shall comply with Dublin City Code
§§153.150, et seq. In the event of a conflict between this text and the Code, this text shall control. signage shall
be limited to wall signage and subject to the following requirements:
a. Permanent Signa~e. All permanent signage on the site will be of similar character, and comply with the
Dublin Sigu Code and Old Dublin Sign Guidelines. Signage will not be internally illuminated or electrically
backlighted.
1. Each occupant (owner or tenant) shall be permitted one (1}mounted wall sign plaque on its storefront,
which is defined as that facade which faces a public right-of-way or private drive, and one (i) mounted wall sign
plaque on any public entrance facing the court,~ard, i.e. the public plaza. An illustrative wall sign plaque is shown
in Exhibit B.
2. Each occupant (owner or tenant} shall he permitted one (i) blade wall sign at each public entrance,
and one (1) additional blade sign on each side of the occupant's building on which occupant does not have
an entrance. An illustrative blade wall sign is shown in Exhibit B.
3. All wall signage shall be consistent in size, profile, and color scheme, and shall be constructed of
high-density urethane, rectangular in shape and with a quarter round at each corner. Each sign shall have a
raised or recessed border and raised or recessed text, and plaques shall be mounted .375-inch off of the face
of the exterior wall to permit drainage.
4. A total of four (4) sign colors shall be permitted. Colors shall below-chroma, subdued colors, but for
text gold coloring is also permitted.
5. All lettering is to be centered in relation to the height and width of the sign.
6. All mounted wall signs plaques shall be externally illuminated using the same ar similar gooseneck
light fixtures throughout the sub-area.
PROJECT NAME`Brid~e ~ high Project REVISION 0 I -03-08 SALES DATE 12- 12-07
~ B I R D H~ U K LOCATI ON_Location
DESIGN SCALE NTS_
collaborative CITY Dublin STATE Ohio SHEET 3 of 8 SIZE PROJECT# 06023
SIGN TYPE A 51GN TYPE B SIGN TYPE A
16"X92" 51NGLE
FACED SIGN
MOUNTED FLUSH
TO WALL
27"X36" DOUBLE FACED
SIGN MOUNTED
16"X92" SINGLE
FACED SIGN
MOUNTED FLUSH
TO WALL
SIGN TYPE A
16"X92" SINGLE
FACED SIGN
MOUNTED FLUSH
TO WALL
South Elevation Building A ~ %8"Scale
Concept Sign Locations
XII.Siena a and Graphics. Except as provided herein, all signage shall comply with Dublin City Code
§§153.15, ei seq. In the event of a conflict between this text and the Code, this text shall control. signage shall
be limited to wall signage and subject to the following requirements:
a. Permanent SiQnage. All permanent signage on the site will be of similar character, and comply with the
Dublin Sign Code and Old Dublin Sign Guidelines. signage will not be internally illuminated or electrically
backlighted.
1. Each occupant (owner or tenant) shall be permitted one (1) mounted wall sign plaque on its storefront,
which is defined as that facade whidl faces a public right-of--way or private drive, and one (1) mounted wall sign
plaque on any public entrance facing the courtyard, i.e. the public plaza. An illustrative wall sign plaque is shown
in Exhibit B.
2, Each occupant (owner or tenant) shall be permitted one (~) blade wall sign at each public entrance,
and one (1) additional blade sign on each side of the occupant's building on which occupant does not have
an entrance. An illustrative blade wall sign is shown in Exhibit B.
3. All wall signage shall be consistent in size, profile, and color scheme, and shall be constructed of
high-density urethane, rectangular in shape and with a quarter round at each corner. Fach sign shall have a
raised or recessed border and raised or recessed text, and plaques shall be mounted .375-inch off of the face
of the exterior wall to permit drainage.
4. A total of four (4) sign colors shall be permitted. Colors shall below-chroma, subdued colors, but for
text gold coloring is also permitted.
5. All lettering is to be centered in relation to the height and width of the sign.
6. All mounted wall signs plaques shall be externally illuminated using the same or similar gooseneck
light fixtures throughout the sub-area.
r ~ R I j~~ L,-]~~ ~ PROJECT NAME_Br~d~e ~ f-1~~h Project . REV1510N 0 I -03-08_ SALES DATE 12- 12-07
U ,~ 1 f~1 LOCATION_Location DE510N SCALE_NTS
collaborative CITY Dublin STATE Ohio SKEET 4 of 8 SIZE PROJECT# 06023
51GN TYPE B
27"X36" DOUBLE
FACED SIGN
MOUNTED
PERPENDICULAR
70 WALL
SIGN TYPE B
27"X36" DOUBLE
FACED SIGN
MOUNTED
PERPENDICULAR
TO WALL
East Elevation Building A ~ %$" Scale
Concept Sign Locations
XII. Signa a and Graphics. Except as provided herein, all signage shall comply with Dublin City Code
§§153.150, et seq. In the event of a conflict between this text and the Code, this text shall control. Signage shall
be limited to wall signage and subject to the following requirements;
a. Permanent Si~na~e. All permanent signage on the site will be of similar character, and comply with the
Dublin Sign Code and Old Dublin Sign Guidelines. Signage will not be internally illuminated or electrically
backlighted.
i. Each occupant (owner or tenant) shall be permitted one (1) mounted wall sign plaque on its storefront,
which is defined as that facade which faces a public right-of--way or private drive, and one (1) mounted wrall sign
plaque on any public entrance facing the courtyard, i.e, the public plaza. An illustrative wall sign plaque is shown
in Exhibit B.
West Elevation Building A ~%8" Scale
Concept Sign Locations
2. Each occupant (owner or tenant} shall be permitted one (i) blade wall sign at each public entrance,
and one (1) additional blade sign on each side of the occupant's building on which occupant does not have
an entrance. An illustrative blade wall sign is shown in Exhibit B.
3. All wall signage shall be consistent in size, profile, and color scheme, and shall be constructed of
high-density urethane, rectangular in shape and with a quarter round at each corner. Each sign shall have a
raised or recessed border and raised or recessed text, and plaques shall be mounted .375-inch off of the face
of the exterior wall to permit drainage.
4. A total of four (4) sign colors shall be permitted. Colors shall below-chroma, subdued colors, but for
text gold coloring is also permitted.
5. All lettering is to be centered in relation to the height and ~ridth of the sign.
6. All mounted wall signs plaques shall be externally illuminated using the same or similar gooseneck
light fixtures throughout the sub-area.
~ ~ B IR D H 0 U K OCOATION_A oEa ~ Bridle ~ high Project REVISION_0 I -03-08_SA~ES DATE 12- 12-07 .
L c t on DESIGN SCALE NT5
collaborative CITY Dublin STATE Ohio SKEET 5 of 8 SfZE PROJECT# 06023
SIGN TYPE A 51GN TYPE A SIGN TYPE B SIGN TYPE A SIGN TYPE B SIGN TYPE A
16"X92" SINGLE FACED 51GN 16"X92" SINGLE FACED 27"X36" DOUBLE FACED 16"X92" SINGLE FACED 27"X36" DOUBLE FACED 16"X92" SINGLE FACED
MOUNTED FLUSH TO WALL SIGN MOUNTED FLUSH SIGN MOUNTED SIGN MOUNTED FLUSH SIGN MOUNTED SIGN MOUNTED FLUSH
TO WALL PERPENDICULAR TO TO WALL PERPENDICULAR TO WALL TO WALL
WALL
East Elevation Building B ~ 3l16" Scale
Concept Sign Locations
XII.Signa~e and Grayhics. Except as provided herein, all signage shall comply with Dublin City Code
§§~53.i5o, et seq. In the event of a conflict between this test and the Code, this text shall control. Signage shall
be limited to wall signage and subject to the following requirements:
a. Permanent Signage. All permanent signage on the site will be of similar character, and comply with the
Dublin Sign Code and Old Dublin Sign Guidelines. Signage will not be internally illuminated or electrically
backlighted.
>,. Each occupant (owner or tenant) shall be permitted one (i) mounted wall sign plaque on its storefront,
which is defined as that fa4ade which faces a public right-of-way or private drive, and one (i) mounted wall sign
plaque on any public entrance facing the courtyard, i.e. the public plaza. An illustrative wall sign plaque is shown
in Exhibit B.
2. Each occupant (owner or tenant) shall be permitted one (i) blade wall sign at each public entrance,
and one (~) additional blade sign on each side of the occupant's building on which occupant does not have
an entrance. An illustrative blade wall sign is shown in Exhibit B.
3. All wall signage shall be consistent in size, profile, and color scheme, and shall be constructed of
high-density urethane, rectangular in shape and with a quarter round at each corner. Each sign shall have a
raised or recessed border and raised or recessed text, and plaques shall be mounted ,375-inch off of the face
of the exterior wall to permit drainage.
4. A total of four {4) sign colors shall be permitted. Colors shall below-chroma, subdued colors, but for
text gold coloring is also permitted.
5. All lettering is to be centered in relation to the height and width of the sign.
6. All mounted wall signs plaques shall be externally illuminated using the same or similar gooseneck
light fixtures throughout the sub-area.
.. ~~~~ H~UK PROJECT NAME_Brld~e ~ f11~h Project REVISION O I -03-08 SALES DATE_ 12- 12-07
n LOCATION_Location DESIGN SCALE NTS
collaborative CITY Dublin STATE Ohio Sf~1EET 6 of 8 SIZE PROJECT# 06023
SIGN TYPE A SIGN TYPE A SIGN TYPE B SIGN TYPE A SIGN TYPE B
16"X92" SINGLE FACED 16"X92" SINGLE FACED 27"X36" DOUBLE FACED 16"X92" SINGLE FACED 27"X36" DOUBLE FACED SIGN TYPE A
SIGN MOUNTED FLUSH TO SIGN MOUNTED FLUSH SIGN MOUNTED SIGN MOUNTED FLUSH SIGN MOUNTED
WALL TO WALL PERPENDICULAR TO TO WALL PERPENDICULAR TO WALL 16"X92" SINGLE FACED SIGN
WALL MOUNTED FLUSN TO WALL
SIGN TYPE B
27"X36" DOUBLE
FACED SIGN
MOUNTED
PERPENDICULAR
TO WALL
West Elevation Building B ~ 3116" Scale
Concept Sign Locations
XII.Si~nage and Graphics. Except as provided herein, all signage shall comply with Dublin City Code
§§i53.X50, et seq. In the event of a conflict between this text and the Code, this text shall control. Signage shall
be limited to wall signage and subject to the following requirements:
a. Permanent. Si~na~e. All permanent signage on the site will be of similar character, and comply with the
Dublin Sign Code and Old Dublin Sign Guidelines. Signage will not be internally illuminated or electrically
backlighted.
~. Each occupant (owner or tenant) shall be permitted one (i) mounted wall sign plaque on its storefront,
which is defined as that facade which faces a public right-of-way or private drive, and one (i) mounted wall sign
plaque on any public entrance facing the courtyard, i.e. the public plaza. An illustrative wall sign plaque is shown
in Exhibit B.
SIGN TYPE B
27"X36" DOUBLE FACED
SIGN MOUNTED
PERPENDICULAR TO
WALL
2. Each occupant (owner or tenant) shall be permitted one (i) blade wall sign at each public entrance,
and one (i}additional blade sign on each side of the occupant's building on which occupant does not have
an entrance. An illustrative blade wall sign is shown in Exhibit B.
3. All wall signage shall be consistent in size, profile, and color scheme, and shall be constructed of
high-density urethane, rectangular in shape and with a quarter round at each corner. Each sign shall have a
raised or recessed border and raised or recessed text, and plaques shall be mounted .375-inch off of the face
of the exterior wall to permit drainage.
4. A total of four (4) sign colors shall be permitted. Colors shall below-chroma, subdued colors; but for
text gold coloring is also permitted.
5. All lettering is to be centered in relation to the height and width of the sign.
6. All mounted wall signs plaques shall be externally illuminated using the same or similar gooseneck
light fixtures throughout the sub-area.
~' PROJECT NAME Brld~e ~ hia~h Pron~ect REV1510N_0 I -03-08 SALES DATE 12- 12-07
~ ~ B1JRD H~U K LOCATION_Location DESIGN SCALE_NTS
collaborative CITY Dublin STATE Ohlo St1EET 7 of 8 SIZE PROJECT# 06023
51GN TYPE B
27"X36" DOUBLE
FACED SIGN
MOUNTED
PERPENDICULAR
TO WALL
SIGN TYPE B
27"X36" DOUBLE
FACED SIGN MOUNTED
PERPENDICULAR TO
WALL
SIGN TYPE 8
SIGN TYPE B
27"X36" DOUBLE FACED
SIGN MOUNTED
PERPENDICULAR TO WALL
27"X36" DOUBLE
FACED SIGN
MOUNTED
PERPENDICULAR
TO WALL
North Elevation Building B ~ 3116" Scale
Concept Sign Locations
XII. Signage and Graphics. Except as provided herein, all signage shall comply with Dublin City Code
§§i53.X50, et seq. In the event of a conflict between this text and the Code, this text shall control. Signage shall
be limited to wall signage and subject to the follotiving requirements:
a. Permanent Si nape. All permanent signage on the site will be of similar character, and comply with the
Dublin Sign Code and Old Dublin Sign Guidelines. Signage will not be internally illuminated or electrically
backlighted.
~. Each occupant (owner or tenant) shall be permitted one (i) mounted wall sign plaque on its storefront,
which is defined as that facade which faces a public right-of-way or private drive, and one (i) mounted wall sign
plaque on any public entrance facing the courtyard, i.e, the public plaza. An illustrative wall sign plaque is shown
in Exhibit B.
South Elevation Building B ~ 3116" Scale
Concept Sign Locations
2. Each occupant (owner or tenant) shall be permitted one (i) blade wall sign at each public entrance;
and one (t) additional blade sign on each side of the occupant's building on which occupant does not have
an entrance. An illustrative blade wall sign is shown in Exhibit B.
3. All wall signage shall be consistent in size, profile, and color scheme, and shall be constructed of
high-density urethane, rectangular in shape and with a quarter round at each corner. Each sign shall have a
raised or recessed border and raised or recessed text, and plaques shall be mounted .375-inch off of the face
of the exterior wall to permit drainage.
4. A total of four (4) sign colors shall be permitted. Colors shall below-chrorna, subdued colors, but for
text gold coloring is also permitted.
$. All lettering is to be centered in relation to the height and width of the sign.
6. All mounted wall signs plaques shall be externally illuminated using the same or similar gooseneck
light fixtures throughout the sub-area.
~ ~ B I R D H I I (,( PROJECT NAME_Brid~e ~ I1i~h Project REVISION_0 I -03-08_ SALES DATE 12- 12-07
O V f \ LOCATION_Locatlon DESIGN SCALE_NTS
collaborative CITY Dublln STATE Ohio Sf1EET 8 of 8 SIZE PROJECT# 06023
DRAFT
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
JANUARY 17, 2008
crr~~ ~r Dt~l;l.ln.
Land Use and
long Range Planning
5800 Shier-Rings Rood
Duhlin, Ohia 43016-1236
Phone: 614-410.4600
Fax: 614.410.4747
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
1. Bridge and High Streets Development 20 West Bridge Street
07-0997./FDP Final Development Plan
Proposal: A mixed-use development with approximately 22,000 square feet
of retail and office space and associated site improvements located
at the northwest corner of Bridge and High Streets.
Request: Review and approval of a final development plan under the
Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050.
Applicant: City of Dublin, represented by Mo M. Dioun, The Stonehenge
Company.
Planning Contact: Dan Phillabaum, A1CP, Senior Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4662, dphillabaum@dublin.oh.us.
MOTION: To approve this Final Development Plan application because it complies with the
requirements of the preliminary development plan, the final development plan criteria and the
existing development standards within the area with four conditions:
1) That trash be permitted to be stored within Building B only if an offsite refuse area is not
available at the time of tenant occupancy, to the satisfaction of Planning;
2) That the Sign and Graphics Plan be revised to specify that a maximum of three colors are
permitted on all signs;
3) That the development text be revised to state that all sign dimensions specified are the
maximum sizes permitted; and
4) That the City work with the adjoining owner of 24 Darby Street to minimize issues
related to the size and scope of retaining walls, to the extent feasible.
*Mo Dioun agreed to the above conditions.
VOTE: 5 - 0.
RESULT: This Final Development Plan application was approved.
STAFF CE TI~IGATION
~~ ~ ~~~~~
~,~
,an Phillabaum, A C'P
Senior Planner
Planning and Zoning Commission
DRAFT January 17, 2008 -Minutes
Page 3 of 24
1. Bridge and High Streets Development 20 West Bridge Street
07-0992/FDP Final Development Plan
Dan Phillabaum presented the Planning Report for this request for review and approval of final
development plan far a 22,000-square-foot mixed use development with associated site
improvements. He said the rezoning and preliminary development plan was approved with
conditions by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 6, 2007 and is expected to be
heard at City Council in February. He said the approval of the final development plan would not
take affect until the rezoning is approved by City Council. Mr. Phillabaum reported that the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) approved the architecture and site modifications for this
development with conditions on .lanuary 9, 2008. He said that Planning recommends approval of
this final development plan with the following three conditions as distributed tonight:
1) That the refuse storage area proposed for the north end of Building B is relocated offsite or
to an expanded refuse area within Building A, to the satisfaction of Planning;
2) That the Si~nl and Graphics Plan be revised to specify that a maximwn of three colors are
permitted on all signs; and
3) That the development text be revised to state that all sign dimensions specified are the
maximum sizes permitted.
Mr. Phillabaum said that there had been no changes to the layout or arrangement of the plan site
plan since the preliminary development plan was approved by the Commission. He said the only
principal change to the elevations since last seen were to the south elevation of Building B where
some of the previous Gothic features; windows, roof brackets, flared eaves, and some other
ornamentation has been simplified in order to keep it consistent with the rest of the character of
Historic Dublin.
Mr. Phillabaum said a condition of the Commission's approval of the rezoning was to implement
snow and ice guards on the portions of the buildings with standing seam metal roofs, and the
applicant has reflected the request in the elevations.
Mr. Phillabaum said there was a concern at the rezoning regarding street tree selection along
Bridge and High Streets and the maintenance of the tree grates. He said a memo from Paula
Chope, the City Forester had been included in the meeting packets outlining the City's tree
selection rationale and maintenance of street trees. He said the specified street tree metal grate is
expandable to permit growth so that trees will not become girdled within it.
Mr. Phillabaum said ARB approved the hardscape elements of this plan, including the plaza
materials, walls, and steps. He added that included within the hardscape, are the water features
in the southeast plaza, and that the A1tB conditioned that the applicant work with interested
parties to develop design recommendations for the area and the designs be returned for review
and approval by the ARB.
Mr. Philtabauin said approval by the Commission of the preliminary plan was conditioned that
the square footages of the individual patios and potential balcony locations be designated on the
plan. He indicated on the plan where the balcony locations on the buildings and maximum
Planning and Zoning Commission
Q R A FT January 17, 2008 - Ntinutes
Page 4 of 24
envelope and patio locations. He said any potential balcony would be reviewed for size and
location, as well as design details by the ARB, however none are proposed at this time.
Mr. Phillabaum said there was a desire of the Commission that the proposed fences be of a
consistent character. He presented the three ARB approved fence options for use in delineating
the patio areas.
Mr. Phillabaum said another issue discussed and conditioned by the Commission at the
preliminary plan approval was related to the refuse enclosures. He said the applicant has
proposed to manage refuse for the buildings within the buildings themselves in order to maintain
a high quality pedestrian environment. He said for Building A, along Bridge Street, it is located
within the northwest portion of the building and would be serviced from Darby Street, and in the
northwest portion of Building B along High Street and serviced from Wing Hill, which becomes
a service court in this location.
Mr. Phillabaum said an issue has been identified due to the relative proximity of the enclosure
within Building B to adjoining properties, 37 North High Street and 24 Darby Street. He said
Planning believes that the refuse area should be relocated either offsite or within an expanded
refuse storage area within Building A. Mr. Phillabaum referenced a letter that had been provided
to the Commission from The Stonehenge Company outlining their response to this condition and
various commitments they may choose to implement to satisfy Condition 1.
Mr. Phillabaum said the ARB approved the Sign and Graphics Plan, and this plan was
conditioned to be returned to the Commission for review and approval at the rezoning, as well.
He said three types of signs are permitted, per the proposed development text, wall mounted
signs at a maximum of 16-inches high and eight feet long with a variety of end shape styles,
projecting or blade signs oriented perpendicular to the building a maximum of 27-inches by 36-
inches wide with additional approved shapes designated, and tenant directory panels 18 by 24-
inches in size. He said a palette of four background color options is proposed, including
Rookwood Red, Dard Hunter Green, Rookwood Brown, and "Tricorn Black. Mr. Phillabaum said
three letter and border color options are permitted, Gold Leaf, Classical White, and New
Colonial Yellow.
Mr. Phillabaum said the sign sizes specified in the plan should be clarified to state that these are
the maximum sizes permitted, not a requirement that all must be consistent in size.
Mr. Phillabaum said an additional clarification between the sign plan and the development text
should. be made to specify that a maximum of three colors will be permitted on all signs.
Mr. Phillabaum said the number and location of permitted signs is specific to the architectural
elevations and direction they face. He noted that first floor tenants in both buildings facing the
public right of way would be permitted one wall sign and one blade sign, and one or the other of
these signs facing the formal green. He said that no signs are permitted on the end elevations of
either building. He said that second floor tenants in both buildings would be identified by one
tenant directory sign. He noted that the location of the second floor tenant directory sign was not
shown on the plan, because it will be dependent on how the internal space is divided. He said
Planning and "/,oning Commission
~ R ~, ~-~- January 17, 2008 -Minutes
Page 5 of 24
tenant directory signs would be located adjacent to the doors accessing the second floor tenant
spaces.
Mr. Zimmerman swore in those who intended to speak in regards to this case.
Mo Dioun, The Stonehenge Company, commented that regarding Condition 1, he wrote a letter
explaining the rationale of why he believes consideration should be given to modify this
condition. He said he had a concern that all of the surrounding businesses should collectively
manage refuse storage and collection in a centralized area and this was the best solution for
everyone. He referred to the site plan and said that businesses in Building B would have to carry
trash to the west end of Building A, crossing the City's formal plaza and gathering place in the
early evening. He said the ability to manage the transporting of trash from ane building to
another is much more susceptible to being managed poorly, rather than the rigorous management
of refuse that he has committed to in his letter. Dioun suggested further discussion about
Condition 1, as he said he could not control the ability to secure an offsite refuse management
agreement, and did not believe transporting refuse to Building A was in anyone's interest.
Tim Day, representing Thelma Hill, owner of 24 Darby Street, said they were concerned about
being able to incorporate their building into the plan. He said much had been considered to
incorporate it, but the biggest problem was that the tenant now felt they would have to move the
main entrance from the east side to the south side of the building and to rearrange the business
internally. He said the proposed accessible walkway, ramp, and walls prevent the business from
being incorporated into the development. Mr. Day requested that something be done to better
incorporate them into the plan by revising the wall and ramp locations. Iie noted that the view
from the second floor of Building B would he of the flat rooftop of 24 Darby, and suggested that
consideration be given to changing this roof to a pitched roof so the complex all worked together
visually.
Mr. Day said on the west side of their building on Darby Street, there is a heated concrete
accessible ramp. He said the business has clients who use this everyday and they cannot have
any downtime from construction in this area. He requested that if there is any construction there
be a guarantee that temporary ramps be installed.
Mr. Day said from the beginning, they have expressed the need to be compensated for downtime
or lost revenue resulting from the construction of this project. He said the answer he got was
"that was just part of being in our community." He said they had spent a lot of money to
improve the building, but it will not be seen after this development is finished. He said without
being included on a directory, someone coming from the valet parking to their business will not
be able to find it He said there either needed to be a rezoning or some consideration made for
additional signs.
Mr. Zimmerman asked if this was the first time NIr. Day had approached the City on this subject.
Sara Ott said the City had communication with Ms. Hill for approximately the past two years.
She said the City tried to contact her in early December, prior to when this case was tabled by the
Commission to discuss these issues. She said unfortunately due to circumstances out of the
City's control, that conversation was not had until approximately two weeks ago. She offered to
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2008 Minutes
DRAFT Page 6 of 24
go into detail on any of the items Mr. Day had brought up and said that the City had provided
commitments in the areas they believed they could. She said that other commitments or
considerations outside the scope of what staff feels the City can commit to.
Mr. Zimmerman asked for a brief explanation of what the City is doing.
Ms. Ott said she received a call from the tenant of 24 Darby on Monday requesting the City take
a look at how these proposed walls are in relationship to the existing building. She said since
that conversation, she had been working with Bird Houk to see what the implications were for
modifying the proposed plan, and the cost implications as well, to see if those can be
accommodated. Ms. Ott said the when the final paving material for the project is selected, the
City will look at upgrading the currently proposed concrete on the west side of 24 Darby to a
paving material consistent with the rest of the space. She said the City has also provided Modern
Male a copy of the proposed sign package so that they can evaluate their existing signage. She
said the City had committed to maintaining safe surroundings and accessibility to the building
during the construction period, recognizing that there should not be a lack of access during that
time. Ms. Ott said The Stonehenge Company has committed to the City to maintain that for this
property, at 24 Darby Street, as well as are other neighboring businesses in the area.
Mr. 'Zimmerman asked if the Commission tonight was j ust reviewing the building footprints.
Jennifer Readler said the Commission was to do their regular site review, signage and dumpsters
issues. She said fundamentally, the Commission could just review the application before them
and limit their discussion to the delineations of the property before them.
Mr. Saneholtz asked if that meant that it was not an issue as to the impact upon neighbors.
Ms. Readler said to the extent that there are elements on the City's site that impact the adjoining
property is within the Commissions purview. She said additionally construction impacts and
waste mitigation would be as well. She noted that revisions to 24 Darby or any compensation for
that building owner would not.
Mr. Saneholtz said he still had not heard anything satisfactory with respect to the three-foot wall
that he was being told was separating 24 Darby from this new project. He said he would Like to
understand what position the Commission is voting on with respect to chat wall.
Mr. Phillabaum presented conceptual slides of a potential modification to the east side of the 24
Darby property. He described that the proposed walls were used for retention to create an ADA
accessible path from Darby Street to the project. He explained that the proposed east-west ramp
on the north side of the formal green incorporates a landing at the midpoint that connects to the
sidewalk on the south side of 24 Darby Street. He said this landing then has a few steps leading
down to the internal plaza space.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the sidewalk width adjacent to 24 Darby was being narrowed
Planning and Zoning Comnussion
January 17, 2008 -Minutes
Page 7 of 24
Ms. Ott clarified that the City had gnanted 24 Darby Street an easement on the south and east
side of its property that is 7.S feet wide. She said the area where a portion of the sidewalk is
currently located is owned by the City. She said the Hill family had been approached by the City
regarding a temporary construction easement and permanent easement on the west side of 24
Darby to address pedestrian access and construction activity associated with this proposal. She
explained that portions of the existing walkway were not going to be removed, so the current
concrete will be left in place.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what was the distance from the door opening to the break. Mr.
Phillabaum estimated eight to ten feet.
Mr. Saneholtz asked if the preferred main entrance to 24 Darby was anticipated to be on the east
or south side.
Mr. Day said currently, the main entrance is on the east side, so they have to re-coordinate their
business so that the door will be on the south side. He said they were being forced to do that
mainly because Building B was going to be located really close.
Mr. Saneholtz asked if they were actually choosing to move their door to the south side.
Brian Kocak, the husband of the owner of Modern Male, said it was more due to the internal
function of the building. He said with the parking lot west of the building, it did not make sense
to make customers come through the public green to the existing front door. He said they have
concerns from a safety standpoint that the IS-inch wall might be used as a seat and someone
might fall onto their property. He said they would be back to ask for a sign package. He said
they also had drainage issues to think about since they had two drains coming off their flat roof
that would go into the walkway to the stairs. Mr. Kocak said that utility service cutoff tivould
need to be coordinated with the development. IIe noted that two parking spots would be lost
from the back of their building. He said that 1VIs. Hill was going to actually grant the City
permission to make this whole walkway happen on the back half of the building and there will be
some concessions on how that can be incorporated too.
Mr. Saneholtz said the Commission wanted everyone to understand how protective they are of
Dublin's current businesses and residents. He said it concerned him that Mr. Day had those
concerns, and he was glad that the City and the developer are doing their best to address them.
He agreed that it was his impression that this building was to be incorporated into this site in
spirit, if not in a legal sense. He said he encouraged the applicant and the City to make sure that
they do the best they can for the existing business.
Joe Tribel, Civil Engineer, reiterated the issues about the width between the existing building and
the wall. He noted that existing sidewalk is 42-inches wide, and the wall was proposed to be
built on the south edge of it. He said the sidewalk is up against the building, and sidewalks are
normally four feet in width. Ile said being up against the building he thought it should be a little
wider than that, so he was suggesting five feet between the edge of the building and the wall, and
that the additional 1.5-foot be made of concrete for the sidewalk.
Planning and Zoning Commission
~ ~-~~ ~- January 17, 2008 -Minutes
Page 8 of 2~
Mr. Zimmerman reiterated that Ms. Ott, the City, and Planning would continue to work with the
concerned parties. He said the primary issues the Commission would discuss tonight were the
refuse location, the Sign and Graphics Plan, and street trees.
Ms. Amorose Groomes strongly urged that the street trees not be tied to this application because
they will be installed and maintained on City property. She said she would like to see the street
trees selected rethought because she did not agree with the criteria used. Ms. Amorose Groomes
said for a staff directive, she said that regular tree grate maintenance is something that has simply
not happened. She requested that the street tree portion be pulled from this approval so that the
Commission can reconsider it, and that possibly a consultant might be able to provide a better
directive.
Mr. Phillabaum said that street trees could he reconsidered apart from this application. He said
as they are within the right-of--way and not within the development site itself it would not be an
issue. He said Planning is undertaking a corridor study of the character of SR ].61 and Bridge
Street, which includes street trees. He confirmed with the Commissioners that the location as
shown and quantity was appropriaic.
IVIr. Walter questioned the wall height and the liability issue. Mr. Phillabaum deferred to the
city's legal counsel for any liability issues, but confirmed that Engineering has reviewed the
wall, and believes that it meets all the safety requirements per Code. He said one element that
was not depicted was hand rails that would need to be implemented on the ramps.
Mr. Saneholtz said he would like to incorporate an additional condition into this application to
protect the neighboring business. He said he believed it needed to a condition that they work
with the neighboring, existing business to minimize the impact.
Mr. Walter said they were dealing with an infill project, so it was a little different. He said the
adjoining business indicates that they have spent a lot of money and are losing visibility. He said
fundamentally they are not on a corner lot, and would not have visibility from the intersection.
He said there will he significant positive impact to them by having the courtyard out front, with
people sitting at the patio, and would now have much more visibility. He said he thought it was
incumbent upon that business to decide whether or not they want to make modifications to that
building from the facade of the building.
Mr. Saneholt~ said his biggest concern was the wall feature and the extent of the wall. Ile said
he would hate to see that building feel separated from this new development because he thought
it would enhance the visibility. He agreed that a portion of the wall is there for containment to
create the accessible ramp, but he would like to see the size of that wall minimized to extent
possible for the sake of both parties that will be affected by this development.
Mr. Zimmerman said he thought it was difficult for the Commission to ovemde an engineering
or ADA requirement. Mr. Saneholtz agreed and said that was why he was suggesting the
condition to the extent possible, but still being sound from an engineering perspective. He
repeated that he wanted a condition to that affect. ~vlr. Zimmerman read the condition: That the
Planning and Zoning Commission
~-~ ~ ~ r_~ . January 17, 2008 -Minutes
Page 9 of 24
City work with the adjoining owner of 24 Darby Street to minimize issues related to the size and
scope of retaining walls to the extent feasible.
Mr. Zimmerman confirmed that the Commissioners were fine with the sign plan as proposed.
Mr. Walter said when he first heard presentation about relocating the refuse, the first image that
came to his mind was rolling big trash containers across the plaza and dribbling refuse along the
way. He said he completely agreed with the applicant and his comment about an offsite regional
refuse facility. 1-le said he luiew of no good solution, but to strike Condition 1 and leaving the
plan as it was with refuse being stored in each of the buildings. He said that he did not think the
condition would he for the best of the development.
Mr. Zimmerman disagreed.. He said there was a difference between a restaurant refuse and
office refuse. He questioned who would be responsible to police this, the City, landowner, or
tenant. He said he thought that Condition 1, as written, was appropriate.
Mr. Walter asked if it was more favorable to have the refuse moved constantly to the other
building, as the condition read.
Mr. Zimmerman said the preference for everyone, was to have an offsite refuse collection area,
but it required collaboration with other businesses. He said however, if it dues not happen, he
was an absolute believer that for the public good, there needs to be much greater control of
managing that trash in Building B with the commitments that are being made by the applicant as
to when they are going to move that trash, and its impact on other businesses.
Nir. Dioun said he could commit to the control and management of it, if it was in Building B. He
said he could be held responsible for this; however he said he could not control tenants hauling
their trash from the High Street building to the Bridge Street building. He concurred with Mr.
Walter's observation. He said their objective was to have a centralized refuse gathering area, but
barring that, he said he believed the public areas are being exposed to a risk that he could not
commit to control.
Mr. Fishman agreed with Mr. Dioun's comments. He said he did not believe trash would be
taken all the way over to the other building during busy times, and that it will sit outside the
buildings. He said even if the bags do not break within the plaza, it will sit there until someone
Is ready to take it. Mr. Fishman said until there is a better way to handle the trash, this is the way
it should be handled.
Ms. Amorose Groornes pointed out that that the trash would be on City property if it was outside
the building and there would be the ability to pvlice that. However, she said she completely
agreed with Mr. Dioun on many of his points. She asked if the Commission could modify the
condition, that if there was a failure to have an consolidated duznpster facility available for the
Historic District, and if all of Mr. Dioun's resources were exhausted toward that end, to fall back
on Building B as a permitted enclosed trash area. Ms. Readler said there could be such a
condition. Ms. Amorose Groomes said slle would like to see a condition worded that way. She
said she preferred a community dumpster, and if Mr. Dioun was unable to coordinate that with
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2008 -Minutes
R~ ~ Page 10 of 24
the neighboring businesses, he would be permitted interior trash storage in Building B. She
asked if that could be worded to that affect. Ms. Readier said there could be a condition: That
trash collection will be permitted in Building B to the extent that an offsite regional system
cannot be achieved. Ms. Amorose and Mr. Fishman. agreed that was perfect. Ms. Readier added
it should be linked to the time of occupancy.
Mr. Dioun asked that the four conditions be read before he agreed to them to avoid any
misunderstanding.
Mr. Phillabaum read the four amended and added conditions:
1) That trash be permitted to be stored within Building B only if an offsite refuse area is not
available at the time of tenant occupancy;
2) That the Sign and Graphics Plan be revised to specify that a maximum of three colors are
permitted on all signs;
3) That the development text be revised to state that all sign dimensions specified are the
maximum sizes permitted;
4) That the City work with the adjoining owner of 24 Darby Street to minimize issues related to
the size and scope of retaining walls to the extent feasible.
Ms. Ott clarified that Condition 4 did not include the width of the walkway.
Mr. Dioun agreed to the four conditions as listed above.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Zimmernan made a motion to approve this final development plan application because it
meets the requirements of the preliminary development plan as conditioned, the final
development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area with four
conditions as listed above. Ms. Amorose Groomes seconded the motion. The vote was as
follows: Mr. Saneholtz, yes, Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes;
and Mr. Zimmerman, yes. (Approved 5 - 0.)
PLAl\'NING REPORT
CITY OF DGBLL~. PLANNING AND 70NING COMMISSION
~a uu .a
~«w Ra6r ~e
56'00 sw«~s I~.6 JANUARY 17, 2008
Dr6G, OMe 13016.1236
Ihoni 614/104600
Fmc: 61N10.171]
W~h SIN: +Mwr.duli~uM.uf
SECTION I -CASE INFORMATION:
1. Bridge and High Streets Development 20 West Bridge Street
07-099FDP Final Development Plan
Proposal: A mixed-use development with approximately 22,000
square feet of retail and office space and associated site
improvements located at the northwest corner of Bridge
and Nigh Streets.
Request: Review and approval of a final development plan under the
Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050.
Applicant: City of Dublin, represented by Mo M. Dioun, The
Stonehenge Company.
Planning Contact: Dan Phillabaum, AICP, Senior Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4662, dphillabaum@dublin.oh.us
Case Summary
This is a request for review and approval of a final development plan for a proposed
mixed-use development with approximately 22,000 square feet of retail and office space
and associated site improvements located at the northwest corner of West Bridge and
North High Streets. In Planning's opinion, the proposal will complies with the applicable
review criteria with the conditions listed in this report and approval of this request is
recommended.
Case Background
This project is apublic-private partnership between the City of Dublin and The
Stonehenge Company. A development agreement between the City and Stonehenge that
was approved on June 18, 2007 by City Council outlines the details of this partnership
and certain requirements with respect to the development of the project. The application
was presented as an Informal to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on July 25, 2007
and as a Concept Plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission. on August 9, 2007. The
rezoning,~preliminary development plan for this development was approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission on December 6, 2007, and the final development plan
was tabled at this meeting in order that it be reviewed separately following ARB approval
(see attached history). The Architectural Review Board approved the proposed
architecture and site modifications with conditions on January 9, 2008 (see attached
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2008 Planning Report
Case No. 07-094FDP -Page 2 of 1 1
Board Order). Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval are requested for
landscape, hardscape, signs, valet area and dumpster locations. Approval of the final
development plan will not take effect until the Rezoning/Prelirninary Development Plan
has been approved by City Council.
Site Description
Location
The 0.7-acre site, consisting of three parcels, is located at the northwest corner of Bridge
and High Streets, and has approximately 200 feet of frontage on Bridge Street and
approximately 170 feet on High Street.
Site Character
The land. is relatively flat with a slight slope from northwest to southeast and currently
includes an open grassy area and a temporary municipal parking lot. A stone wall is
located on the southeast corner of the site. Existing landscaping includes an evergreen
hedge, deciduous trees, evergreen trees, and planting beds around the parking lot.
Surrounding 7.oning and Uses
1'he site is currently zoned CB, Central Business District and CCC, Central Community
Commercial District. The rezoning to PD, Planned Development District approved by
the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 6, 2007 is expected to be scheduled
for introduction/first reading at City Council in February 2008. Modern Male is located
adjacent to the northwest portion of this site, in the same block, and is zoned CB. There
are several businesses to the north of this site also zoned CB. Parcels to the east and west
of this site are zoned CCC, and Town Center 1 to the south is zoned PUD, Planned Unit
Development District.
Plan Description
Overview
The site plan indicates two separate, two-story mixed-use buildings totaling
approximately 22,000 square feet to be located along the sidewalks of both West Bridge
and North High Streets. A formal public green will be located in the middle of the block,
framed by the existing Modern Male building at the northwest corner of the site and the
two proposed buildings along the south and east property lines. There is a public plaza at
the southeast corner of the site that provides access to the interior public space.
Patio space and potential balcony space will be provided along both buildings to serve the
patrons of future tenants as well as the general public. The site plan indicates two water
features located in the plaza space and an area designated for a future public art. Parking
for the uses will be provided off-site in municipal lots and designated on-street parking,
along with a valet parking arrangement. The valet station and patron drop-off area is
proposed at the western boundary of the site along Darby Street.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2008 Planning Report
Case No. 07-099FUP -- Pagc 3 of 11
Access for People with Disabilities
The entire site is accessible for people with disabilities. Five accessible parking spaces in
the nearby Darby Street municipal parking lot satisfy the recommendations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ADA compliant ramps are propvsed in the
internal public space area and provide access to both buildings from within the internal
public space.
Architecture
The proposed architectural elevations are consistent with the approved preliminary
development plan. The buildings are traditional in appearance and harmonious with
buildings in the Historic District. The architecture is of a high quality, and utilizes a
variety of building materials to have the appearance of storefronts constructed over a
number years.
At the January 9, 2008 meeting the ARB approved the proposed architecture with a
condition related to the south end of Building R, directing the applicant to coordinate
with Planning to determine if the addition of a gable to the roofline of east and west
elevations of this facade is architecturally appropriate.
Building Materials
The architectural elevations approved by the ARB depict brick, natural and synthetic
stone, wood siding and trim, and engineered wood composite or `Hardiplank' building
materials. The approved roof materials of these elevations include architectural asphalt
shingles, and standing seam metal roofing in a variety of colors. A condition of rezoning
approval was that snow and ice guards be provided on all areas of the proposed buildings
with standing seam metal roofs, and the applicant has met this requirement.
Building Placement, Mass and Scale
The proposed buildings are oriented parallel to West Bridge and North High Streets,
framing these streets in a manner consistent with the placement and orientation of
existing adjacent structures and cross streets. The building massing and scale are
designed to continue the pedestrian orientation reflected in similar buildings located in
the Histvric llistriet.
Signs
Conditions of rezoning approval were that the development text be revised to include a
Sigm and Graphics Plan prior to review by the ARB, and that this Plan be returned to the
Planning and Zoning Commission for review and approval as part of the Final
Develvpment Plan. The applicant has provided the Sign and Graphics Plan as Exhibit E
of the development text. "I'he ARB approved this plan with no conditions on January 9,
2008.
"1 he sign types, design details, and locations have been designed to a pedestrian scale and
similaz in character to Town Center l and other signs currently in the Historic District.
Permitted signs include single-sided flush wall mounted signs, projecting `blade' signs,
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2008 Planning Report
Case No. 07-099FDP Page 4 of 11
and single-sided wall mounted directory signs. Window signs are prohibited per the
development text as directed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the time of
rezoning.
Size and Shape:
1. Wall-mounted signs. All wall mounted signs shall be not more than sixteen
inches (16") tall. The maximum width for all wall mounted signs shall be
ninety-six inches (96"). All wall-mounted signs are required to be rectangular
in shape with six shapes permitted at the ends of the sign.
2. Projecting signs. All projecting signs shall be twenty-seven inches (27") tall by
thirty-six inches (36") wide. Four projecting sign shape options are permitted,
varying from rectangular to circular.
3. Directory signs. All directory signs for upper story tenants shall be eighteen
inches (18") wide by twenty-four inches (24") tall and rectangular in shape.
The development text should be clarified that ail sign dimensions specified are the
maximum sizes permitted.
Number and Location:
1. Wert Bridge Street and North High Street Facing First Floor Tenants. Tenants
located on the first floor with facades facing West Bridge or North High Streets
shall be permitted one projecting sign and one wall-mounted sign on this facade.
2. Public Plaza Facing First Floor 'Tenants. Tenants located on the first floor with
facades facing the public plaza shall be permitted either one projecting sign or
one wall-mounted sign on this facade.
3. Second Floor Tenants. One directory sign shall be placed adjacent to each first
floor doorway accessing these tenant spaces (or in a Location approved by the
City). Ali second floor tenants shall be identified on a directory sign.
4. End Unit Tenants. No signs shall be permitted on the facades of the end units of
the Buildings.
5. Height. No sign shall be permitted to exceed fifteen feet in height to the top of
the sign as measured from established grade.
Colors and Fonts:
A total of three (3) sign colors shall be permitted from the color palette provided.
There is a discrepancy between the development text and the Sign Plan, Exhibit E.
The Sign Plan indicates that four sign colors are permitted, and must be revised to
speci#y three colors maximum are permitted on all signs.
1. Background. The sign background color palette contains Sherwin Williams
Rookwood Red, Dard 1•lunter Green, Rookwood Dark Brown and "fricorn
Black in low-chroma matte finishes.
2. Letters and Border. The sign letters and borders color palette contains
Sherwim Williams New Colonial Yellow, Classical White, and Chromatic
Gold Paint.
3. Font. The fonts used on all signs must comply with the historic Dublin
Design Guidelines approved list.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2008 Planning Report
Case No. 07-099FDP -Page 5 of 11
Illumination:
All signs will be externally illuminated via a consistent gooseneck light fixture
painted in a matte black finish.
Lighting
The development text states that the site lighting shall utilize decorative fixtures with a
maximum pole height of twelve feet, and that the site will be appropriately lighted to
ensure safe access and circulation. While the proposed site lighting strives to meet the
Exterior Lighting Guidelines, in this location strict adherence to the Guidelines is not
appropriate due to the public nature of the space and requirements that pedestrian areas
be illuminated to ensure safety.
Landscaping
The proposed landscaping for this development is consistent with the preliminary
development plan approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Interior to the site
is a formal green with Honeylocust trees planted along the northern and w~cstern edges of
the green. Additional plant material will be located throughout the site in raised planters
and in beds along the building foundations.
A condition of rezoning approval was that the Landscape Plan include a cohesive street
tree treatment, and additional concerns were expressed by the Commission regarding the
maintenance of street tree grates. The street trees depicted at the time of rezoning-male
Gingko along Bridge Street and Japanese Tree Lilac along High Street-were selected in
close coordination with Paula Chope, City Forester. As additional development and
redevelopment occurs in the area and existing trees require replacement, these selections
will be used as the signature street trees for each of these streets within the Historic
District. A memo outlining the tree selection rationale and addressing tree grate
maintenance concerns has been provided within the packet.
Tree Replacement
The intent of the Tree Replacement Ordinance is to protect and preserve heavily wooded
natural areas in the City and is not applicable to redevelopment sites. Based on
communications with Fred Hahn, Director of Parks & Open Space, it has been
determined that this site is exempt from tree replacement requirements.
Hardscape
The public areas of the site have been designed in order to support and encourage a high
degree of pedestrian activity. The ARB approved the hardscape materials of the plazas
with the condition that, at the applicants' option, the paving materials palette be expanded
to allow brick or concrete pavers, or natural stone in addition to the proposed exposed
aggregate colored concrete.
Planning andL,oning Commission
January 17, 2008 Planning Report
Case No. 07-099FDP -Page 6 of 11
Water Features
Two water features are proposed within the southeast plaza adjacent to the patio spaces.
The design of the water features and southeast plaza was discussed at length by the ARB.
Ultimately the Board conditioned that the applicant work with interested parties to
develop further design recommendations for the future southeast plaza, utilizing the
proposed patio foundations, and that the design be returned to the ARB for further
consideration.
Patios & Balconies
The approved development agreement allows up to 3,000 square feet of patio and
balcony space as a permitted use, which is reflected within the development text. This
permitted patio space is for both the exclusive use of future tenants and use by the general
public. All potential patio spaces that could be utilized either by tenants or the general
publics are indicated on the Patio Plan. Areas dedicated for exclusive use by future
tenants will be delineated by fences or other means of enclosure. Patio furnishings such
as tables, chairs and umbrellas must be reviewed by the ARB as tenants are identified.
Patios: The site plan indicates approximately ].,500 square feet of exclusive use patio
space for both buildings located adjacent to the formal green space and plaza area. The
total area of all potential patio areas depicted on the Patio Plan is approximately 2,600
square feet, leaving a balance of approximately 400 square feet. The Patio Plan has been
revised to include the square footages of each potential patio/balcony area depicted, as
conditioned at the rezoning.
Balconies: Balconies are permitted by the development text, but exact locations are not
shown on the architectural elevations, as they will be constructed based on specific tenant
requests. The potential balcony locations and maximum balcony envelopes are depicted
on the Pativ Plan. The development text requires that balconies that are added later
receive separate approval from the ARB. The proposed balconies are oriented toward the
formal green above proposed. patio spaces. The total square footage of balcony area
depicted is 1,125 square feet. Any balcony space will be included within the 3,000
square feet total permitted patio balcony area.
Fences
Fences are used to define patio areas. The fence details approved by the ARB are
depicted within the Site Materials Selections, and are in keeping with the wrought iron
character currently existing in the District. The approved fences are consistent in
character, as conditioned by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the rezoning.
Refuse Storage
Refuse containers are proposed to be located within the buildings in designated service
areas at the west end of Building A and the north end of Building B. Access to the
containers is provided through small overhead doors facing Wing Hill and Darby Street.
The refuse storage area in Building B could have an adverse impact on adjacent
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2008 Planning Report
Case No. 07-099FDP -Page 7 of t 1
properties, and refuse for this Building should be relocated offsite or within an expanded
storage area within Building A, as previously conditioned at the rezoning.
The applicant has provided correspondence speaking to this issue included in the packet.
Valet Area
A valet station/patron drop off area is located to the west of the formal green along the
east side of Darby Street. "Phis area is defined by the use of cobble stone pavers and
concrete banding, and is separated from the pedestrian areas by decorative bollards. A
valet stand is located within a landscaped island and has been approved by the ARB.
Parking
The parking provisions for this proposed development are addressed within the approved
development text. While the development agreement does not require on-site parking for
this development, the developer was required to contribute toward the construction of the
recently completed 103 space municipal parking lot at the northwest corner of Darby
Street and Vying Hill. This parking lot will be open at all times for public parking and
includes 24 spaces that are posted with atwo-hour time limit between 8:00 a.m. and 5:04
p.m.
Vehicular Access
As part of this development, Wing Hill will be restricted to traffic traveling from Darby
Street to North High Street. This portion of Wing Hill located to the north of the site will
serve as a pedestrian and service alley.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
New brick paver sidewalks, approximately twelve feet wide along Bridge Street and
fourteen feet wide along High Street, will be installed. Bicycle parking will be provided
in the service area at the north end of Building R and will also be available in the
northwest corner of the Darby Street municipal parking lot.
Mechanical Zlnits
All rooftop mechanicals will be incorporated in roof wells and will not be visible from
the street or adjacent properties. Existing lighting control. boxes currently located on the
sidewalk along lligh Street will be incorporated into the proposed raised planter along the
sidewalk.
Utilities
The project site is adequately served by all utilities. Approximately 110 feet of public
sanitary sewer will be constructed with this project. Electricity for the site will be
provided by a proposed pad mounted transformer located in the southeast corner of the
municipal parking lot.
Planning andloning Commission
January 17, 2008 Planning Report
Case No. 07-099PllP -Page 8 of 1 1
Stormwater
The City of Dublin Stormwater Management Ordinance, Section 53.070 (j} provides an
exemption from the City's storm~vater quantity and quality regulations for sites located
within the Historic Dublin area that have less than an acre of disturbance area. The area
of this site is less than an acre; however, this proposal provides for site drainage by a
storm sewer that will connect to a 12-inch existing storm sewer at the northwest corner of
West Bridge Street and North high Street.
SECTION II -REVIEW STANDARDS
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 (Staff; Commission, and/or City Council review and comment);
2) Zoning Amendment Request (Preliminary Development Plan; Commission
recommends and City Council approves/denies); and
3) Final Development Plan (Commission approves/denies).
The intent of the final development plan is to show conformance with and provide a
detailed refinement of the total aspects of the approved preliminary development plan
(rezoning}. The final development plan includes all of the final details of the proposed
development and is the final stage of the PUD process. The Commission may approve as
submitted, approve with modifications agreed to by the applicant, or disapprove and
terminate the process.
If the application is disapproved, the applicant may respond to Planning and Zoning
Commission's concerns and resubmit the plan. This action will be considered a new
application for review in all respects, including payment of the application fee. Appeal of
any action taken by the Commission shall he to the Court of Common Pleas in the
appropriate jurisdiction.
Following approval by the Commission, the applicant may proceed with the building
permit process. In the event that updated citywide standards are applicable, all
subsequently approved final development plans shall comply with the updated standards
if the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the updated standards would not
cause undue hardship.
Evaluation and Recommendation 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:
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2008 Planning Report
Case No. 07-099FDP -Page 9 of 1 1
Adopted Policies and Plans (Criteria 1, 3, 9, & 10). The proposed mvdifications conform
to the approved preliminary development plan, have adequate public facilities and vpen
spaces, are carried out in progressive stages, and conform to all other applicable zoning
text and Code requirements.
Criteria met: The proposal conforms to the approved preliminary development
plan in terms of permitted uses, densities, and setbacks.
Site Safety and Circulation (Criteria 2 & S). The proposed modifications provide for safe
and efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation and provide adequate lighting fur such
uses.
Criteria met: The site provides adequate lighting, and vehicular and pedestrian
circulation for the proposed uses. The site is heavily oriented to pedestrians and
will provide well-designed and positioned areas for patrons to rest and recreate.
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 may be met through conditions: "I'he proposal conforms to the
preliminary development plan requirement for appropriate landscaping and sign
details, and is exempt from stormwater management requirements due to the site
size and location within the Historic District. The location of the refuse storage
within Building B could adversely impact the adjoining properties and should be
relocated offsite or to an expanded refuse storage area within Building A (Condition
#1). The Sign and Graphics Plan should ~be revised to specify that a maximum of
three colors are permitted on all signs (Condition #2}, and the development text
should be clarified that all sign dimensions specified are the maximum sizes
permitted (Condition #3).
SECTION III -PLANNING OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION: Approval
In Planning's opinion, this proposal, with conditions, complies with the requirements of
the preliminary development plan as conditioned, the final development plan criteria and
the existing development standards within the area. Approval with live conditions is
recommended.
Condition:
1) "1 hat the refuse storage area proposed for the north end of Building B is relocated
offsitc or to an expanded refuse area within Building A, to the satisfaction of
Planning;
2) That the Sign and Graphics Plan be revised to specify that a maximum of three
colors are permitted on a!1 signs;
3) That the development text be revised to state that all sign dimensions specified are
the maximum sizes permitted;
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2008 Planning Report
Case No. 07-099FDP -Page 10 of 11
4) That at the applicants' option, the permitted paving materials for the public
plazas be expanded to include exposed aggregate colored concrete, concrete or
brick pavers, or natural stone subject to Planning approval; and
S) That the applicant work with interested parties to develop design
recommendations for the future southeast plaza, utilizing the proposed patio
foundations, and that the design be returned to the ARB for further consideration.
**Note: Conditions ##4 and ##5 are carried over from the ARB conditions of approval
Planning and "/,oning Commission
January 17, 2008 Planning Keport
Case No. 07-099FDP - Pagc 11 oY 11
Final llevelopment Plan
Review Criteria:
In accordance with Section 153.055(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 sign plan, will be coordinated
within the Planned Unit Development and with adjacent development; are of an
appropriate size, scale, and design in relationship with the principal building, site,
and surroundings; and are located so as to maintain safe and orderly pedestrian
and vehicular circulation;
7) The landscape plan will adequately enhance the principal building and site;
maintain existing trees to the extent possible; buffer adjacent incompatible uses;
break up large expanses of pavement with natural material; and provide
appropriate plant materials for the buildings, site, and climate;
8) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site which
complies with the applicable regulations in this Code and any other design criteria
established by the City or any other governmental entity which may have
jurisdiction over such matters;
9) If the project is to be carried out in progressive stages, each stage shall be so
planned that the foregoing conditions are complied with at the completion of each
stage; and
10) The Commission believes the project to be in compliance with all other local,
state, and federal laws and regulations.
StTonehenge
Company
WE BUILO COMMUNfTIES
January 11, 2008
Members of Dublin City Council
Members of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commision
City of Dublin
5200 Emerald Parkway
Dublin, OH 43017
Project: Bridge and High Development
Subject: Refuse Removal Program
147 North Ngh Sleet
Gahanna, Ohio 43230
stonehen9e-comparry.cam
(p}: sla.sos.sooo
(f}: 614.509.9016
Dear City Council Members and Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
This letter is written to address concerns about refuse storage and removal at the
Bridge and High Streets Development that have been communicated to the Dublin City
Council. The Stonehenge Company desires to detem~ine the best facilities and
processes for managing refuse in the most beneficial way for the Development and the
surrounding businesses.
Stonehenge believes the best solution for handling waste is a centralized refuse
removal program for the Development and the rieighboring businesses. We welcome
the opportunity to work with the surrounding businesses and the City to realize such a
solution. Conversely, a refuse facility in Building B that would handle all the~refuse from
both Buildings A and B would .adversely affect the marketing potential of that building
especially due to its small foot print_ We believe, barring a centralized solution, the
present design of refuse facilities in each of Buildings A and B is the next best option.
Stonehenge is committed to a rigorous refuse management program if an off-site refuse
area is not achievable. Following please find specific commitments that we are willing
to make:
Refuse storage for the Development wiH be contained within the buildings and
will be sealed from view;
The refuse containers to be used in the Development will be smaller
(approximately 2 cubic yards each} than are nom~ally used in order to keep the
storage amounts smaller and to reduce the noise when the containers are
emptied;
In order to adequately achieve the desired result of smaller amounts of refuse
storage, refuse will be removed from the Development with greater frequency;
07-0997,/FDP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridle Street
• The schedule for refuse removal will be determined with sensitivity to the
businesses in and surrounding the Development;
• The refuse storage areas will be maintained and cleaned on a frequent and
ongoing schedule in order to provide an attractive environment for the
Development and the surrounding businesses.
Once the Project is completed, The Stonehenge Company will have more than six
million dollars of private money invested in two finely constructed buildings. With tha#
level of investment it is incumbent upon Stonehenge to perfom~ the tasks described
above and other property management responsibilities that are necessary for the
successfiul and effective operation of the Development.
We look forward to continued collaboration with the City Planning Staff to address the
matters described above as well as other opportunities to enhance the vatue and appeal
of the Development and the Hisfaric Dublin District. Please do not hesitate to contact
me if there are any further questions
Sincerely,
Mo Dioun, President
The Stonehenge Gompany
07-0997,/FDP
Final llevelopment Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
2U West Bridge Street
Parks & Open Space
6555 Shier-Rings Road
~.tTYOFDUBLtIti Dublin, Ohio 43016-871b Memo
Phone: 614-410-4700 Fax: 614-761-6512
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Paula Chope, City Forester
Date: December 7, 2007
Re: Street trees for Bridge and High Streets
c:
Below is information pertaining to the decisions made as to the selection of street trees for Bridge
and High Streets.
High Street
The street tree chosen for High Street is Japanese Tree Lilac. This tree was selected due to its size
relative to utility lines which are located on the east side of the street. This tree will stay well
below the electric lines eliminating any pruning done by American Electric Power. The species is
adaptable to harsh urban conditions indicative of commercial and urbanized areas. Their compact
oval shaped head will minimize branch damage from passing vehicles thus lowering maintenance
costs.
Brid eg Street
As mentioned above, the harsh conditions were taken into account with the tree selection. Ginkgos
are also very adaptable to this type of area. Both species have proven their hardiness since they are
planted and do well in the major arterial medians throughout Dublin.
The bidding specifications should be clear that the male Ginkgo is the only acceptable selection.
This will alleviate any concerns about having the fruit in Old Dublin.
The habit of this tree when young is upright and columnar. Though the species can have habit
variations when mature this should not be a problem since the trees will be on a pruning schedule.
Continuity of Old Dublin
The same species will be kept throughout Old Dublin. This will provide the aesthetic continuity
and delineate this area.
Tree grates
The tree grates in Old Dublin were installed in the early 90's. While the intent is both aesthetics
and safety, they also pose some concerns for tree girdling. The Forestry staff does do periodic
checks and have had some widened to allow for tree growth. We will continue to monitor and
make adjustments when needed. 07-0997,/FDP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West I3ridgc Street
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF DUBLIN_
load u,. and BOARD ORDER
loop Range %ann4g
5800 Shier-R'ngs Read
Ouain, Oho 43016-1736 JANUARY 9, 2408
Phone/ Tom: 614 144600
Fox 614-410-1747
Web SitC: www.d~bfr.oh.vs
The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting:
1. Bridge and High Streets Development 20 West Bridge Street
07-067AR13 Site Modifications
Proposal: Site modifications to include the construction of a mixed-use
development with approximately 22,000 square feet of retail and
office space and associated site improvements.
Request: Review and approval of site modifications under the provisions of the
Historic Dublin Desrgn Guidelines.
Applicant: City of Dublin; represented by Mo M. Dioun, The Stonehenge
Company.
Planning Contact: Dan Phillabaum, AICP, Senior Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4662, dphillabaum@dublin.oh.us
MOTION: Tom Holton made a motion, seconded by Linda Kick to approve this application
because this proposal meets the Historic Dublin Guidelines and 7_.oning Code, the overall proposed
site modifications are compatible with the Historic District, will provide compatible infill structures
to the existing Iistoric District buildings and the character of the streetscape, with five conditions as
modified:
1) That the base design presented for the south end of Building B is approved as currently
depicted, but that the applicant coordinate with Planning to determine if the addition of a
gable to the east and west elevations of this facade is architecturally appropriate;
2) That limestone slab be the preferred stair tread material, but at the applicants option, the
permitted materials be expanded to include concrete or other natural stone.
3) That at the applicant's option, the permitted paving materials for the public plazas be
expanded to include exposed aggregate colored concrete, concrete or brick pavers, or natural
stone subject to Planning approval; and
4} That the applicant work with interested parties to develop design recommendations for
the future southeast plaza, utilizing the proposed patio foundations, and that the design be
returned to the ARB for further consideration.
VOTE: 5 - 0.
RESULT: This application for site modifications was approved
RECORDED VOTES: STAFF CFRTIFICA'fIUN
Thomas Holton Yes
Clayton Bryan Yes
William Souders Yes '
Linda Kick Yes [Jan Phillabaum, CP
Tom Currie Yes Senior Planner
Architectural Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Special Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 1 G
1. Bridge and High Streets Development 20 West Bridge Street
07-067ARB Site Modifications
Dan Philiabaum presented an abbreviated Planning Report for this previously tabled request for
review and approval of a 22,000-square-foot mixed use development to be located at the
northwest corner of Bridge and High Streets. He said Planning recommends approval of this
request with the following three conditions amended since the distribution oi' the Planning report:
1) That all firewalls proposed should be constructed of the same masonry material as the
building facade they are associated with;
2} That the roof pitch of the southern facade of Building B be revised to be consistent with
surrounding structures, and that the wall dormers on the east and west sides of the
southern facade of Building B be re-incorporated, subject to Planning approval; and
3) That the refuse storage area proposed for the north end. of Building B be relocated offsite
or to an expanded refuse area within Building A, to the satisfaction of Planning prior to
Final Development Plan approval.
Mr: Philiabaum said the principle area of discussion at the December 19t~' meeting was the
architectural detailing, materials and roof slope related to the south end of Building B. He
reported that the applicant had since eliminated the stucco and replaced it with Hardiplank
siding, simplified the windows by removing the Gothic-style arched tops, eliminating the roof
brackets and flared eaves, and lowering the overall height by eliminating the chimney elements
and flattening the roof pitch.
Mr. Philiabaum said Plaruiing had concern with certain aspects of the revisions. He said that the
slope of the intermediate portion of the roof was relatively flat in comparison to other buildings
in the District, and that Planning would like to see it revised. Additionally, he said wall dormers
on the east and west facing elevations of this portion of the building were eliminated and
changed for more traditional windows with a window spacing pattern reflective of the District.
However, he said Planning believes that the visual variety of the dormers added character to the
building.
Mr. Philiabaum presented a slide of section views of the proposed development and Town
Center 1 for a relative comparison of size and scale, as requested by the Board.
Mr. Philiabaum said the revised water feature takes into consideration the requested revisions of
the Board, by breaking up the previously linear, modern design. He pointed out that the overall
size and location of the water features have not changed, however the applicant has attempted to
provide a more historic-look by revising the previous linear water wall with a smooth sheet-flow
of water into a lower basin. He said it had been broken up by a central stone element with an
arched basin extending slightly into the plaza space. He said this central portion of the lower
basin is contained by a seat wall to enable visitors to sit along the edge of the fountain and
interact with the water. He said the wall material has been changed to a rough stone, similar to
the dry-laid stacked stone walls historically located in this area. He described the motion of the
water as cascading down the rough walls and over scuppers that break the water flow and cause
Architectural Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Special Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 16
it to spill forward. He said the movement of the water is now more active and aerated as
opposed to the previous smooth sheet flow.
Mr. Phillabaum described the revised central portion which featured a small fountain where
water would flow into awall-mounted basin, then spill over the edge of this basin and into the
lower seat wail height basin. He said the end wall materials are to match the stone of the south
end of Building B.
Mr. Phillabaum said Planning had been directed by the Board to investigate the proposed
pavement material and whether, at the applicant's discretion, in lieu of exposed aggregate
colored concrete, a paver system could be used. He requested fixrthcr direction from the Board
regarding the material to be used.
Mr. Phillabaum said the project meets the Guidelines as noted in the Planning Report. He called
attention to Condition 3 regarding the relocation of the refuse storage area in Building B and
advised the Board that this issue has been referred for review and approval to the Planning and
Zoning Commission, and there arc now two conditions of approval from Planning.
David Garcia, 109 South Riverview Street said he had reviewed the revised plans, and was still.
focused on the ~ l ,100-square-feet southeast plaza. He reported that the Historic District
Association (HDA) had submitted a letter requesting that this area incorporate elements that
would link it to the history of Dublin. He recalled at the last Board meeting, an old photograph
was shown depicting a town meeting around the water pump once located at Bridge and High
Streets. He suggested that the historic town pump be integrated into the design of this space,
whether it was a functional pump or not. He referred to the historic map in the Guidelines, and
suggested a mosaic could reflect when the town was founded, landmarks, etc. Mr. Garcia
suggested that this plaza be used to celebrate Historic Dublin in a way that will entice visitors
and citizens to explore the District as it continues to go through revitalization.
Mr. Holton said the Board would consider to what extent the corner can be treated as a separate
design feature with input from the Historical Society, the Historic Dublin Business Association
or others for the ideas that had been mentioned to help give a signature to Dublin's history in this
small space because it is an entrance to the rest of the project.
Mr. Holton asked if some type of historic design elements could be discussed separately or in
addition to the rest of the project. Mr. Phillabaum said there would be an opportunity to include
future public art and noted that a portion of the lower plaza was reserved to accommodate this in
the future.
Linda Kick asked if any public art would be temporary or revolving, or if it was to be a
permanent fixture.
Sara Ott explained that typically when art pieces are selected, it is through a competitive design
process handled by the Dublin Arts Council. She said the Arts Council works directly with City
Council who makes the final decision about its placement and appropriateness of its content, but
does not direct the artist on what exactly the work of art is.
Architechiral Rcvicw Board
January 9, 2008 -Special Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 16
She said another way the City has acquired art is to directly commission a piece, searching out an
artist with a particular skill set and asking them to reproduce either an image or an experience
such as the Jack Nicholas statue on Memorial Drive. Ms. Ott said which path the public art will
take is determined by its funding source. She said at this time, in 2008, there is not an identified
funding source for public art associated with this project. She said in the long term Stonehenge
will be making contributions for public art with the intent that they want to be able to share the
history of the community in the space. She said it will not be determined what the piece will be
until it is better known ho~v the space is functioning to make sure they are appropriately sited for
that interaction.
William Souders said it seemed that as an architectural review board, their responsibility would
be to react to something that is being proposed. He said right now, there was nothing proposed
of the nature being discussed other than the fountain itself. Mr. Souders said it was critical that
the overall concept and direction is approved in order to allow the project to proceed. He said to
him, there was nothing about the elements being discussed for the southeast plaza that would
stop the project from moving forward. He suggested that the applicant and the City could either
conduct a community design char ette or have high school students in art or architecture use this
area as a design project. He said it would allow the interested parties to come in and brainstorni
all the things discussed for this corner of the site.
Ms. Ott said the right people were not present to provide input and to make those types of
decisions for this area. She said the reality was that if there is going to be a water feature on the
corner, it needs to be known sooner than later in order to plan for the utilities associated with it.
Ms. Ott said she understood the perspective of Mr. Souders and would be happy to take the
direction the Board would like.
Mr. Souders considered that some form of water feature would be a predetermined element of
the plan that would not prohibit beginning construction while the next six or eight months could
be used for public charrettes to determine the actual design.
Ms. Ott repeated that it was the pleasure of the Board as to how they would like to handle this.
Mr. Holton said he understood that it was being suggested that they not rush into a decision and
get more public input because it is important to put something there that is the right thing that
ties into history.
Clayton Bryan agreed that a water feature was needed, but he did not like the current
configuration. He said it was essential that there be something here that is linked to the historic
element of Dublin, Ohio. He said the key question was who would control, oversee, or make
final decisions on what is ultimately designed. He said that the Historic District residents had a
right to have input, as well as the Historical Society. He said being locked into any form of
water wall at this time was premature and it also restricts the latitude that the Historical Society
might have in developing what would be most appropriate for that area. Mr. Bryan suggested
that the water feature be located on the corner, and that it could be a fountain, or a functioning
water pump feeding into a trough. He said that people could then identify it as having been part
of the history of the District, and it would provide the same interaction as a water wall.
Architechiral Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Special Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 16
Tom Currie asked if flowing water was needed to muffle the sound from the street. Ms. Ott said
she believed it would help, but would not cover up the road noise completely. However, she said
providing some white noise in the background should help minimize the traffic noise and
encourage the use of the patio spaces.
Mr. Bryan said white noise can be derived from almost any height of waterfall, depending on the
types of surfaces the water flows over. He said from a physics standpoint, water flowing on the
outside of those walls would direct white noise towards the street. He said he thought something
directed toward those seating areas would not have to be as loud, and would quiet those areas
more so than having the water fall on the exterior.
Mr. Souders reiterated that he would not approve the water feature proposed tonight but he did
not want to delay the project. He said the community, with all its talent should be allowed to
design the water feature.
Ms. Ott requested direction from the Board whether that would be a condition or if there were
specific elements that they liked or disliked of what was proposed to provide guidance of the
expectations of the Board.
Mr. Bryan said he would like it made a condition that determines who is to take the lead on the
overall design of the water feature, and whether or not that can be the Historical Society, and
asked how much of a restriction will be imposed by the City.
Ms. Ott said the City was the property owner and applicant, so she felt that was where the
decision ultimately lies. She asked if the Board expected that a design of the water feature will
be brought back to ARB, or would the design be subject to staff approval, and what level of
involvement the Board would like to continue to have.
Mr. Bryan said he would like to see it come back to the Board for review and approval as a
separate issue from the rest of this project with the input from the entities he previously
mentioned. He said while he respected the fact that this is a City partnership, the project should
be given the same amount of attention as any other and the ARB has an obligation to oversee
what takes place in this area.
Mo Dioun, The Stonehenge Company, thought Mr. Garcia's previous comments were very
valuable. He said a continuous collaboration is needed with the community, City staff, decision-
makers and stakeholders in order to create an optimal project. He said based on the construction
realities, he would recommend the artistic parameters of this water feature and the mechanical
components remain to be decided on later. However, he said in order to begin the project
timeline he asked the Board for direction on the footprint and location of the water walls because
it ties into the site preparation of the project.
Steve Rudy, 129 South Riverview Street questioned the height of the water walls above the
sidewalk. Ms. Kick noted that the elevation indicated it was six feet.
Architectural Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Special Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 16
Mr. Rudy referred to t}ae simple railings at Tucci's and said he found that to be very inviting. He
suggested that a simpler barrier such as this between the diners and pedestrians along the
sidewalk was a very inviting kind of streetscape. Mr. Rudy said he had repeatedly indicated that
he preferred a different footprint than the one proposed for the water walls.
Mr. Holton said that the Board assumed that the footprint would be the same as shown. Mr.
Currie suggested specific groups and organizations who should be engaged in the decision. Ms.
Ott agreed that staff would play a support role and handle the coordination, if that is the Board's
desire. Ms. Ott suggested that rather than identifying specific individuals the design charrette be
open to all interested parties.
Mr. Souders said he agreed with the process, but the fountains themselves needed to be open for
recommendations. He said he did not agree with Mr. Dioun's comment that the fountains were
on the critical path for project construction. He said he would not support a condition that
dictates that the fountains are in this same location, and said that the charrette needs to dictate it.
Mr. Dioun clarified that he asked for the proposed footprint location be approved, so they can
install all the footings at the same time. He said they believe that the locations proposed are the
most ideal.
Mr. Holton asked if a dry laid stone wall was requested, could it be done. 1V1r. Dioun said yes, it
was basically a foundation.
Mr. Souders said he understood what Mr. Dioun was discussing and he did not support it, and
that the site work for any water feature could go in later. Mr. Dioun agreed but asked that the
patio foundations not be subject to change with the ultimate design of the southeast plaza and
water features.
Mr. Phillabaum suggested the condition: That the applicant work with interested parties to
develop design recommendations for the future southeast plaza, utilizing the proposed patio
foundations and that the design be returned to the ARB for further consideration.
Mr. Dioun said. as long as there is ADA accessibility and the patios are not adversely affected, he
could agree with the condition as read.
Mr. Holton clarified that the interested parties would be identified by the City.
Mr. Souders suggested a revised timeframe was needed since the footings will be part of the
building. Ms. Ott said it would be quick, but she needed to reserve the opportunity to speak with
her full team because there were some considerations including technical expertise, the logistics
of publicizing the charrette, and working with the community. She assured it would be in the
spring; but she agreed to keep the Board informed.
Mr. Holton asked that the Board move to discussion about the dormers, roof pitch, and window
treatments proposed for the south end. of Building B. He said the Board had previously agreed
change the stucco on the building to siding.
Architectural Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Special Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 16
Mr. Phillabaum said Planning feels that the removal of the dormer windows is a step in the
wrong direction because they provide visual interest to the roof line. Mr. Holton agreed, and
said it created a repetitive look to the windows on the second floor.
Mr. Sebach presented a base architectural option they considered after working with staff and the
client. He said that there was still the opportunity to put the double dormers back as another
option.
Mr. Souders commented that the low roof did not bother him., however he understood the
comment about the gable end and trying to find a compromise between what has been done.
Mr. Sebach described the design options that could accommodate the dormers. Mr. Souders said
that there was a nice distance with the four windows That they lose with the two with gables over
them; however, without a critical eye, both options are successful. He said he did not mind the
pitched roof because that was typically the way the gable piece has been pulled out and then
there is the low sloped roof which is very indicative, as if they were added. He said they kept the
stone low as if they were pitched at one point and they added on. Mr. Sebach said until he could
draw the single asymmetrical dormer, it was hard for him to react to it. He feared that the scale
of one larger dormer would compete with the gable end. He said they should be in scale with
each other.
Mr. Phillabaum said that would satisfy part of the condition that Planning had identified with the
changes to break up some of the roof line.
Mr. Holton said that an alternative should be suggested in case, after Mr. Sebach draws it, it does
not look right.
Mr. Souders preferred the proposal made by the applicants.
Ms. Kick suggested that Option 1 of the proposal be used if there was a difficulty with the scale.
Mr. Sebach said they felt both of the options were successful. He said he understood that staff
wanted the break in the roof line.
Mr. Souders said he thought the four window pattern was a much better pattern than the two
window pattern.
Mr. Bryan said he liked the rhythm of the four windows and he would like to see them. He said
gable-wise, he was comfortable with what was there, and he could not make the call.
Mr. lIolton said once Mr. Sebach starts drawing, if the single gable works as Mr. Souders
suggested, he should go with that.
Mr. Sebach said he was very comfortable if the Board requested that he work with staff to their
approval whether they do a single dormer or they pick an option. He said if they think it is out of
proportion and that it competes with the other gable, then they will go back to the other option.
Architectural Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Special Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of l G
Mr. Sebach said if the base drawing is the preferred direction, but they find that a single gable
works and can keep the four window look or appearance, they will find a way to introduce a
gable to break up the roof: He agreed that they would work with staff to come to a mutual
agreement whether or not it works. He said the most logical place would be to center it over the
storefront window.
Mr. Phillabaum referred to the other half of the condition related to the slope of the intermediate
portion of the roof line and the pitch being flattened. He said it exposes more of the chimney
ftrewall element that was not seen before. He said Plaru~ing would like discussion and direction
on that issue.
Mr. Souders said he had offered what he thought might be a compromise, but he was not sure
once it is put to scale whether or not it works because it is a much larger element. However, he
said if it does not, he was okay with that.
Mr. Holton questioned if the pitch of the roof was too flat from a structural standpoint. He was
concerned that it might not shed ice or snow.
Mr. Sounders did not think so. Mr. Sebach said it was a 4:12. Mr. Sounders said anything over
3 worked with shingles.
Mr. Phillabaum confirmed that the condition could be modified if the Board was comfortable
with i11e roof line. He read the condition: That the base design of the south end of Building B is
preferred, but that the applicants coordinate with staff to study whether the addition of a single
dormer is appropriate to the design gable or dornzer.
Mr. Currie clarified that they were talking about both the east and west side.
Mr. Holton asked if the windows now were too plain, or did the Board want arched windows
incorporated. [The Board agreed they were fine as shown.]
Mr. Souders pointed out that at the December 19, 2047 meeting the fence issue had been already
been addressed. He confirmed that any one or all three of the fences were fine.
Mr. Phillabaum said one revision had been made to Building B, and it was a paint color change.
He said the gable end pediment was previously shown as sage green and it had been changed to
Rookwood Brown and the :Board was in agreement with this change at the last meeting, but he
wanted it noted that the change had been made.
Mr. Phillabaum said the valet stand also had an arched Gothic window, and that has been
changed to be more consistent with the rest of the windows on the project, more traditional.
After discussion, the Board. determined that the valet stand window, as revised was preferred
over the previously proposed arched window.
Mr. Sebach referred to the comment made by the historical consultant that the masonry raterial
of the firewalls should match the adjacent building masonry material. He presented a plan view
Architectural Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Special Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 16
and said the brick portion of the building is stepped out away from the stone firewall., which
would be associated with the adjacent building. He said the intent was that the foundation stone
is exposed. and the firewall is also stone. Mr. Sebach want to make sure that it was clear on the
plane of that material because in the elevation, it does not read the same.
Mr. Phillabaum said that Mr. Sebach's explanation clarified some of the confusion on how the
elevations read and the firewall functions. He said it made sense to Planning and this condition
could be eliminated.
Mr. Phillabaum said another architectural item request by the Board was the tread material for
the building entrances. He said it has been specified as concrete, consistent with most building
entrances in the District.
Mr. Dioun requested that limestone treads be permitted as an option because they felt it was an
enhancement. He said they wanted to go with natural stone as much as possible in the whole
project rather than man-made material.
Mr. Souders asked if something other than a brushed finish with finely tooled edges could be
applied to the concrete to make it more historic looking. Mr. Dioun said they would not finish
them in that manner, that they would be poured and finished in a traditional method fitting the
area.
Mr. Phillabaum drafted the condition: That at the discretion of the applicant, concrete or natural
stone be pernitted for use on the stair treads at building entrances. Mr. Bryan and Ms. Kick
added that the preference would be natural stone.
Mr. Bryan did not recall the potential street side patio spaces being discussed and asked if
anyone had a conflict with that. [The other Board members expressed no opposition.] Ms. Ott
added that if benches were used there, they would match those on the formal green so
consistency can be maintained if they are not tied to a tenant.
Mr. Phillabaum said that there was discussion regarding hardscape materials at the last meeting.
He said the applicant would like the option to use an alternate material to the exposed aggregate
colored concrete through the public areas. He said that Planning recommended a paver system
be used, similar to the public walkways. He said there was a desire from the Board that if pavers
were the option the applicant selected, that the pavers not match those used on the sidewalks, but
there was no clear direction. He said Planning's opinion was that since this is all public space,
there is a rationale in having it match the sidewalk so it does not feel like a privatized area.
Mr. Holton recalled a discussion of delineating a public space, say the patio spaces, and asked if
that was still being done. Mr. Phillabaum explained that with the spaces delineated now, there is
bluestone being used. Mr. I lolton asked about the other potential patio spaces.
Ms. Ott said those areas considered as dedicated patio space will generally require a fence, and
inside those areas, they would like to use bluestone. She said outside of those areas where sizes
and locations of patios could change over time, they did not want to use a different pavement
surface for those areas. Ms. Ott said they would like to upgrade the proposed exposed aggregate
Architectural Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Special Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 16
if possible, because it would look a lot better. She suggested that if there is a desire of the Board
for it to have some differentiation from the right-of--way sidewalks, perhaps a different pattern
could be used.
Mr. Holton suggested that the best looking material that can be afforded be used because this is
such a nice project and they want to emphasize gathering space to the extent they can and an
exposed aggregate concrete is not really attractive.
Mr. Souders said he would like the participants in the pending charrette to make a suggestion.
ile said anything other than concrete would be fine.
IVIs. Ott said to be realistic, based on the funding provided she could not commit to changing to
pavers and that was the only reason she was hesitant. She said she would like to stay within the
designated budget for the project without requesting additional funding to meet conditions.
Mr. Holton suggested that i f the City could afford an update to the preferred option, a paver, then
that was what should be done.
Abby Scott read the condition as: That the paving materials for the internal public plaza space
be expanded to include exposed aggregate colored concrete, pavers or natural materials, at the
discretion of the applicant.
Mr. Bryan noted a ramp shown to the north of the green area on the inner courtyard and asked
where the ramp went. Mr. Phillabaum replied that the ramp provides an accessible route from
the valet area to the site.
Ms. Ott said one of the reasons they wanted a ramp on both the north and south side of the
formal green is for creating a more direct route for people accessing the Bridge Street building
from the valet, for someone using the accessible parking in the Darby Street parking lot, there is
away for them to safely cross from the lot over towards 24 Darby Street and have a ramp down
into that formal green area without having to come down Darby Street, almost to Bridge Street.
Mr. Bryan asked to see elevations showing the size of the ramps. Mr. Slanec said there were top
of wall elevations on the civil drawings. He said it was an 18-inch seat wall whets you are
walking down the ramp on either side.
1VIr. Souders was concerned about skateboards. Ms. Ott said the parks staff was well versed in
how to address them, so she would follow up on that point.
Mr. Bryan asked about the type of trees shown in this area. Mr. Slanec said they were
honeylocust trees. He said the trees will be specified so that there will be a clear canopy of six
feet at installation.
VIr. Souders asked i f vertical dry laid stone could be incorporated on these walls, or was it not
stable enough for a public area.
Architectural Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Special Mccting Minutes
Page 11 of 16
Ms. Ott said the thought here was to have a potential seating surface. However, she said if the
Board preferred a vertical stack on top rather than a smooth cap on the wall, they could condition
that.
Mr. Souders said what had been established in Dublin was a lot more interesting. He said he
liked the walls already established ever}where in Dublin and bringing that into this public space
seems a good idea.
Mr. Holton said Ms. Ott's point about this having a seating is good because this is a gathering
space for casual eating or entertainment.
Mr. Bryan was concerned who would clean that stone on a consistent basis because there are
honeylocust trees and there will be birds.
Mr. Dioun commented that the retaining walls do not have to be sloped from point zero to where
they have to be; they can be stepped-down. He said he also loved Dublin's dry laid stone walls,
but from a functionality point, he said he would love see children get ice cream cones and sit on
the wall.
Mr. Holton said there could still be a stone wall without the vertical piece on top.
Mr. Dioun recommended that if the walls have to be structured that the cap material specified be
natural limestone. He recommended staying with the walls as proposed, but stepping dawn to
provide greater utility of the walls.
Mr. Bryan asked if the northernmost wall could be made a different elevation than the other side.
He said it went back to creating a distinction between the existing area and this development
project. He said he was asking about a visual break that establishes the north end of this
particular complex. Mr. Bryan suggested that if a dry laid stacked wall was on the back wall, six
inches higher than the front one, the visual break was established.
Ms. Ott said she had hesitancy with blocking off to any degree more than what was necessary for
the site, the building that was not part of this project because ultimately, the City wants to see it
incorporated and when it is she did not want to have to go back and change the public space for it
to look and feel right for the long term. for this community.
Mr. Bryan said the building does not fit with the rest of the project architecturally. He said the
trees break it up considerably, and that is a good thing.
Ms. Ott commented that staff had the opportunity to meet with the property owners, their
representatives, and the current tenant. She said they want to be integrated to this project. She
said the reality was that they had to figure out how to make that work for them. Ms. Ott said
they are seriously looking at those issues.
Architectural Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Special Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 16
Mr. Holton asked the Board if the ramp as proposed was okay. Mr. Bryan said he would still
like to see the dry stack style cap on top because he believed that would not be a prime seating
area since ii would be difficult to keep the cap clean with the locust trees. Ms. Kick agreed.
Mr. Currie said he believed the top should be smooth and used for seating. He asked if electrical
outlets and water faucets had been considered in this area.
Ms. Ott said they were not to that level of detail, but they had considered quick disconnects for
water adjacent to the formal green, and making sure that there is auxiliary power at light fixtures,
and so on.
Brenda Kocak, the owner of the business, Modern Male at 24 Darby Street said she felt that a
wall and sitting area would be very undesirable on the part of her business. She pointed out that
the building at 24 Darby Street may not fit into this proposed development, but it was there first
and should not be hidden more than it is presently. She said it was losing its entire visibility
from SR 161 and High Street and the signs will not be seen. Ms. Kocak said that accessibility to
the business is needed for patrons and employees.
Ms. Kocak suggested that if Mr. Dioun, The Stonehenge Company, and Bird Houk Collaborative
were given some artistic freedom on the plaza design elements and wall, they would exceed
expectations.
Mr. Souders commented that he did not think stepping the wall was best for what had been
engineered and that it should be kept as proposed.
Mr. Bryan said he had no problem with that, his concern was creating a difference between the
north and south wall, and there is a difference in the elevation at this point.
Mr. Holton surmised that the Board had. a much clearer understanding how the wall is envisioned
and it sounded as though it was a better deal for 24 Darby Street.
Mr. Currie asked where the light fixture was north of the valet station. Mr. Phillabaum said it
was within the right-of way, west of 24 Darby Street. He said the photometric showing the foot-
candles was included in the packets.
Mr. Phillabaum described the sign. similarities and differences here and at Town Center I. He
said the only distinct departure would be the number of signs permitted. He said this is related to
the project having front doors on two sides of both buildings, without parking directly behind it.
It was being proposed it1 order to provide additional way finding for visitors.
Mr. Holton said that door and window signs will always come up and the Board needs to address
them in their future sign review. He suggested that District-wide sign issues such as be
discussed and clarified on a future agenda.
Mr. Bryan asked if the only issue regarding signs the Board would be approving at this stage was
base colors and sizes. Mr. Phillabaum clarified that a project or tenant that meets the parameters
outlined in he sign and graphics plan would be available to have administrative approval and
Architectural Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Special Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 16
apply for sign permits, but would not be required an ARB review and approval as currently
structured.
Mr. Bryan asked if the gold color was uniformly used on each side. Mr. Phillabaum said that
would be an option along with the Colonial Yellow and Classic White colors. He said signs are
limited to three colors per Code.
Mr. Phillabaum said the applicants were not specifying a consistent sign font, leaving the door
open for variety and not wanting to replicate what is shown at Town Center I. He said Planning
typically directs an applicant to use sign fonts listed in the Guidelines.
Mr. Phillabaum agreed that all the issues listed had been addressed. He reviewed suggested
conditions. He said they were eliminating Condition 1 based on information provided by the
applicant as to how the firewalls work. IIe said. Condition 2 regarding the gables on Building B
was modified. He said as explained earlier, Condition 3 pertaining to the refuse storage location
in Building B was being referred to the Commission. Three new conditions were added this
evening relating to stair tread material, expanding the paving material palette, and conducting a
design work shop to develop recommendations for the southeast plaza.
MOTION AND VOTE
Tom Holton made a motion, seconded by Linda Kick to approve this application because this
proposal meets the Historic Dublin Guidelines and Zoning Codc, the overall proposed site
modifications are compatible with the Historic District, will provide compatible infill structures
to the existing Historic District buildings and the character of the streetscape, with four
conditions as modified:
1) That the base design presented for the south end of Building B is approved as currently
depicted, but that the applicant coordinate with Planning to determine if the addition of a
gable to the east and west elevations of this facade is architecturally appropriate;
2) That li-nestone slab be the preferred stair tread material, but at the applicants option, the
pern~itted materials be expanded to include concrete or other natural stone.;
3) That at the applicants option, the permitted paving materials for the public plazas be
expanded to itlclude exposed aggregate colored concrete, concrete or brick pavers, or
natural stone subject to Planning approval; and
4) That the applicant work with interested parties to develop design recommendations for
the future southeast plaza, utilizing the proposed patio foundations, and that the design be
returned to the ARB for further consideration.
Mr. Bryan revisited Condition 4 regarding the design charrette and said he had a problem with it
because he thought the Historic District and Historic Society input should be weighted heavier
than the general public.
Ms. Ott said unfortunately, that would not meet the direction we have from Council about how
we handle public input. She said we can not weigh the input of one particular neighborhood
more than another when this is an overall product of the City. She added that we can not limit
someone from participating in this design charette.
Architectural Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Special Meeting Minutes
Page 14 of 16
Jennifer Readier interjected that jurisdictionally, City Council has given ARB the authority to
review design. She said ARB can not delegate that by creating a committee that has some sort of
vote in the process. She explained that public input can be solicited, as the condition is written,
and used in the Board's determination, but the Board can not delegate its authority to review nor
can it create an additional body that will have a certain number of members.
Mr. Souders said he thought what they were asking is whether the Board is still going to review
this, but they have expanded the designers from Bird Houk to include the community.
Ms. Ott said their input will be taken, but ultimately, Bird Houk is responsible for designing
something that meets the applicants' expectations, being the City of Dublin's. She assured the
Board that the comment will be taken and at the end of the day, they have to make sure it
functions. She said there will be issues that the City needs Bird OHouk's technical expertise in.
Mr. Souders clarified that the Board was saying that the designers were given an opportunity to
redesign the plaza, and it did not work. He said there were two options tonight, the Board can
either approve this application conditionally or reject it. He said to keep it moving, the Board
wanted to approve it conditionally. He said a portion of the community was dissatisfied with this
aspect of the project, and this was a way to allow them to be involved.
Ms. Ott said she was not suggesting that the City would not engage people in a discussion for
input, but that ultimately it is the expectation that Bird Houk puts the pen to the paper, not our
residents, in determining what that looks like because there will not be consensus in the charette
process about what that should be.
Mr. Souders said the charette is going to generate multiple ideas and there is going to be a jury or
a critique, which will be led by the ARB. He said historic people will be a part of the jury, and
there we will look at all these designs and decide on one or two that can be developed by Bird
1-Iouk further. He said the charrette is open to the public; the jury is made up of the peers of who
we would like to be able critique the designs and pick which get developed.
Ms. Readier interjected with legal advice for the Board. She said it was not within ARB's
purview to create new boards or a new process. She said the way she envisioned the condition
when read was that there would be kind of a work shop session where everybody would be
invited, a lot of input would be solicited, and it would be brought back to the Board. Sloe said
the Board could give whatever weight they feel necessary.
Mr. Souders clarified that the Board would be the jury. Ms. Reader confirmed that was within
the Board's review parameters, and only theirs. She said she thought the Board wanted to retain
jurisdiction to review it that was the purpose of bringing it back to the Board for final approval.
Mr. Holton said he understood it should be done as quickly as possible, but the process should
not be dictated by the Board.
Mr. Dioun said he would very much appreciate that some direction be provided to them
regarding the design. He said in order to achieve that in an efficient manner within the budget
Architectwal Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Special Meeting Minutes
Page 15 of 1G
constraints that have been imposed on him and his architectural firm they would be as flexible as
possible within limits.
Ms. Ott said if the Board wanted a hand pump that pumped water, to direct the designers to
incorporate it. She said the challenge here was that she is not hearing what the Board wants; she
is hearing what they do not like.
Mr. Holton reiterated that the Board said it made sense that they should get public input on a
very tight timeline, but what they do not know now is how much they can delineate the method
by which that is done because they cannot dictate the process. He said someone had to
determine a method by which the Board does that.
Ms. Ott said that was part of Planning's support to the Board and certainly, as applicants they
will work with that.
Mr. Currie commented that it looked like a war memorial or a cemetery mausoleum. He
suggested naming it `Shamrock Plaza' and putting in the center, put a mosaic map layout of Old
Dublin, or a post representing a Iog cabin. He suggested the walls could have brass plaques of
significant events. He said he was not in favor of the water at all, but he would not mind a pump
that worked.
Mr. Holton asked that it be clarified that the Board was taking action on approval of this
application.
Mr. Phillabaum said in Planning's opinion, this proposal meets the Historic Dublin Guidelines,
Zoning Code and the overall proposed site modifications are compatible with the Historic
District and will provide compatible infill structures to the existing 1-lisioric District buildings
and character of the streetscape. He said Planning recommended approval with the modified
four conditions.
Motion and Vote
Mr. 1-lolton made the motion to approve the application as modified with the four conditions
listed above. Ms. Kick seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Currie, yes; Mr.
Souders, yes; Mr. Bryan, yes; Ms. Kick, yes; and Mr. Holton, yes. (Approved 5 - 0.)
Ms. Ott thanked the Board and said they appreciated its attention to detail and support of the long
term goals of the District.
PLANNING REPORT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
JANUARY 9, 2008
CITY OF DCBLIN_
yaw u.e aw
Lap Rap! M01Nnq
yeooSnier~tutgi Road
OuObt, Ohio 430i6.123A
phaa! TOD' 6t4-OIM600
Foa:6t4.g0~4747
we0 SNe:.vww.d W6n.oh.oc
SECTION I -CASE INFORMATION:
1. Bridge and High Streets Development 20 West Bridge Street
07-067ARB Site Modifications
Proposal: Site modifications to include the construction of two
mixed-use buildings located on the northwest corner of
Bridge and High Streets.
Request: Review and approval of site modifications under the
provisions of the Historic Dublin Design Uuidelines.
Applicant: The City of Dublin; represented by Mo Dioun, The
Stonehenge Company.
Planning Contact: Dan Phillabaum, AICP, Senior Planner
Planning Information: (614) 410-4662, dphillabaum@dublin.oh.us
Update
This proposal was tabled by the Architectural Review Board on December 19, 2007 in
order for the applicant to address concerns related to the design of the proposed water
features, revisions to the architecture, and site lighting. These items have been addressed
by the applicant as summarized below and as further detailed within the Planning Report.
Architecture-Building A
The easternmost facade of Building A has been revised to specify the paint color of the
cedar shakes on the roof pediment as Downing Earth instead of the Sage Green
previously proposed. All chimney pots have been removed from the elevations.
Architecture-Building B
There have been significant changes to the southernmost facade of Building B. As
requested by the Board, the Downing Sand painted stucco has been replaced with siding
painted in this same color. The gothic style windows have been replaced with simpler
traditional windows consistent with the rest of the development. The flared eaves and
brackets previously proposed on several roof elements have been removed entirely. All
chimney pots have been removed from the elevations. Planning has concerns regarding
Architectural Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-067ARB -Page 2 of 11
revisions to the roof pitch and dormers at this end of the building. These concerns are
noted within the body of the report.
Water Features
The proposed water features have been revised to appear less modern. The concept of
two linear water walls is still proposed, but with changes to the activity of the water and
the form of the walls. A full description of the proposed water feature is contained in the
body of this Planning Report.
Lighting
In order to address concerns over the amount of light in the pedestrian route from the
municipal parking lot, a street light has been added to the east side of Darby Street within
the right of way just north west of the proposed development site.
Case Summary
This is a request for review and approval of a mixed-use development on the northwest
corner of Bridge and high Streets to ensure the preservation of the historic, architectural
and environmental character of Historic Dublin. Planning recommends approval of this
request with seven conditions.
Case Background
This project is apublic-private partnership between the City of Dublin and The
Stonehenge Company. The City of Dublin issued a request for qualifications for the
Bridge and High Street project in the fall ol~ 2005 and the request for proposals was sent
in early 2006. The request for proposals yielded three qualified development teams, two
of which submitted development proposals. After public presentations to City Council
and a public open house, The Stonehenge Company was selected as the preferred
development partner. A development agreement between the City and Stonehenge,
which was approved June 18, 2007 by City Council, outlines the details of this
partnership and development of the project.
A stipulation of the development agreement is the requirement to replace the 35 parking
spaces in the existing lot and to provide an additional 68 parking spaces for public use in
the Historic District. These 103 parking spaces will he located in the Darby Street
parking lot, which was approved for a rezoning and a conditional use by the Planning and
Zoning Commission on June 7, 2007 (see Record of Action for 07-0362/CiJ) and
approved by the ARB on June 27, 2007 and ultimately approved by City Council on July
2, 2007.
This development proposal was reviewed informally by the Architectural Review Board
on July 25, 2007 and as a Concept Plan by the Planning and Toning Commission nn
October 9, 2007. The Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan for this development was
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 6, 2007 (see attached
Record of Action and Meeting Minutes for 07-0992/FDP).
Architectural Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-067ARB -Page 3 of 11
Site Description
I ocation
The 0.7-acre site, consisting of three parcels, is located at the northwest corner of Bridge
and 1-Iigh Streets, and has approximately 200 feet of frontage on Bridge Street and
approximately 170 feet on High Street.
Site Character
The land is relatively flat with a slight slope from northwest to southeast and has both an
open grassy area and parking. A stone wall is located on the southeast corner of the site.
Existing landscaping includes an evergreen hedge around a temporary parking lot,
deciduous trees, evergreen trees, and planting beds.
Surrounding Zoning and Uses
The site is zoned CB, Central Business District and CCC, Central Community
Commercial District. Modern Male is located adjacent to the northwest portion of this
site, in the same block, and is zoned CB. There are several businesses to the north of this
site also zoned CB. Parcels to the east and west of this site are zoned CCC, and Town
Center I to the south is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District.
Plan Description
(}verview
The site plan indicates two separate two-story mixed-use buildings to be located along
the sidewalks on both W. Bridge Street (`Building A') and N. High Street (`Building B').
A formal green will be located in the middle of the block, framed by the existing Modern
Male building at the northwest corner of the site and the two proposed buildings along
the south and east property lines. There is a plaza at the southeast corner of the site that
will provide access to the interior public space. Outdoor patio areas are oriented toward
the formal green, some of which will be associated with specific tenant spaces while
others are open for use by the public. Two water features will be located in the southeast
plaza space. This plaza is also anticipated to function as a display area for future public
art pieces or displays. Parking is located off-site in the municipal lots and designated on-
street parking areas. A patron drop-off area is located at the western boundary of the site
along Darby Street.
Architecture
The elevations depict two, two-story buildings designed to have the appearance of a
series of smaller connected buildings with shared walls that have developed aver time.
At the recommendation of Jeff Darbee, the City's Preservation Consultant and the ARB,
the amount of architectural ornamentation has been reduced significantly from that which
was depicted at the concept plan presentation. The consultant has expressed that this
aspect has improved dramatically over the earlier proposal and that the design now needs
only refinements of a few details. (See attached letter). Subsequent to the architectural
review by the consultant, additional details and ornamentation have been removed from
Building B, as directed by the ARB, and consistent with the vernacular of Historic
Dublin.
Architectural Review Boazd
January 9, 2008 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-067ARB -Page 4 of 1 i
Building Placement and Orientation
The Historic Dublin Design Guidelines recommend that new construction should echo
the placement and orientation of adjacent structures. Free-standing structures are more
common in Historic Dublin, but there are also examples of buildings with shared or
abutting walls. The proposed buildings are designed to appear as a series of buildings
with shared walls constructed over time. The setbacks for the proposed buildings are
held close to the sidewalk, with an average distance of 18 feet from the W. Bridge Street
curb to the face of Building A, and 22 feet from the N. High Street curb to Building B.
Overall, the buildings' location and orientation is consistent with the historic and
intended character of the district.
Scale and Proportion
The pedestrian-scale design, recommended in the Guidelines, is achieved by dividing the
facade into what appears to be a series of attached smaller building, and by keeping the
building mass similar to other buildings in the 1istoric District. Several other
architectural features also contribute to the creation of a pedestrian scaled environment
adjacent to both buildings. The proposal utilizes storefront style windows at the street-
level to increase the transparency of these buildings for pedestrians. Awnings and
overhangs at entry doors and steps extending from the buildings provide intimate spaces
adjacent to the buildings. While the Preservation Consultant maintains that the proposed
buildings will be of a grander scale than the rest of the district, he acknowledges that the
simplified designs and less obvious `presence' will help compensate for this fact.
Building Height
The Guidelines limit the height of new buildings in the Historic District to two stories
and encourage using the same heights as nearby buildings. The proposed buildings are
two stories in height, with Building A along W. Bridge Street having an approximate
average height of 29 feet as measured from established grade to the midpoint of the
roofline. Building B along High Street scales to approximately 32 feet high as measured
along the elevation facing the formal green, and just under 35 feet high along the Iligh
Street facing elevation.
As a point of reference, the average height of Town Centers I and II is between 28 and 30
feet to the midpoint of the roofline. A significant factor contributing to the slight increase
in height for Building B relative to Building A and the recent Town Center developments
is the grading activities necessary to create an accessible internal public plaza. The
foundation of Buildings A and B function as the retaining walls to level the internal
portion of the site, which require the use of steps along portions of the street facing
elevations.
Materials, Textures and Colors
The Guidelines recommend that new buildings use traditional Historic District materials
such as wood, brick and stone. The proposed elevations depict a variety of facade
designs using brick, stone ,and wood or cementicious (Nardi-plank) siding. Stucco has
been eliminated as a proposed building material at the direction of the Board. The
Architectural Review Boazd
January 9, 2008 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-067ARB -Page 5 of 11
combination of building materials creates a visual texture that is consistent and
compatible with existing structures in Historic Dublin.
Upon review of the building materials, the Preservation Consultant has expressed concern
over the masonry materials indicated for the firewalls. He wvuid like to see that all
firewalls be faced with the same masonry material as the building facade they are
associated with.
The color palette of Historic Dublin is often based on the natural brick and stone
materials used throughout the district and should be appropriate for the architectural style
of a building. The exterior colors proposed by the applicant are in keeping with the
Guidelines' recommendations and include white, tan, brown, and slate blue.
Roofing materials proposed for this site include both standing seam metal and
architectural (dimensional) asphalt shingles. The Guidelines list both of these materials
as appropriate for new construction. The proposed colors for the roofing materials are
consistent with the Guidelines and include dark green, dark bronze, gray, silver, and
wood tones.
No material has been specified far the proposed stair treads at the building entrances.
Planning requests that the elevations be revised to include this material specification.
Massing, Form and Roof Shapes
The proposed buildings are generally massed into plain rectangular forms with slight
recesses and projections along the facades. This type of massing is similar to
surrounding buildings and appropriate to the style of architecture throughout the District.
Roof shapes in Historic Dublin are typically gabled forms and the proposed buildings
will create the appearance of this roof shape.
The general roof design is a side facing gable roof with two cross-gable sections. The
roof plans depict visible ridge lines at the ends of each building. On the interior portion
of the roofs, a roof well is created to house HVAC and other mechanical equipment
screened from view.
The revisions to the roof pitch. on the south end of Building B are not consistent with the
surrvunding structures in the District. The relatively flat pitch of the middle pvrtion of
this end of the building should be revised. The wall dormers previously proposed for the
east and west elevations of the south side of Building B have been eliminated. These
roof elements should be re-incorporated to provide visual interest on these elevations.
Rhythm of Openings
The rhythm of window and door openings on the elevations is generally asymmetrical,
varying on each individual tenant facade. This rhythm is consistent with nearby
buildings. Building entry doors proposed are both flush with and recessed into the
buildings. Entry doors facing the internal public green are accessed at-grade, while entry
Architectural Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-067ARB - Page G of 11
doors facing the sidewalks incorporate small porches or stoops accessed via stairways of
varying heights.
Window-to-Wall Ratio
The Guidelines recommend using a high window-to-wall ratio for commercial buildings
and using a ratio that is specific to the building form or style being proposed. The
elevations depict storefront windows on the majority of the first floor tenant spaces,
typically adjacent to the entry door. The storefront windows are larger panes of
uninterrupted glass separated by muntins. Transom windows above the storefronts are
smaller and divided by mullions. Windows on the upper stories are primarily residential
scale vertically-oriented, double-hung windows. The previously proposed gothic arched
windows have been eliminated from the south elevation of the proposed High Street
building. The window-to-wall ratio is generally in keeping with similar developments in
historic Dublin.
Landscaping
Active, urban environments, such as this development, consist predominantly of
hardscape materials in order to support the high degree of pedestrian activity present.
Landscaping enhances these spaces by creating `outdoor rooms' where shade trees offer a
sense of protection and overhead shelter. Street trees are proposed along Bridge and
High Streets, consistent with other street trees in the District. In the center of the interior
public plaza is a manicured lawn surrounded by shade trees. Additional plant material is
located in raised planters and window boxes in areas protected from pedestrian traffic.
The plant palette was selected based on aesthetic value, tolerance to urban conditions,
and consistency with existing plant material in the District.
Fences and Walls
Fences and walls are being utilized an the site to define patio areas and retaining walls
are being used to create accessible gathering spaces throughout the development. The
fence details are in keeping with the wrought iron character currently existing in the
District, and the retaining walls coordinate with the architectural materials of the
proposed buildings. Per the development text, the ARB has purview over fence and
outdoor site furnishing selections used within patio spaces.
Parking
The parking provisions for this proposed development are addressed within the approved
development agreement between the City and The Stonehenge Company and within the
proposed development text. While no on-site parking is required for this development,
the developer was required to contribute to the construction of the newly opened 103
space municipal parking lot at the northwest corner of Darby Street and Wing hill. This
parking lot will be open at all times for public parking and include 24 spaces that are
posted with atwo-hour time limit between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Patios & Balconies
The approved development agreement allows up to 3,000 square feet of patio and
balcony space as a permitted use, which is reflected within the development text. This
Architectural Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-067AKB -Page 7 of I 1
permitted patio space is for both the exclusive use of future tenants and use by the general
public. All potential patio spaces that could be utilized either by tenants or the general
public are indicated on the Patio Plan. Areas dedicated for exclusive use by future
tenants will be delineated by fence or other means of enclosure.
The site plan currently indicates approximately 1,b00 square feet of exclusive use patio
space for both buildings located adjacent to the formal green space and plaza area. The
total area of all potential patio areas depicted on the Patio Plan was inadvertently omitted
from the plans, but is approximately 2,500 square feet, leaving a balance of
approximately 500 square feet of permitted patio and balcony space. The Patio Plan
should be revised to include the square footages of each potential patio/balcony area
depicted.
Balconies are permitted by the development, but have not been depicted on the
Architectural Elevations, as their potential use will be based on specific tenant requests.
Per the development text, balconies not constructed during initial construction may be
constructed with approval of the Architectural Review Board. Any balcony space will be
included as part of the total permitted patio area. Potential balcony locations and
maximum balcony envelopes should be depicted on the Patio Plan.
Sidewalks, Street and Site Furniture
The proposed development will continue the brick paver sidewalk treatment existing
elsewhere in the district. Benches, waste receptacles, tree grates and a bike rack located
in the common public areas have been specified and are depicted in the Site Material
Selections. No patio details such as tables, chairs and fencing have been provided at this
time; however, these details will be reviewed by the ARR under a future application.
Water Feature
Two water features are proposed in the southeast portion of the site, adjacent to the ends
of the buildings. The design of both water features is the same. The design calls for two
linear water walls separated by a decorative cut stone wall. The two linear basins arc also
separated through the addition of asemi-circular basin between them.
The decorative stone wall has a fountain in the center which feeds into a decorative stone
basin on the wall. 1'he water then spills over this basin into the semi-circular lower basin.
The linear water walls flanking this central feature are constructed of rough stone with
three stone scuppers mounted to each wall. Water flows over the rough stone and
scuppers into the lower linear basins.
Planning believes that the planter walls on either side of the water feature should be
constructed of the same stone as proposed on the south facade of Building B, and that the
central lower basin curb be designed at seat wall height.
Accessibility
As proposed, the entire site is accessible for people with disabilities, including the plaza
at the southeast corner. The main access to the site is proposed fzom Darby Street due to
Architectural Keview Board
January 9, 2008 -Planning Keport
Case No. 07-U67AKB -Page 8 of 1 l
the larger District parking lots located to the northwest. There is also a valet station on
the western edge of the site, along Darby Street, which meets the Americans with
Disabilities Act recommendations (ADA) by providing five accessible parking spaces in
the newly constructed public parking lot at Darby Street and Wing Hill. ADA compliant
ramps are proposed in the internal public space area and provide access to both buildings.
Signs
A variety of sign types are permitted by the Guidelines including wall, projecting,
window, awning, and sandwich board signs. A Sign and Graphics Plan has been
provided by the applicant, as an attachment to the Development Text. The sign types and
locations have been designed to a pedestrian scale and are reflective of other signs
currently in Historic Dublin.
The proposed signs for the development are generally rectangular in shape and include a
combination of wall mounted signs and projection signs. The development text permits
first floor tenants a wall sign and a projection sign on the street elevations and one or the
other of the signs on the interior elevation. Signs are not permitted on the end
elevations. Second floor tenants will have a small directory sign by their first floor
entrance. For full details on sign types, shapes, dimensions, colors, and permitted
locations and quantities, please refer to the Sign and Graphics Plan, Exhibit E of the
Development Text.
Service Area Screening
The development text requires that all waste and refuse produced by the tenants of the
development be contained within designated storage areas architecturally integrated into
both buildings. On Building A, this storage area is in the northwest corner of the building
adjacent to Darby Street. On Building B, it is also in the northwest corner of the building
and adjacent to Wing Hill. Concerns have been expressed about the proximity of the
Building B refuse storage area to the existing patio at Tucci's Restaurant to the north.
This issue is currently being studied by the applicant, and as noted in the conditions of
zoning approval, Planning requests that an alternate refuse storage location be
determined.
Valet Stand
A drop off area and valet stand is located at the western edge of the development adjacent
to Darby Street. Per the development text, a valet operation is a permitted use and a
small structure shall also be permitted to facilitate this use. The valet stand is designed
to have the appearance of a small garden shed and utilizes an architectural material
palette consistent with the development. The gothic style window proposed on the valet
stand is inconsistent with the window styles in Historic Dublin and should be revised to
coordinate with the windows proposed on the rest of the development.
Lighting
The proposed streetlights and public plaza lights indicated on the plans are decorative,
cut-off fixtures that are painted black, which are compatible with existing lighting in the
Historic District. To address concerns over the level of lighting along the pedestrian path
Architectural Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-067ARt3 -Page 9 of 11
between the municipal parking lot and the proposed development, an additional light pole
has been incorporated north of the valet stand on the east side of Darby Street within the
right-of--way.
SECTION II -REVIEW STANllARllS
Architectural Review Board
The Board's role in this process is defined by Code Section 153.182 {C), which requires
the ARB to review the design of new structures and site improvements with respect to
compatibility of the architectural style, general design, arrangement, texture, materials
and color of other structures and premises within the area. Section (E) requires that the
Board determine whether the proposed change will be appropriate to the preservation of
the historic, architectural or environmental character of the Architectural Review District
according to the criteria specified in the Code.
Evaluation and Recommendation based on the Guidelines:
The Guidelines identify strategies for the review and approval of building and site
improvements. Numbers assigned to the guidelines reflect the order in which they appear
in the table of contents of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines and may appear below
in a different order than listed in the Guidelines. Only guidelines relevant to this case are
listed. The Board should consider the following guidelines to review this proposal
against:
Construction (Guidelines 10, 11, 12): New construction, outbuilding and additions
should be placed appropriately on the lot and be similar in design with the existing
buildings. It is important that the scale and massing are consistent with surrounding
properties and building materials need to be compatible to those used in the District.
Guidelines met. The proposed buildings have been appropriately sited in a
manner consistent with the historic District. The scale and massing of the
buildings and building materials proposed are consistent with surrounding
structures.
Design Elements (Guidelines ~, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16). AIC new construction and additions shall
be designed to complement the surrounding buildings while the architectural style of the
building along with the general design characteristics of the area which includes
porches, windows, doors, awnings, paint colors, and gutter and downspouts by using
traditional materials utilized through out the District. All elements contribute tv the
overall appearance of•a building. These elements are highly visible and are an important
component of the building's visual character.
Guidelines met with conditions. All firewalls should be constructed of the same
material as the building facades they are associated with. (Condition 1) The
revisions to the roof pitch and the removal of the wail dormers at the southern
facade of Building B is inconsistent with surrounding structures, and should be
revised subject to Planning approval. (Condition 2)
Architectural Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-067ARB -Page 10 of 11
The gothic style window of the valet stand is inconsistent with the rest of the
proposed development and should be revised accordingly. {Condition 3) No
materials have been specified for the stair treads at the building entrances. The
elevations should be revised to indicate the proposed tread material, subject to
Planning approval. {Condition 4)
Site Considerations (Guideline 13). Building site amenities, including landscaping,
fences, walls, parking areas; decks, patios, sidewalks, and street furniture, play a
significant role in maintaining the character of Historic Dublin. These elements work
together to maintain the District's character.
Guidelines met with conditions. The location of the refuse storage in Building
B could be detrimental to the enjoyment of the neighboring property's outdoor
space. "Phis refuse should be relocated offsite or to an expanded storage area
within Building A (Condition 5). The proposed Patio Plans should be revised to
indicate the square footage of the potential patio spaces and the potential balcony
locations and maximum balcony envelopes (Condition 6). The water feature
should be revised to increase the height of the central basin to allow use as an
informal seating area, and the end wall materials of the water feature should
match the masonry proposed on the south end of Building B. (Condition 7)
Accessibility (Guideline 14). Many materials are available to help assist in making a
building accessible, these materials should be considered in areas that would not
threaten or destroy the historic significance of the building.
Guidelines met. The grading plans have been adjusted to remove the need for
steps between the public plaza spaces. All proposed buildings and plazas are
accessible.
Signs (Guideline 1.5). Sign design should use appropriate materials, fonts, colors, and
scale but also encourage diversity and creativity while maintaining harmony within the
District. Signs should effectively communicate the image and message of that business.
Guidelines met. "I~he proposed Sign and Graphics Plan provided indicate signs
that are compatible with the signs used throughout the Historic District.
SECTION III -PLANNING OPINION AND RECOMMENDA"PION:
In Planning's opinion, this proposal meets the Historic Dublin Guidelines and Zoning
Code and the overall proposed site modifications are compatible with the Historic District
and will provide compatible inlill structures to the existing Historic District buildings and
the character of the streetscape. Planning recommends approval with seven conditions.
After reviewing the proposed new construction and site modifications, Planning
recommends approval with seven conditions:
1) That all Iirewalls proposed should be constructed of the same masonry
material as the building fa4ade they are associated with;
2) That the roofpitch of the southern facade of Building B be revised to be
consistent with surrounding structures, and that the wall dormers on the east
Architectural Review Board
January 9, 2008 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-067ARB -Page ] 1 of 11
and west sides of the southern facade of Building B be re-incorporated,
subject to Planning approval;
3) That the gothic style window of the valet stand be replaced with a traditional
window consistent with the rest of the proposed development;
4) That stair tread materials be specified at building entrances, subject to
Planning approval;
5) That the refuse storage area proposed for the north end of Building B be
relocated offsite or to an expanded refuse area within Building A, to the
satisfaction of Planning prior to Final Development Plan approval;
6) That the proposed Patio Plans should be revised to indicate the square footage
of the potential patio spaces and the potential balcony locations and maximum
balcony envelopes; and
7) That the water feature be revised to increase the height of the central basin to
18 inches to permit use as an informal seating area, and the end wall materials
of the water feature should match the masonry proposed on the south end of
Building B.
ARCHTFECTUR.AL REVIEW BOARD
BOARD ORDER
CITY OF DUBLL'Y_
~~~ 2007
December 19
~~~~ ,
5800 Shier~ir~ Road
pubGn. Ohio 0.301 bl T36
Phone/ iDO: 61 aa70-~6W
fmc: 61 s-410f7<7
Web Site. www_dubin.ohais
The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting:
Z. Bridge and High Streets Development 20 West Bridge Street
07-067ARB Site Modifications
Proposal: Site modifications to include the construction of a mixed-use
development with approximately 22,000 square feet of retail and
office space and associated site improvements.
Request: Review and approval of site modifications under the provisions of
the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines.
Applicant: City of Dublin; represented by Mo M. Dioun, The Stonehenge
Company.
Planning Contact: Dan Phillabaum, AICP, Senior Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4662, dphillabaum@dubiin.oh.us
MOTION: Linda Kick made a motion to table this application and Toth Currie seconded.
VOTE: 5 - 0.
RESULT: After much discussion, this application was tabled to a Special Meeting in order
for the applicant to revise the architectural elevations as requested by the Board by simplifying
the windows, removing the roof slopes, changing the stucco material to brick or siding, and
removing the chimney pots.
RECORDED VOTES:
Thomas Holton Yes
Clayton Bryan Yes
William Souders Yes
Linda Kick Yes
Tom Currie Yes
~,
~TAFF C T FI O
., ~ ~
an Phillabaum, ~ICP
Senior Planner
07-0997~/P`llP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
ZO West Bridge Street
Architechual Review Board
December 19, 2007 -Minutes
Page G of 17
2. Bridge and >IIigh Streets Development 20 West Bridge Street
t)7-067ARB Site Modifications
Dan Phillabaum presented this case for review and approval of a 22,000-square-foot mixed-use
development to be located at the northwest corner of Bridge and High Streets to ensure the
enhancement of the historic architectural and environmental character of Historic Dublin. Ne
said Planning recommends approval of this request with the three conditions as listed in the
Planning Report.
Tom Holton swore in those who intended to speak in regards to this case.
Mr. Holton asked about the location of the balconies. Mo Dioun, The Stonehenge Company,
representing the City of Dublin, said the balconies, if any, would be located toward the interior
of the site.
Tom Currie inquired about the public/private use of the patios. Sara Ott clarified that the
development agreement called for the Stonehenge Company to purchase the Building A and B
footprints and the remainder of the site was to be controlled by the City who would maintain the
ownership of the Land.
Mr. Souders asked which entrance doors shown on the elevations provided access to the first and
second floors. Gary Sebach, Bird Houk Collaborative, said that had not been determined yet.
He said it would depend on the size of tenant spaces. Mr. Dioun said it would be tenant-driven.
Mr. Souders clarified and Mr. Dioun confirmed that additional doors will not be added to the
elevations shown.
Mr. Currie asked if the walkway on the northwest corner of the Modern Male building was
public property. Ms. Ott said a portion of the walkway was right-of--way. She said currently,
concrete is planned to be used for that space.
Linda Kick asked about ADA access for the properties on High Street. Mr. Sebach said they
could only get ADA accessibility on the internal courtyard side, knowing that following Building
Codes and the ADA Guidelines, when a certain square footage is reached, they have to have two
means of accessible egress.
Ms. Kick asked if service entry areas to interior tenant space were anticipated. Mr. Dioun said
delivery trucks can park at Wing Hill or the valet area in the morning, and then cart the material
into the buildings through the business doors and that there is no dedicated service or delivery
doors to the tenant spaces.
Ms. Kick asked if the patios would be public spaces. Mr. Dioun said that, based on the
development agreement, they have the right to the 3,000 square feet of patio space and that it can
be exclusive or non-exclusive. He said it depended on the type of retail tenant and their
requirements. He said their goal was to make sure that there is a lot of dynamic outdoor activity
going on because that was the focus of this project.
Clayton Bryan asked what the total amount of available square-footage was on the interior. Ms.
Ott said that approximately 2,500 square feet of potential locations for patio were available. She
Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2007 -Minutes
Page 7 of 17
said if the Stonehenge Company wanted to exercise the full 3,000 square feet, most likely the
Board would see them again with a request for a balcony.
Mr. Bryan asked how many square feet are available for public use on the interior of the
courtyard. Mr. Phillabaum said the interior formal lawn area (gathering space) was
approximately 4,200 square feet.
.David Garcia, 1.09 South Riverview Street, noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recently approved this conceptually, but several Commissioners noted that this project failed the
goal of providing a community gathering point. He said he was in favor of removal of all the
stucco from the proposed buildings. He suggested instead of the corner water feature, there
could be another type of feature that v~rould serve the same purpose and provide more space for
civic functions and art.
Carl Karrer, 6746 Hcatherstone Loop, a Board member of the Dublin Historical Society,
presented old photographs of this area of Dublin that he estimated were taken around 1912. He
pointed out landmarks that could be seen. He said the Building B materials proposed did not
look like the nature of the materials used historically in Dublin. He lilted the stone face, but said
it should be limestone, the material virtually that was used in all the buildings in Historic Dublin.
He said he thought the appearance of the south end of Building B would be more in line with the
appearance with the historic buildings if it were limestone.
Mr. Kamer pointed that in the middle of the Bridge and High Street intersection there was a well
pump, shown on the 1920 photograph. He said they thought something could commemorate the
town pump element in the design. Mr. Kamer said the Historic Society would like to see public
art, modeled after the photograph.
Mr. Holton said that Mr. Karrer's suggestion of a pump statuary would address Mr. Garcia's
point of there being a tie of the new with the old Dublin.
Craig Barnum, owner of Brazenhead, Oscar's and Tucci's, said he supported this development.
However, he was concerned that the dumpster location at the access alley could cause problems
with trash pickup trucks destroying his landscaping, causing odors, and attracting rodents near
Tueci's Restaurant. He was also concerned that this proposal would create further parking
problems in the District.
Mr. Souders asked if this development required all the parking spaces to be added as part of this
project. Mr. Dioun reminded everyone that the objective of this whole project was a downtown
revitalization and making it pedestrian-friendly. 1lc said looking at the successful revitalized
downtowns or town centers, people park away and then walk to destinations. Mr. Souders asked
how many parking spaces would be generated traditionally for this development. Mr.
Phillabaum said the parking calculation per Code would depend on the ultimate tenant makeup,
but that a typical planned development of this size could require approximately 100 spaces,
depending on the tenant mix and parking demand generated. Mr. Souders noted that this
development provided approximately 90 of the 100 parking spaces required and that it had done
its part.
Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2007 -Minutes
Page 8 of 17
Ms. Ott clarified that the net increase of the Darby Street lot was 68 parking spaces, plus the
additional 88 spaces at Indian Run Elementary. She said there are over 1,000 parking spaces in
the District, and more than half are privately controlled, and that was why neither the City, nor
the businesses can solve this issue on their own. Mr. Dioun said he highly recommended that the
private business owners in the District get wish the City and solve this parking problem, if there
is one.
Jason Liu, 50 West Bridge Street, noted that Jason's Restaurant had been fold the Code limited
sign area to a total of six square feet, but for this project, each tenant would be allowed the
possibility of having three signs. He was concerned that the proposal was inconsistent with the
requirements. Mr. Phillabaum said the sign issue with this site is more related to these buildings
being four-sided people will access them from two sides. He said this situation is unique to the
District and the planned district zoning classification recognizes that. Mr. Holton asked why
Jason's Restaurant could not have a rear sign. Mr. Phillabaum said Jason's has a different
zoning classification, and Code only permits one sign.
Mr. Holton noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission was concealed about driving across
a pedestrian walkway for the use of the dumpster across the patio and asked what change was
recommended to alleviate that. Mr. Dioun said they agreed to Condition 2 regarding the
dumpster. He said if they had to collect and dispose refuse on site, their architects had picked the
best location and created architecturally sensitive doors and enclosures for them. He said
concerning any possible odors or rodents the nearby businesses will be very cognizant of the fact
that their refuse needs to be picked up on a more frequent bases in a timely manner. He said they
plan to develop a more frequent program in order to avoid those issues. Mr. Dioun committed, if
the City would like to work with Jason's Restaurant, Mr. Barnum's three restaurants, and any
others to create a central, remote location for refuse disposal.
Mr. Barnum reported that Jason's, Tucci's, and Modern Male now share one dumpster in the
back of Jason's. He said that Mr. Liu had just purchased the building to the east and they have
discussed building a structure there or use the existing one and maybe double the size to facilitate
the refuse for this new development.
Steve Rudy, 129 S. Riverview Street said he thought there were clear opportunities to retrieve a
significant public space and leave the same total footprint by turning Building A ninety degrees.
Mr. Currie said, if the building was turned ninety degrees, it would provide more space in the
area of the water walls are located, and the flagstone path would be moved
Mr. Holton asked if moving Building A would change the nature of the gathering space. Mr.
Souders said part of what makes an urban setting unique is the different spaces created by the
vertical height of the building and its distance from the street. He said a public space does not
have be right on the corner; it can be linked to the corner, or begin on the corner. Mr. Souders
said this was an excellent project and the majority of the goals and objectives have been met.
Mr. Dioun said in terms of the building orientation to be perpendicular to Bridge Street or not,
the public space patios will be sheltered from traffic by the buildings as proposed on the plan.
He said parents will enjoy bringing their children there and feel safe Letting them play. He said
they feel the citing of the buildings as proposed is the most optimum.
Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2007 -Minutes
Page 9 of 17
Mr. Rudy expressed concerns about the proposed architecture and the inspiration for the design
character. He was concerned with how the proposed development fit with the existing
development within the District. Mr. Garcia echoed Mr. Rudy's concerns about the architecture
and his desire for it to reflect the true history and character of Dublin. Mr. Karrer suggested the
building architecture at the southeast corner of Bridge and High Streets should be reflected at the
south end of Building B in an effort to tie the entire intersection together.
Mr. Dioun said the history and character of the community has evolved over time and the
proposed buildings reflect this evolution. He said part of that also is reflected in the choice of
material used in the buildings. He said the proposal tries to create two buildings that are
cohesive and reflect the history of Dublin architecture. He said this is the intent and they believe
that what is being presented to the Board tonight follows the recommendations of the Historic
Preservation Consultant. He said 50 years from now, somebody is going to reflect that these
buildings were built in 2008 and part of the history of Dublin.
Ms. Kick said in Exhibit C, the south end of the Building B appeared very different than all the
others. She asked why that one was chosen and what era does it reflect. She said the others were
all very straight angles and they were sloped. He said the others looked more conservative to her
where the south end of Building B looked more ornate.
Mr. Sebach said one of the largest challenges was how to break the scale of a 60-foot wide
building end so that it has the character and scale desired and mimics Historic Dublin. He said
another part of the challenge is to hide the mechanical units on tl~e rooftop and make the project
function on a sloped street. He said the style of the architecture could be changed, but the scale
and the mass of the end of the building has always been. an issue. He said this style fits what
they are trying to do with the end of the building so it does not look like the end of a large blank
barn. He said they tried to pick up an American vernacular which is kind of a `Tudor-esque'
style.
Mr. Currie asked about the sloped roofline of the building. Mr. Sebach asked the Board to
understand that the architecture of the buildings was a collective effort, but was still open for
discussion and revision. He said the historian said these buildings should not try to be
historically accurate; they should be simple in design and eclectic. Mr. Sebach said that just
because a style of architecture has not existed in Dublin does not mean it couldn't. Mr. Sebach
said this Tudor-style is indigenous to the area, and they thought it could be interesting to pick
this up. He said there are Gothic churches, Queen Anne, and Victorian in the area. He said they
were trying to be true to the style, but not necessarily try to exactly match something that exists
in Dublin.
Mr. Currie said he had never seen that style. He noted that they were trying to make it appear
that buildings were added and added. He said it did not seem to fit any period.
Mr. i~olton clarified that Mr. Sebach was saying there was aTudor-style building somewhere in
Dublin. Mr. Sebach there are several `Tudor-esque' residences along Riverside, and along SR
161, the Leo Alfred Jewelers' building had this same character with dark wood and steep-pitched
roofs.
Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2007 -Minutes
.Page 10 of 17
Mr. Holton said that was a brand new building. He said an historic Tudor building could not be
found in the District. Mr. Holton said it had to be changed and that it was not acceptable.
Mr. Bryan said his concern with some of the architectural details was that when the City
purchased this property and for Town Center I, the issue was to create a gateway. He said he had
difficulty picturing this as a gateway. He said two significantly different building styles would
be seen when coming across the bridge, heading west.
Mr. Bryan said a gateway should have some sense of balance. He said the buildings on each side
of the street should reflect the same time period. Mr. Bryan said they need to work as a pair, but
do not have to look exactly the same. However, he said he wanted to see the same elements on
both places. Mr. Bryan said he did not think two different types of architecture worked. He said
he did not think this roofline worked or the windows. He said it was not a typical German or
Irish design. He said in the long run we are developing a confrontation between the two corners.
He said from a retailers' standpoint, a little confrontation might be good, but for the residents of
the Historic District, that is not what they want to see.
Mr. Souders said he liked the composition, but unfortunately, he did not think the end of
Building B was right. He said he thought a solution that everyone was asking for could be
found. He said this proj cct has come 180 degrees. He said they are on the right track and it was
very close because they were discussing just one building out of the whole composition. He said
the Gothic windows made no sense and were out of place. He said the simplicity of the siding
was almost an earlier Colonial, something that might be seen in Baltimore, and then the end
piece which architecturally has a lot of interesting things going on, but something simple can
have too much added to it.
Mr. Souders said he had no problem with the other building or the pitch of the roofs. However,
he said he was very disappointed that the Board made one specific request at the last meeting
that they could be presented with an image of this project and Town Center I in elevation across
Bridge Street, and it was not delivered. He recalled that the Board said that was a marketing
tool. He agreed that the City developed over time, and that it is not right to ask somebody to
build something that reflects one particular point in time. He said Dublin was created over a lot
of years and it was still growing. Mr. Souders said he had no problem with what was being done.
He did not agree with the philosophy that buildings should look barn-like.
Mr. Souders said he did not understand the water feature issue and what it had to do with this
corner. He said he had never seen the pump before, but since that existed, some kind of design
related to that pump in the plaza with water flowing out from it made a lot of sense instead of
two contemporary-looking fountains placed in the middle of this non-contemporary courtyard.
He said something unique could be created from the time period, possibly a trough or some other
historic element. Ile said he did not like anything about the water features proposed tonight. He
said he thought they were totally out of character, but he liked the water concept.
Mr. Sebach said they looked at the Donato's building and Town Center I, and they are very
similar in terms of the roof pitch. He said he was unsure if it was the right thing to do on the
other corner to have three buildings on the corner that had the same scale, proportion, and
materials. He said they were trying to he sensitive not to create three identical corners.
However, he said he understood what Mr. Souders was saying and appreciated his comments.
Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2007 -Minutes
Page I 1 of 17
Mr. Dioun said when looking at the Historic District, all buildings did not look alike and they all
have evolved and changed from the first building built. He said in every building built, some of
the old characteristics of other buildings have been picked up and some additional creative
elements have been added. He said that was how the character has evolved. He said they have
attempted to introduce some of that into this development.
Mr. Dioun said he fully understood the gateway comments made by Mr. Bryan., but
unfortunately there were height restrictions and the width of the Bridge Street were impediments
to creating the gateway feel.
Mr. Dioun said he was intrigued by some of the historic aspects of the pump. He said that he
thought some features could be incorporated that were a reflection of the history.
Mr. Currie recalled that last meeting the Board discussed burying the utilities. Ms. Ott said the
City did not have the cost estimates yet. However, she said the location of those utilities was in
the right-of--way and it was expensive to bury the utilities because of the amount of rack beneath.
She said City Council would have to authorize additional funding to make it happen.
Mr. Currie noted that the street trees were different on High and Bridge Street and asked why.
Mr. Phillabaum said Dublin's City Forester, Paula Chope recommended that as the ash trees are
replaced in the District, on Bridge Street, the Male Ginkgo and on High Street, the Japanese Tree
Lilac be used. Eugenia Martin., ASLA, Landscape Architect said the ginkgo tree originates from
China and is one of the oldest Living trees. She said it was commonly used within an urban area
because it can handle the conditions of being in an urban setting, not only from the vertical
aspect of how it can stay confined within the space defined by the roadway and the building,
such as aerial salts and vehicular pollution. Ms. Martin said it would be more sustainable for
Historic Dublin.
Mr. Cux-rie said he did not see the material specified for the shop steps on High Street and Bridge
Street. iVlr. Sebach said it had not been decided whether the tread and landings would be
concrete or stone. He said the side of the steps would be the same foundation stone as was on
the building.
Mr. Currie asked who would be responsible for snow removal on the patio and walkway. Ms.
Ott said the City was responsible for snow removal and all maintenance of our public spaces,
except when a patio space is used by a tenant, they accept the maintenance responsibility for that
area.
Mr. Currie said this seemed to be an ideal place for a heated surface and asked if it had been
considered. Ms. Ott replied that it had been looked at but it was deemed too expensive.
Mr. Currie said the patios on the street seemed very tiny. He asked if they would be connected
with a restaurant or arc they just for a park bench. Ms. Ott said they envisioned an intimate
setting that showed activity which is why dining is shown on the sides of those buildings. She
said whether exclusive or non-exclusive use, it was important pedestrian and vehicular traffic see
other individuals interacting with the space. She said the water walls proposed are visual
backdrops that could be a future location for public art in that lower plaza. Ms. Ott said there was
also the issue of noise at the intersection, and providing the water walls that are falling over onto
Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2007 -Minutes
Page 12 of 17
the stones; provide some white background noise to help drown out some of the traffic to make it
so it is enjoyable to use those two patio spaces on the corner.
Mr. Currie noted that there were more chimney pots shown on the previous plan than this one.
He said he felt at least one chimney pot for each building was enough. However, he said he
preferred they all be removed. Mr. Sebach said they could be removed as they are purely
ornamental, but thought they added some realism. Mr. Holton said they would not have any
historic significance if they were gone.
Mr. Currie noted the quoins shown on Building A. Mr. Sebach said he found an example in one
of the historic books of Dublin where there was a building with quoins on it. He said they
thought the quoins added just a level of higher finish. He said they would use a good limestone
on it, just to dress it up a little so that it was not too plain. Mr. Currie said it looked better in
color than black and white.
Mr. Holton asked what kind of turf was on the plazas. Mr. Phillabaum explained that it was real
grass, but the base was constructed similar to that of athletic fields, with soil having a high sand
content so the green would drain water rapidly. Ms. Ott said the grass will be manicured.
Mr. Holton suggested that something either be added to the water feature or in place of it that
reflected the town pump Mr. Karrer suggested earlier. He said perhaps incorporating something
like that as statuary of the water feature or separately as a public art component. Ms. Ott
clarified that Mr. Holton considered that this was to be a theme of the public art component,
and/or be a theme incorporated into the water feature.
Ms. Kick said she liked the stone-look on the last building, but it looked awkward and out of
place. She said overall., she liked the changes made with the roof pitches. She said regarding the
position of the buildings, when you go to a European country, the buildings are all along the
streets and you do not even know where the center square is located, however the residents do.
She liked the movement of the trees to the back so when looking in, you do not just see the trees.
Mr. Holton said most of the Board's architectural comments revolved around the south unit on
Building B. .l-le noted that the Historic Preservation Consultant's concern was the aesthetic fire
wall treatment on the exterior of the buildings. Mr. Phillabaum explained that the Consultant
recommended that the fire wall masonry material be the same as the principal material of the
facades, in this case, brick instead of stone. Mr. Sebach pointed out that some of those were
rendering issues that they would address. Mr. Holton asked if at the top of the building because
of the fire wall, was there a visible extension about the roofline. Mr. Souders confirmed that the
metal flashing cap slightly higher than the roof itself.
Mr. Holton referred to the south of Building B and asked what would look architecturally
appropriate there. 1VIr. Sebach said they would work on the basic floor plan shape and come
back to the Board, taking the steepness and swoops out of the roof and be a little more Dublin
vernacular in terms of roof style. Mr. Holton said he thought the architecture was where it
needed to be, except for the one building elevation. Ms. Kick suggested a cornerstone arch be
used. Mr. Souders suggested that on the center section, instead of the roof eave being as high,
the roof be slightly lower than the roof behind it to begin bringing the scale down as you come
into that corner so there are two gable ends.
Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2007 -Minutes
Page 13 of 17
Mr. Sebach said when they drew that, the low sloped roof became the dominate roofline, while
with the higher pitched roof, there are opportunities for other things like dormers or sheds. He
said they would work on that.
Mr. Souders said he thought the Board members were saying that stone was not a major issue,
and stucco was not preferred. Mr. Dioun noted that the stucco was not a critical issue on the
south end, and asked if a siding element instead would make it more in line. Mr. Holton referred
to the building next to Donato's, the Hutchinson building, where there was painted brick over
stone used and that might be considered. However, he questioned. if it was historic.
Mr. Sebach. confirmed his summary that the Board wanted on the end of Building B to lose the
stucco, simplify the windows so they are more in line with the rest of the architecture, either
bring the roof slopes down in scale and getting rid of the swoops, simplify it trying to match the
rest of the architechtre. Mr. Holton said the windows on the east side will reflect whatever
change is made on the south side. He asked that the European-type, chalet-look be taken away,
with it still having a distinctive flavor that is eye-catching as people drive across the bridge. Mr.
Bryan added the brackets should be removed when the roof slope is revised.
Mr. Currie suggested because the lighting seemed to be weak around the valet area and on the
corner of the Modern Male site a light post on either side of the valet building. He said it was
difficult now to get from the new parking lot to the square. Ms. Ott agreed, and said they are
working on it.
Mr. Bryan confirmed that as shown on landscape material, Sheet C-1, the public walkway areas
and private patios would be aggregate concrete, scored 2 feet by 2 feet. He asked if there was a
way to dress that up. Ms. Ott requested that the Board consider an possible option for a
consistent brick paver instead, as used on the sidewalk. She said it was a funding issue, but the
flexibility would help them going forward to make the project what she thought the Board and
the community are envisioning.
Mr. Holton was concerned about the safety of wet brick pavers. IVIs. Ott said the typical pavers
in Historic Dublin had a sand base and that was where you get some of the heaving. She said for
this project, they have built into the budget putting a concrete base underneath all the pavers
because for the long term, they think that is the right way to go for the investment.
Mr. Bryan said a beautiful development is taking place but expressed concerns regarding the
existing building at the north end of the site and the impact it would have on the success of the
project. He said it lacked aesthetic value or appearance from inside the gathering area. Mr.
Bryan said he would like to see it screened some way by trees or a fence.
Mr. Phillabaum added that the City would like to maintain the ability for that building to mesh
into this project should it redevelop in the future.
Mr. Dioun said it could plot be screened completely because it would not be fair to the present
business, however some visual effect by landscaping at the corners or so forth can be created in
order to minimize the imposition of the project on this. He said an element such as an art piece,
Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2007 -Minutes
Page 14 of 17
railing or landscaping to grab the eye away from that building could be incorporated if they have
the liberty to do so.
Mr. Holton confirmed that the Board would be okay with either considering either the pavers or
the composite. Mr. Souders suggested whichever is used, there be change in color from the brick
pavers to help differentiate the sidewalk to help guide traffic. He noted the rendering had three
colors and he thought that looked fine. Mr. Souders added that the colors shown in the rendering
sufficed.
Mr. Souders and Ms. Kick said that the three types offences proposed were acceptable.
Mr. Sebach noted that the sage green shown on the renderings of the building elevations has
been changed to a warnler brown to pick up the brick tone color because it was more uniform.
[Board members agreed to the change.]
Mr. Souders said that he did not think the water feature was as good as it could be. He said it
was too contemporary. However, he said he was totally in agreement with the masking of the
sound with the water. He said an opportunity to connect and use it as a teaching tool for children
that are visiting could be lost. Mr. Souders repeated that he did not like two rectangles. He said
it just lacked the same character that the buildings have. He said there is so much energy in the
buildings, and this looks like an afterthought to him.
Ms. Kick suggested that the `Dublin-type' limestone wall be incorporated in the water feature.
Mr. Bryan said they appear as two monoliths in general, but the sound was an important feature.
He said if it were reversed so that there was a plain wall visible to the street that had an historic
connotation to it and place the well there and the waterfall was on the back side would be one
way to create white noise, still providing privacy on the back side without presenting the
modernistic water fall on the street side.
Mr. Souders said they were missing the opportunity to sit there and feel the water with your hand
without having seating facing or beside the water feature. He asked that it be reconsidered. Mr.
Dioun and Ms. Ott agreed to bring some examples or pictures for ideas.
Mr. Holton said he liked the idea of having something, especially a gathering point for small
tours or children to sit and put their hands in the water. He asked if something like adry-laid
stone wall with water falling over it that would replicate Indian Run Falls could be incorporated.
Mr. Phillabaum asked if the Board would like to see this proposal again to review the requested
revisions. Mr. Holton said they did not want to see anything except the small things they
discussed and that they wanted to see them as fast as possible so they could keep this moving.
Mr. Phillabaum suggested the Board could hold a special meeting to bring back the items
discussed that are particular sticking points for review as soon as possible. Ms. Ott said that this
is to be scheduled to come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, and the
Board needed to meet before then. She said they would let the Board members know when and
where the special meeting would be held.
Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2007 -Minutes
Page 15 of 17
Ms. Ott asked for clarification of what points the Board wanted addressed. Mr. Holton said
revisions to the south unit of Building B, pavers for the public area, and the water feature be
addressed at the next meeting.
Ms. Kick asked about cosmetic landscaping or screening of Modern Male. Ms. Ott asked for
confirmation that there was consensus from the Board. Mr. Souders said it was an additional
cost and not part of the project. He said he would like to see it, but there was a cost. He said it
would happen sooner or later due to the synergic affect of this development.
Mr. Holton asked where the construction staging area would be located. Ms. Ott said they are
considering options for it, however it was premature for them to get into those details because
they do not have the zoning yet. Mr. Holton wanted that included in the minutes. Mr. Dioun
said the courtyard is the most ideal staging area since it would be the last piece constructed and
that they would work from it with minimal impact on High and Bridge Streets. He said however,
w}1en they construct the courtyard, they will look for alternative locations in order to do the
paver work and landscaping.
Mr. Holton asked how Mr. Kamer could advance his idea for artwork. Ms. Ott said she was
responsible on the City's side for the Public Art Program as a partnership with the Dublin Arts
Council. She said the desire would be reflected in the meeting minutes. She said they would
have to determine if the Arts Council would like this site as part of the Arts in Public Program or
if this would be a project outside of that. She said she heard the request and it was a matter of
getting the right creative people in the room.
Mr. Souders suggested a temporary wall between the building to the north and have art that is
more banner-like and gigantic in nature, an arcade of art.
1VIs. Ott repeated that the issues to be addressed were on the south building, to simplify the
windows, remove the roof slopes, change the stucco material to brick or siding, and to remove
the chimney pots. Ms. Kick added that the color of the quoins should not be so dramatic so the
contrast is not so great. Mr. Phillabaum confirmed that the Board was in agreement with the
color change from green to brown on that same elevation.
Mr. Dioun said in order to reduce the contrast between the limestone and brick on the east
elevation of Building A, they either had to get rid of the limestone or go to a lighter color of
brick if they keep the limestone, and that becomes problematic. Mr. Holton said it was a
preference, not a mandate from the Board.
Mr. Souders said he liked the current contrast because it was not done heavily.
Mr. Holton said some limestone was very white. Mr. Dioun said using variegated Indiana
limestone with mixed buff and gray colors and some veins in it were most ideal. Ms. Kick and
Ms. Holton said that was better.
Mr. Phillabaum suggested this application be tabled in order for the applicants to come back to
address the issues discussed tonight.
Mr. Dioun thanked the Board and said he appreciated their comments and the constructive help
in making this a better project.
Architectural Review Board
llecember ] 9, 2007 -Minutes
Page 1 C of 17
Ms. Kick made a motion to table this application until the Special Meeting is held. Mr. Currie
seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Holton, yes; Mr. Bryan, yes; Mr. Souders,
yes; Ms. Kick, yes, and Mr. Currie, yes. (Approved ~ -- 0.)
PLANNING REPORT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DECEMBER 19, 2007
CITY OF DUBLIN_
wee u»ana
leap IMeoe ~reenY~q
5800 ShiorR*iy Noatl
DubFn. OMO 1301 6 1 236
P110nB/ TDD: 614410<600
fox: 6i4.t14~747 -
Web 5fe:vnvw.CUDFn.ohvt
SECTION I -CASE INFORMATION:
2. Bridge and High Streets Development 20 West Bridge Street
07-067ARB Site Modifications
Proposal: Site modifications to include the construction of two mixed-use
buildings located on the northwest corner of Bridge and High
Streets.
Request: Review and approval of site modifications under the provisions of
the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines.
Applicant: The City of Dublin; represented by Mo Dioun, The Stonehenge
Company.
Planning Contact: Dan Phillabaum, AICP, Senior Planner
Planning Information: (614) 410-4662, dphillabaum@dublin.oh.us
Update
This development proposal was reviewed informally by the Architectural Review Board on July
25, 2007 and as a Concept PIan by the Planning and "toning Commission on t)ctober 9; 2007.
Feedback provided to the applicant included direction to reduce the building heights, simplify the
exterior building material palette and design, improve the overall site accessibility, and increase
the size of the lower plaza at the southeast corner of the site. "These items have been addressed
by the applicant as described within the Planning Report.
Case Summary
This is a request for review and approval of a mixed-use development on the northwest corner of
Bridge and High Streets to ensure the preservation of the historic, architectural and
environmental character of Historic Dublin. Planning recommends approval of this request with
three conditions.
Case Background
This project is apublic-private partnership between the City of Dublin and The Stonehenge
Company. The City of Dublin issued a request for qualifications for the Bridge and High Street
project in the fall of 2005 and the request for proposals was sent in early 2006. The request for
Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2007 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-067ARB -Page 2 of 9
project in the fall of 2005 and the request for proposals was sent in early 200b. The request for
proposals yielded three qualified development teams, two of which submitted development
proposals. After public presentations to City Council and a public open house, The Stonehenge
Company was selected as the preferred development partner. A development agreement
between the City and Stonehenge, which was approved June 18, 2007 by City Council, outlines
the details of this partnership and development of the project.
A stipulation of the development agreement is the requirement to replace the 35 parking spaces
in the existing lot and to provide an additional 68 parking spaces for public use in the Historic
District. These 103 parking spaces will be located in the Darby Street parking lot, which was
approved for a rezoning and a conditional use by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June
7, 2007 (see Record of Action for 07-0367_./CU) and approved by the ARB on June 27, 2007 and
ultimately approved by City Council on July 2, 2007. The Rezoning/Preliminary Development
Plan for this development was approved by the, Planning and Zoning Commission on December
6, 2007 (see attached draft Record of Action and Meeting Minutes for 07-099Z/FDP}. The
applicant has addressed the majority of the conditions from the Planning and Zoning
Commission in the materials provided for review by the ARB.
Site Description
Location
The 0.7-acre site, consisting of three parcels, is located at the northwest corner of Bridge and
High Streets, and has approximately 200 feet of frontage on Bridge Street and approximately 170
feet on High Street.
Site Character
The land is relatively flat with a slight slope from northwest to southeast and has both an open
grassy area and parking. A stone wall is located on the southeast corner of the site. Existing
landscaping includes an evergreen hedge around a temporary parking lot, deciduous trees,
evergreen trees, and planting beds.
Surrounding Zoning and Uses
The site is zoned CB, Central Business District and CCC, Central Community Commercial
District. Modern Male is located adjacent to the northwest portion of this site, in the same block,
and is zoned CB. There are several businesses to the north of this site also zoned CB. Parcels to
the east and west of this site are zoned CCC, and Town Center I to the south is zoned PUD,
Planned Unit Development District.
Plan Description
Overview
The site plan indicates two separate two-story mixed-use buildings to be located along the
sidewalks on both W. Bridge Street (`Building A') and N. High Street (`Building B'). A formal
green will be located in the middle of the block, framed by the existing Modern Male building at
the northwest corner of the site and the two proposed buildings along the south and east property
lines. 'T'here is a plaza at the southeast corner of the site that will provide access to the interior
public space. Outdoor patio areas are oriented toward the formal green, some of which will be
associated with specific tenant spaces while others are open for use by the public. Two water
Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2007 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-067ARB -Page 3 of 9
features will be located in the southeast plaza space. This plaza is also anticipated to function as
a display area for future public art pieces or displays. Parking is located off-site in the municipal
lots and designated on-street parking areas. A patron drop-off area is located at the western
boundary of the site along Darby Street.
Architecture
The elevations depict two, two-story buildings designed to have the appearance of a series of
smaller connected buildings with shared walls that have developed over time. At the
recommendation of Jeff Darbee, the City's Preservation Consultant and the ARB, the amount of
architectural ornamentation has been reduced significantly from that which was depicted at the
concept plan presentation. The consultant has expressed that this aspect has improved
dramatically over the earlier proposal and that the design now needs only refinements of a few
details. {See attached letter).
Building Placement and Orientation
The Historic Dublin Design Guidelines recommend that new construction should echo the
placement and orientation of adjacent structures. Free-standing structures are more common in
Historic Dublin, but there are also examples of buildings with shared or abutting walls. The
proposed buildings are designed to appear as a series of buildings with shared walls constructed
over time. The setbacks for the proposed buildings are held close to the sidewalk, with an
average distance of 18 feet from the W. Bridge Street curb to the face of Building A, and 22 feet
from the N. High Street curb to Building B. Overall, the buildings' location and orientation is
consistent with the historic and intended character of the district.
Scale and Proportion
The pedestrian-scale design, recommended in the Guidelines, is achieved by dividing the facade
into what appears to be a series of~ attached smaller building, and by keeping the building mass
similar to other buildings in the Iistoric District. Several other architectural features also
contribute to the creation of a pedestrian scaled environment adjacent to both buildings. The
proposal utilizes storefront style windows at the street-level to increase the transparency of these
buildings for pedestrians. Awnings and overhangs at entry doors and steps extending from the
buildings provide intimate spaces adjacent to the buildings. While the Preservation Consultant
maintains that the proposed buildings will be of a grander scale than the rest of the district, he
acknowledges that the simplif ed designs and less obvious `presence' will help compensate for
this fact.
Building Height
The Guidelines limit the height of new buildings in the Historic District to two stories and
encourage using the same heights as nearby buildings. The proposed buildings are two stories in
height, with Building A along W. Bridge Street having an approximate average height of 29 feet
as measured from established grade to the midpoint of the roofline. Building B along High
Street scales to approximately 32 feet high as measured along the elevation facing the formal
green, and just under 35 feet high along the High Street facing elevation.
As a point of reference, the average height of Town Centers I and II is between 28 and 30 feet to
the midpoint of the raoftine. A significant factor contributing to the slight increase in height for
Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2007 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-Ofi7ARB -Page 4 of 9
Building B relative to Building A and the recent Town Center developments is the grading
activities necessary to create an accessible internal public plaza. The foundation of Buildings A
and B function as the retaining walls to level the internal portion of the site, which require the
use of steps along portions of the street facing elevations.
Materials, Textures and Colors
The Guidelines recommend that new buildings use traditional Historic District materials such as
wood, brick and stone. The proposed elevations depict a variety of facade designs using brick,
stone with stucco accent, and wood or cementicious (1-lardi-plank} siding. The amount of stucco
has been limited to an accent material on the end of one building. The combination of building
materials creates a visual texture that is consistent and compatible with existing structures in
Historic Dublin.
Upon review of the building materials, the Preservation Consultant has expressed concern over
the finished surface of the stone masonry utilized on the various building facades and materials
on the exterior of the firewalls. He would like to see that all building walls faced with stone
masonry be a uniform, smooth surface and all firewalls be faced with the same material as the
buildings they are adjacent.
The color palette of historic Dublin is often based on the natural brick and stone materials used
throughout the district and should be appropriate for the architectural style of a building. The
exterior colors proposed by the applicant are in keeping with the Guidelines' recommendations
and include white, tan, brown, slate blue, and sage green.
Roofing materials proposed for this site include both standing seam metal and architectural
(dimensional} asphalt shingles. The Uuidelines list both of these materials as appropriate for
new construction. The proposed colors for the roofing materials are consistent with the
Guidelines and include dark green, dark bronze, gray, silver, and wood tones.
Massing, Form and Roof Shapes
The proposed buildings are generally massed into plain rectangular forms with slight recesses
and projections along the facades. This type of massing is similar to surrounding buildings antd
appropriate to the style of architecture throughout the District. Roof shapes in Historic Dublin
are typically gabled forms and the proposed buildings will create the appearance of this roof
shape.
The general roof design is a side facing gable roof with two cross-gable sections. The roof plans
depict visible ridge lines at the ends of each building. On the interior portion of the roofs, a roof
well is created to house HVAC and other mechanical equipment screened from view.
Rhythm of Openinxs
The rhythm of window and door openings on the elevations is generally asymmetrical, varying
on each individual tenant facade. This rhythm is consistent with nearby buildings. Building
entry doors proposed are both flush with and recessed into the buildings. F,ntry doors facing the
internal public green are accessed at-grade, while entry doors facing the sidewalks incorporate
small parches or stoops accessed via stairways of varying heights.
Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2007 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-OG7ARB -Page 5 of 9
Window-to-Wall Ratio
The Guidelines recommend using a high window-to-wall ratio for commercial buildings and
using a ratio that is specifc to the building form or style being proposed. The elevations depict
storefront windows on the majority of the first floor tenant spaces, typically adjacent to the entry
door. The storefront windows are larger panes of uninterrupted glass separated by muntins.
Transom windows above the storefronts are smaller and divided by mullions. Windows on the
upper stories are primarily residential scale vertically-oriented, double-hung windows. Arched
windows are located on a portion of the south elevation of the proposed High Street building.
The window-to-wall ratio is generally in keeping with similar developments in Historic Dublin.
Landscaping
Active, urban environments, such as this development, consist predominantly of hardscape
materials in order to support the high degree of pedestrian activity present. Landscaping
enhances these spaces by creating `outdoor rooms' where shade trees offer a sense of protection
and overhead shelter. Street trees are proposed along Bridge and High Streets, consistent with
other street trees in the District. In the center of the interior public plaza is a manicured lawn
surrounded by shade trees. Additional plant material is located in raised planters and window
boxes in areas protected from pedestrian traffic. The plant palette was selected based on
aesthetic value, tolerance to urban conditions, and consistency with existing plant material in the
District.
Fences and Walls
Fences and walls are being utilized on the site to define patio areas and retaining walls are being
used to create accessible gathering spaces throughout the development. The fence details are in
keeping with the wrought iron character currently existing in the District, and the retaining walls
coordinate with the architectural materials of the proposed buildings. Per the development text,
the ARB has purview over fence and outdoor site furnishing selections used within patio spaces.
Parking
The parking provisions for this proposed development are addressed within the approved
development agreement between the City and ~~e Stonehenge Company and within the
proposed development text. While no on-site parking is required for this development, the
developer was required to contribute to the construction of the newly opened 103 space
municipal parking lot at the northwest corner of Darby Street and Wing Hill. This parking lot
will be open at all times for public parking and include 24 spaces that are posted with atwo-hour
time limit between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Patios & Balconies
The approved development agreement allows up to 3,000 square feet of patio and balcony space
as a permitted use, which is reflected within the development text. This permitted patio space is
for both the exclusive use of future tenants and use by the general public. All potential patio
spaces that could be utilized either by tenants or the general public are indicated on the Patio
Plan. flreas dedicated for exclusive use by future tenants will be delineated by fence or other
means of enclosure.
Architectural Keview Board
December 19, 2007 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-067ARB - Page G of 9
The site plan currently indicates approximately 1,600 square feet of exclusive use patio space for
both buildings located adjacent to the formal green space and plaza area. The total area of all
potential patio areas depicted on the Patio Plan was inadvertently omitted from the plans, but is
approximately 2,500 square feet, leaving a balance of approximately 500 square feet of permitted
patio and balcony space. The Patio Plan should be revised to include the square footages of
each potential patio balcony area depicted.
Balconies are permitted by the development, but have not been depicted on the Architectural
Elevations, as their potential use will be based on specific tenant requests. Per the development
text, balconies not constructed during initial construction may be constructed with approval of
the Architectural Review Board: Any balcony space will be included as part of the total
permitted patio area. Potential balcony locations and maximum balcony envelopes should be
depicted on the Patio Plan.
Sidewalks, Street and Site Furniture
The proposed development will continue the brick paver sidewalk treatment existing elsewhere
in the district. Benches, waste receptacles, tree grates and a bike rack located in the common
public areas have been specified. and are depicted in the Site Material Selections. No patio
details such as tables, chairs and fencing have been provided at this time; however, these details
will be reviewed by the ARB under a future application.
Accessibility
As proposed, the entire site is accessible for people with disabilities, including the plaza at the
southeast corner. The main access to the site is proposed from Darby Street due to the larger
District parking lots located to the northwest. There is also a valet station on the western edge of
the site, along Darby Street, which meets the Americans with Disabilities Act recommendations
(ADA) by providing five accessible parking spaces in the newly constructed public parking lot at
Darby Street and Wing 1Ii11. ADA compliant ramps are proposed in the internal public space
area and provide access to both buildings.
Signs
A variety of sign types are permitted by the Guidelines including wall, projecting, window,
awning, and sandwich board signs. A Sign and Graphics Plun has been provided by the
applicant, as an attachment to the Development Text. The sign types and locations have been
designed to a pedestrian scale and are reflective of other signs currently in Historic Dublin.
The proposed signs for the development are generally rectangular in shape and include a
combination of wall mounted signs and projection signs. The development text permits first
floor tenants a wall sign and a projection sign on the street elevations and one or the other of the
signs on the interior elevation. Signs are not permitted on the end elevations. Second floor
tenants will have a small directory sign by their first floor entrance. For full details on sign
types, shapes, dimensions, colors, and permitted locations and quantities, please refer to the Sign
and Graphics Plan, Exhibit E of the Development Text.
Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2007 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-067ARB -Page 7 of 9
Service Area Screening
The development text requires that all waste and refuse produced by the tenants of the
development be contained within designated storage areas architecturally integrated into both
buildings. On Building A, this storage area is in the northwest corner of the building adjacent to
Darby Street. On Building B, it is also in the northwest corner of the building and adjacent to
Wing Hill. Concerns have been expressed about the proximity of the Building B refuse storage
area to the existing patio at Tucci's Restaurant to the north. This issue is currently being studied
by the applicant, and as noted in the conditions of zoning approval, Planning requests that an
alternate storage area or intensified refuse pick-up schedule be implemented.
Valet Stand
A drop off area and valet stand is located at the western edge of the development adjacent to
Darby Street. Per the development text, a valet operation is a permitted use and a small structure
shall also be permitted to facilitate this use. The valet stand is designed to have the appearance
of a small garden shed and utilizes an architectural material palette consistent with the
development.
Lighting
The proposed streetlights and public plaza lights indicated on the plans are decorative, cut-off
fixtures that are painted black, which are compatible with existing lighting in the Historic
District.
SECTION II -REVIEW STANllARDS
Architectural Review Board
The Board's role in this process is defined by Code Section 153.182 (C), which requires the
ARB to xeview the design of new structures and site improvements with respect to compatibility
of the architectural style, general design, arrangement, texture, materials and color of other
structures and premises within the area. Section (1/) requires that the Board determine whether
the proposed change will be appropriate to the preservation of the historic, architectural or
environmental character of the Architectural Review District according to the criteria specified in
the Code.
Evaluation and Recommendation based on the Guidelines:
The Guidelines identify strategies for the review and approval of building and site
improvements. Numbers assigned to the guidelines reflect the order in which they appear in the
table of contents of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines and may appear below in a different
order than listed in the Guidelines. Only guidelines relevant to this case are listed. The Board
should consider the following guidelines to review this proposal against:
Construction (Guidelines 10, 11, 12): New construction, outbuilding and crdditivns should he
placed appropriately on the lot and he similar in design with the existing buildings. It is
important that the scale and massing are consistent with surrounding properties and building
materials need to be compatible to those used in the District.
Architectural Keview Board
December 19, 2007 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-067ARB -Page 8 of 9
Guidelines addressed. The buildings have been lowered in height to be consistent with
surrounding structures, and the degree of ornamentation has been reduced to a level
consistent with the vernacular of Historic Dublin.
Design Elements (Guidelines S, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16)..411 new construction and additions shall be
designed to complement the surrounding buildings while the architectural style of the building
along with the general design characteristics of the area which includes porches, windows,
doors, awnings, paint colors, and gutter and downspouts by using traditional materials utilized
through aut the District. All elements contribute to the overall uppearance of a building. These
elements are highly visible and are an important component of the building's visual character.
Guidelines met with condition. The proposed buildings incorporate the recommended
exterior finishes, colors, windows, and doors in the overall design. All building walls
faced with stone masonry should be constructed with a uniform, smooth surface; and all
firewalls should be faced with the same material as the buildings they are adjacent
(Condition 1).
Site Considerations (Guideline 13). Building site amenities, including landscaping, fences, walls,
parking areas, decks, patios, sidewalks, and street furniture, play a significant role in
maintaining the character of Historic Dublin. These elements work together to maintain the
District's character.
Guidelines met with conditions. The location of the refuse storage in Building B could
be detrimental to the enjoyment of the neighboring property's outdoor space. Options
should be considered to either relocate the refuse proposed to he contained in this area
elsewhere, or implement an intensive refuse collection and management plan (Condition
2). The proposed Patio Plans should be revised to indicate the square footage of the
potential patio spaces and the potential balcony locations and maximum balcony
envelopes (Condition ~).
Accessibility (Guideline 14). Many materials are available to help assist in making a building
accessible, these materials should be considered in areas that would not threaten or destroy the
historic significance of the building.
Guidelines met. The grading plans have been adjusted to remove the need for steps
between the public plaza spaces. All proposed buildings and plazas are accessible.
Signs (Guideline 1 S). Sign design should use appropriate materials, fonts, colors, and scale but
also encourage diversity and creativity while maintaining harmony within the District. Signs
should effectively communicate the image and message of that business.
Guidelines met. The proposed Sign and Graphics Plan provided indicate signs that are
compatible with the signs used throughout the Historic District.
SECTION III -PLANNING OPINION AND RFCOMMF,NDATION:
In Planning's opinion, this proposal meets the ~listvric Dublin Guidelines and Zoning Code and
the overall proposed site modifications are compatible with the historic District and will provide
compatible infill structures to the existing ?:Istoric District buildings and the character of the
streetscape. Planning recommends approval with three conditions.
Architectural Review Board
December 19, 2007 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-067ARB -Page 9 of 9
After reviewing the proposed new construction and site modifications, Planning recommends
approval with three conditions:
1) That the stone masonry and firewall details be refined;
2) "That an alternate refuse storage location for Building B refuse be determined, or an
intensi#ied refuse management plan be implemented for this site to the satisfaction of
Planning prior to Final .Development Plan approval; and
3) That the Patio Plan be revised to include indicate the square footage of the potential
patio spaces and the potential balcony locations and maximum balcony envelopes.
Historic Preservation Specialists
593 S. FiEch Sueec
Columbus, Ohio 4320G-
G 14-221-0358
Fax: 4G4-9357
December 11, 2007
Abby Scott, Planner
City of Dublin
[and Use and Long-Range Planning
5800 Shier-Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236
Dear Ms. Scott
Re: Dublin 1'owa Center Project
Northwest corner of Bridge and F(igh Streets
We have received the latest plan and elevation revisions for this project; it has improved
substantially over earlier proposals- We feel that the design is now at the point where only some
refinements of details are called for.
As we have discussed before, we had concerns about both scale and materials -- a feeling that the
proposed buildings would be of a larger scale than is typical of Historic Dublin's vernacular
architecture; and that the use of too many materials and architectural details would make the new
structures too visually complex and out of character with the existing architectural setting.
The current proposal goes a long way toward resolving these concerns. The simplified designs
will tend to reduce the new buildings' visual impact, which in itself will increase their compatibility
with their historic setting. In addition, even though the proposed buildings have not changed in
size, their simplified designs and less obvious "presence" will help compensate for the fact that
they are of a grander scale than prevails in most of the historic district.
We would suggest a couple of details that we feel will further help the design's compatibility with
its setting:
1. Stone masonry walls should be as smooth as possible -- that is, avoid setting the masonry units
so that their surfaces are in varying planes, since this will create shadow lines that will accentuate
the walls and their texture_
07-U997,IFDP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
Abby Scott
City of Dublin
December ll., 2007
page 2
2. The vertical edges of firewalis (below roof level) should not be expressed in contrasting
materials. The color elevations appear to show these edges with stone veneers, but the adjacent
building facades are frame and/or brick. To avoid introducing an unnecessary third material that
makes the design more visually complex, these surfaces should simply use the same materials as in
the adjacent buildings.
4vera1l, the design is much improved, although we would still encourage another look to see
whether there could be further elimination or simplification of elements -brackets, eave details,
ornamentation -- that would reinforce the vernacular character of the new building complex.
Please call if you have questions about what we have recommended.
Sincerely,
J
ey
historic reservation Consultant
~.a~~a:zz>
07-0997/FDP
Final Dcvelopment Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
PLANNING AND ZOMNG COMMISSION
• RECORD OF ACTION
AUGUST 9, 2007
CITY OF' DUBLiM_
ld tlse wi
l~ Rage ~Wr~is
5>180 Slier-R~qs Ld
tlalrw, 06i~ 63816-123f ~
t6a~e:~l1-418-t~08
Fu: ~1/410d1l1
wed Sec ~.r.~6ia.okss
The Planning and "Coning Commission did not take action on this case at this meeting:
3. Bridge and High Streets Development 20 West Bridge Street
07-062CI' Concept Plaa
Proposal: A mixed use development located on the northwest corner of West
Bridge and North High Sircets_
Request: Review and appcova! of a concept plan under the provisions of
Code Section 153.050.
Applicant: Cify of Dublin, lane S_ Brautigam, City Manager, represented by
Mo Dioun, `lie Stonehenge Company.
Planning Contact: Abby Scott, Planner
Contact Information: (6i4) 410-4654, ascott@dublin.oh_us
RTSUL.T: Discussion regarding the Concept Ylan.
STAFF CFRT[FICATION
_ Scf _
Ahb S Ott
Planner
07-099L/FDP
final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
Ptanaing and 7.oaing Commission
Minutes - Augu.~ 9, 2007
Page t4 of 29
3. Bridge and High Streets DcveMpmeat ZO West Brldge Street
ti7-06ZCP Coacept Plan
Mr. Crerber said this was an opportunity for the applicant to obtain the Commissioners'
comments- fie said as this is a concept plan, no vote will be Cakea_ He added that if the proposal
comes bade to the Commission, ii will be as a preliminary development plan and there will be
ample opportunity for those wishing to testify in regards to this case both here and at City
Council
Abby Scott said this is a rc;quest for review of a concept plan for a mixed use development at the
cornet of Bridge and High Streets, in Historic Dublin- She said it is currently zoned CB, Central
Business [hstrict and CCC, Central Community Commercial District.
Ms. Scott said the site consists of three parcels totaling 0.7-acres located on the north side of
West Bridge Street, opposite of Town Center I_ She said the City selected The Stonehenge
Company as the development partner for this site following a formal ftFQ and RFf process and
extensive public input. She said an approved development ageement between the City and
Stonehenge outlines the permitted building and patio sizes, as well as parking provisions. She
said the proposed site plan includes two buildings located along the sidewalks spanning both
Bridge and High Streets. Ms_ Scott said the two buildings and footprints will be owned by
Stonehenge, and the balance of the site will be City-awned. She said a public plaza with two
water features is located at the corner of Bridge and High Streets, and patios and balconies
overlook a fornnal public green located in the center of the block She said a patron drop~ffarea
is located on the west side of the site. Ms. Scott said vehicular access to Wing Hill from North
High Street will be removed. She said the recently approved municipal parking !ot associated
with this development is located northwest of this site, across Darby Street~
Ms. Scott presented a slide of a perspective drawing of the proposed development indicating the
location of the buildings in relation to the street, the internal public green space, and the public
plaza at the cornet. She said the plans indicate two, two-story buildings designed to appear like a
series of smaller cottttexte~i buildings. She said it will be the role of the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) to review the architectural details for comptiance wide the Historic Dublin
Guidelines once this case is submitted as a formal application.
Ms. Scott said this project was presented at July 2S°' AltB meeting for an informal review. She
said the discussion focused on the mass and scale of the buildings, material use and type,
windows and storefronts, and overall architectural design- Ms. Scott said f tanning is concerned
that the wrner plaza is not ADA accessible and recommends that this area be redesigned
accordingly. She said an existing building in the northwest corner is not part of this proposed
development, but has been incorporated into the overall design of the site
Ms. Scott said Planning evaluated the proposed concept plan based on the current Community
flan and the ten C_and Use Principles, and in its opinion, this proposal successfully adheres to the
principles and criteria described in detail in the Planning Report. She said the proposed project
creates an attractive public realm with multiple gathering spaces for public use, which is
consistent with the character of Historic Dublin. She said the proposat represents a step toward
completing the future village center contemplated in the Updated Community P[an. Ms. Scott
said pedestrian wnziectivity is incorporated into the site and also improved within the District by
continuing the street wall of buildings that creates a sense of place. She said this proposal
07-0992/FDP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West 13ridgc Street
Planning and 2.oaiag Connnission
Mimttcs - Aagasi 9, 2007
Page i 5 of 29
provides a mix of uses and public spaces integrating with existing businesses and residential
areas.
Ms_ Scott said that Planning recommends that the applicant proceed veitlr the re2oning process,
taking into account comments finom the Commission and ARB_ She presented a slide listing the
four items that the Commission should consider to guide the disexrssion:
1 } The mass and scale of the buildings;
2) Building material use and type;
3) Window and storefront placement and design; and
4) The overall architectural design as related to the Flistoric District.
Gerry Bird, architect with the BirdlHouk Collaborative, said this was a very important site to
Dublin. He said it was one of the City's key intersections and a place that people envision as the
center of the community. He said the City has well-docaunented guidelines for the historic
district and Town Centers [and II did a good job of using that vocabulary and extending it to
new infill developments in Historic Dublin_ He pointed out that, due to the limited architectural
vocabulary existing in Historic Dublin, if this same concept is implemented on every project it
starts to lose its uniqueness_ Mr_ Bird said when developing the concept for the RFP, he wanted
to add more complexity and. detail to these storefronts in order to hold one's interest and add to
the stroetscape character. He said he also felt is was an opportunity to add tv the vocabulary in
Dublin with traditional "Irish" sensitivities, and said he sees in Dublin an incxeasing desire to
make connections t:o Dublin, ireland_ He said the idea was not to emulate Dublin, Ireland, but to
add some examples of storefronts, signage, and additional character elements to add to the
vocabulary as Historic Dublin continues to grow and redevelop.
Mr. Gerber invited those in the audience wishing to speak to briefly give their thoughts and
comments.
David Garcia, 109 South Riverview, representing the Historic Dublin Association said they
respect and acknowledge al[ the work that staff has done, they appreciate the creativity of the
concept plan, and they welcome the City revitalizing this area. He said this corner is absolutely
critical as it is a gateway to Dublin and a logical gathering place. Mr. Garcia said it is also this
town's last oppodunity for a town square, and asked what the approximate size of the comer
plaza would be following any modifications foe ADA compliance.
Dan Phil[abaum said the public plaza at the comer could be roughly $00 square feet.
Mr. Garcia said they wanted to address the size of this space and how it should be designed to
accommodate multiple uses. He said they wanted this space to be larger to support the
Community Plait a little better. Mr. Garcia questioned if this space could accommodate the City
Christmas Tree and noted that t}~ings like that needed to be considered because it impacted the
Historic District, the experiences of Dublin citizens, and therefore their quality of life. He asked
that as this concept develops and as the plans solidify, that we make sure that it meets all of the
uses.
Mr. Fishman said the plan was lovely, but the corner plaza was too small. He said other cities
like Worthington have more open space for things tike Christmas trees. Mr_ Fishmacl said he
07-0992/FDP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets llevelopment
20 West Bridge Street
Planning and Zoaing Commission
Minutts -August 9, 2007
Page 16 of 29
felt that the architectural character of Dublin was stone and he would like to see more stone than
stuc-,co_
Mr. Zimmerman said he agreed with Mr. Fishman that the open space Eor the square needed to
be larger because it was a very important place. He also felt that stone was a very important
building material to be used.
Ms_ Amornse Groomes echoed these statements and wanted to make sure that the project is
sequenced properly and that the additional adequate parking will be in place prior to any
constntction at this site. She did not want the Historic Dublin businesses to be impacted by a
lack of parking during developmezit. She said the corner was probably too tight, but she thought
it would be interesting to see how much regular activity would be held on the formal green. She
said overall this was a wonderful idea and wilt be a great amenity for the City_
Mr. Walter echoed the other Commissioners on the size of the square. He said the formal great
was an area that he thought was important as the vista gets drawn from the comer into the formal
green and there are gathering spaces there. He was not sure that trees were appropriate in that
space simply bemuse of what you may be doing with that area, having that blocked by the trees
is something that struck him. He said it provides separation from the outdoor patio, but he
thought it would be served to be more open Mr. Walter said in concept, he liked the drop off
area on Darby Street, but he hoped that appropriate traffic measurrs will be taken to encourage
more traffic and the left is always hard there.
Mr_ Walter said he was not in favor of the large window on the eastern building and he could not
how it would fiE into the existing context of Historic Dublin. He said the architecture of the
western building looked more English than [risk, and did not want to sc~ the "same old, same
old" again.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she felt it was vitally important to encourage trees around the fornnal
green, particularly in light of the western orientation of the outdoor patio spaces. She said they
would be important in providing shade and comfort to this space.
Mr. McC;ash said he was a tittle concerned with how the site accessibility might be resolved. He
said they could probably step the floor elevations of the buildings down as they approach the
plaza, which could also lend io the appearance of a larger public space at the corner by being
level with the sidewalk_
Mr. McCash referred to the north side of the mixed use building and asked if the service drive or
service access drive where Wing Hill was closed had to be located there. Mr. Bird said it could
not be removed, but it could be shortened. Mr. McCash said it could provide a nice corridor
piece going through there and tying everything up along Wing Hiil and even an east west
connector from a pedestrian path rather than just a service drive area. Mr. Bird said it could be
pavers and would appear as a walkway that happened to get driven on twice a week. He said its
purpose was to be able to turn a vehicle around to get out.
Mr. Gerber said a fantastic job was done with this. However, he said he preferred more stone
and brick_ He said he would like to see more stone in the buildings and thought that was the
theme that they would like to establish here. He said he was concerned about parking, displacing
07-0997,/FD P
Final Development Pian
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
Ptanaing and Zoning Cocumicsioa
Minutes -August 9, 2007
' Page 17 of 29
the Modern Male sign, etc. He said that was a City Council issue and he hoped they would take
care of that business owner_ Mr_ Gerber said he thought it was supposed to be a more open
gathering place. He said he also had some concern with the buildings across the street right up
on the sidewalk, by SR 161 _ He said if looked like it was being almost made to look Iike a tunnel
and he thought it would be more open on that side of the mad and asked the design went in this
direction.
Mr. Sird said the idea was to use the buildings to reinforce the streetscape_ He said Dublin now
has a lot of gaps in its downtown streetscape, and this was attempting to continue that traditional
urban edge. Ele said they wanted a public space on the corner, but that location experiences a ton
of traf6e and associated conflicts that prevent it from being a ceally.pleasant space, so the true
gathering space is located internally. He said although it is a little off the corm, it is .visually
and physically connected to it_ He said the buildings buffer that space from 20,000 vehicles a
day, etc. Mr_ Bird said it gets the activity off the street for safety purposes and provides two
connected venues for activity_
Mr. Gerber said it would take him a while to get used to this. He said he was expecting a little
more open space and more of a setback He said with respect to the architecture, white the
buildings are going to the ARB, it is going to come back to the Commission. He said could not
support it without more stone and brick.
Mr_ McCash said regarding the space issue, there is a lot of noise along Bridge Street, and said
the elevated internal plaza would provide a view and that was really the hub of activity on the
site. Mr_ Gerber said he did not disagree with that as far as gathering places, but realty thought
they would have more green, more oper>n
Mr. McCash said the only other comment he lead on architecture was that snow guards be used
on the portions of the buildings with standing seam metal roofs. He noted that with Town Center
1 there have been instances where snow and ice have slid off the metal roof and potentially onto
people passing by on the sidewalk.
Mr. Gerber said he appreciated all of Mr. Bird's hard work and thankexl him.
4. Historic Dubli esidentiaE Reionings South (five ew and High Streets
07-0692 Rezoni
Steve [.an rthy prr-rented this re~ro ~ g application which w equested by petition fro the
propert wners. fle expressed P ing's appreciation to a residents who helpcxl ermine
pro 'es that wanted to be in ded in the petition. EEe d the criteria used for th' zoning was
filar to those used fort area rezonings_ Mr. orthy said Planning's tempt with the
Historic Residential D~ rict originally was to vise a district that wa.• Wore in tune with
actually what was peening on the ground that it is a more rcalis ~ zoning district placed
mostly on then istoric properties. Mr gworthy said Planni s reconunendation is f
approval of esc rc~:onings and to fo rd the recommendation City Council.
Ms. prose Groomes noted t the present zoning w esidential, and asked wh dil~i~rcnces
uld be if this were rc-ro
07-099L~Fll l'
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
ARCH£TECTURAL REVIIEV~' BOARD
BOARD ORDER
JULY 25, 2007
cm of nc;gu~.
~ i<~ ~~
s>NO ~ ~ ~
0.ti-ia, Ohio 110ti-li3i
tL«e:il~a19 /i00
1~ iti ii0-U4l
1-e1 Sik- M...do11w~ oh.rc
-i'he Architectural Review board took no action on the following case at this meeting:
3. Bridge and High Streets Ue~~eloptnent
07-067AiZI3
West Bridge Street
Site Modifications
Proposal: Site modifications to include the construction of two
mixed-use buildings located on the northwest comer of
i3ridge and t{igh Strcets.
Request. [nformal review of site modifications under the provisions
of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines.
t~pplicant: City of Dublin; represented by Mo Dioun, The Stonehenge
Compaciy_
Planning Contact: Abby Scott, Planner
{614) 410-4b~4, ascott~~dublin.oh.us
itESUC.T: This was an informal review of the proposed new construction. and site
modifications- The E3oacd proc~ided feedback on the mass and scale of the buildings, material use
arcd type,, ~~•indow and storefront placement and desit;[c, and the oc~erall architectural design a_s
relatc-d to the Historic District- [vo vote was taken.
S"hAEF CE;iL"f[F(('A"i'lON
t< - ~ ~ _ --
Abb~MCt
Pla:
07-0992/FDP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 ~~est Bridge Street
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes - iuly 25, 2007
page 1 of 14
Ms. Ochai said t plicant is proposing relocate the exi
entrance of th nclosed porch. She s ' this was the ongi
Henry W. arrer occupied the h e. She said a seco
elevati Ms. Ochal presented slide showing the exi g
we ocated_ She said in Wing's opinion, this opos
esign Guidelines, and mmends approval w" no conditions.
whic e d and
very clear thi une.
Mott aad Vote
M . 'ck made a motto o appcove this appiic on for this Building odification, without
nditions, and Mr. C e seconded. The vote as as follows: Mr. 1lo n, yes; Mr. Bryan, ye
Ms. Kick, yes; Mr_ urrie, yes; and Mr_ So ers, no. (Approved 4- Mr. Souders gtralifi is
vote and said i rs professional opinio he size of the replacer nt windows was still ng.
3. Bridge and High Streets Development West Bridge Street
07-067ARB S[te Modifications
Abby Scott presented this request for an informal review of site modifications, including the
construction of two-mixed use buildings located ou the northwest corner Bridge and High Streets
in Historic Dublin. She said. the site is currently zoned CB, Central Business District and CCC,
Central Community Commercial l~istnct_ She said the site consists of three parcels totaling 0.7
acres.
Mr_ Souders sal at he appreciated the dated drawings
Ms. Scott said the City has entered into a partnership with The Stonehenge Company for
development of this site. She said 1~hc Stonehenge Company was selected following a public
input process and review of the proposed plans. She presented slides indicating the proposed
buildings and site improvement.S. Ms_ Scott said the proposed site plan includes two buildings
located along the sidewalk fronting both Bridge and High Streets and a public plaza with water
features on the corner, bettiveen the two proposed buildings. She said there are patios and
balconies overlooking the formal public green which is located interior to the site. Ms. Scott said
a patron drop-off area is located on the west side of the site. She said the sidewalks along Bridge
and High Streets will be brick and street trees will be added along both streets. She said the
vehicular access to Wing Eiili from North High Street will be removal. Ms. Scott said the
existing Modern Male building on the northwest corner is not part of the proposed development,
but was incorporated into the overall design of the site. Ms. Scott said the applicant is requesting
review and comments on a concept plan for amixed-use dcveiopmettt. She presented a slide
showing the proposed development with the proposed location in relations to the street and the
public plaza at the corner of the project. She said the public plaza will feature public art or other
civic displays.
Ms_ Scott presented a slide of the proposed 13ridgc Street elevation. She said architecturally, the
proposed two-story buildings are designed to appear tike a series of smaller connected buildings
that have developed over time. She said the roof design is aside-facing gable with across-gable
section on each building. Ms. Scott said some of the architectural details indicated include roof
and watt dormers, arched windows, hared eaves, quoins, key stones, and chimney pots. She said
windows on the second floor appear to be vertically oriented double-liun~ windows. She said
07-099Z(FDP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
sting n entrance doar to th new
na oor utilized when Dr. d Mrs.
door will be local n the east
residence where th 'ndow screens
al complies with a Kistoric Dublin
thought were welt
Dnblin Architectural Review Board
Minutes -July 25, 2007
Page 4 of 14
there are also a few arched windows, including the two-story window on the south end of the
North High Street building. Ms. Scott said the elevations generally indicate first floor store
fronts with large multi-paned windows_ She said the doors are shown as being flush with or
recessed into the front wall, and wall and projecting signs are indicated on the elevation.
Ms. Scott presented a slide of the proposed High Street elevation. She said the proposed fetish
materials fore the project are generally in keeping with the Guidelines. She said the elevations
indicate stucco, wood siding, cut stone, and rough stone for wall material f nishes_ Ms. Scott
said roof materials proposed for this site include standing seam metal and asphalt shingles. She
said the exterior colors proposed include yellow, dark green, maroon, gray, and tan. Ms. Scott
presented the proposed stone finish_ She said each building will have an internal service area for
dumpsters and overhead doors might be considered. She presented a slide showing the patio
retaining wall along North High Street. She said the existing control boxes currently located
within the pedestrian walkway along North Higlt Street will be integrated within the stone wall.
Ms_ Scott said the review of this project is based otr the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. She
said the elevations submitted for this informal review do not include dimensions and are
conceptual in nature. Ms. Scott said Planning review comments in the Planning Report highlight
areas that will require further review once more detailed plans are submitted. She said as the
drawings become more refined, the Guidelines can be addressed. Ms. Scott said Board
members' feedback for the proposed development on the following points is requested:
t) The mass and scale of the buildings;
2) Building material use and type;
3) Window and storefront placement and design; and
4) "1'he overall architectural design as related to the Historic District.
Gerry Bird, architect with the Bird-ilouk Collaborative, said having read the evaluation from Jeff
Darby, the Historic Consultant, said he thought they had a lot of concurrence in those items. He
said this is a significant issue worthy of discussion with this Board, the Planning and Zoning
Commission (PZ.C), and City Council because this is such an important site to Dublin_ He said it
is the center of the City and there are two really good development projects across the street that
reflect the vernacular style of Eistoric Dublin_ lie said when they did this concept, it was a
competition in a short period of time. lie said they have not gone back and redesigned the plan
since brat competition because they wanted to go through the Concept Plan review process to
hear comments from the community, Board, and the PZC.
Mr. E3ird said if they continue with similar development like there is across the street, which was
the direction the historic consultant was steering them, at what point it did not add enough style,
character and texture to the community. He said if Dublin were reconstructed in that vernacular
style, he did not think the City would be happy with it. He said opportunities would have been
missed for creating something memorable. Ile said there needs to be a slight shift here to give it
the interest, complexity, and texture going forward.
Mr. Bird said he thought it was a missed opportunity, particularly in relation to the storefronts
which he thought did not have enough sizzle with mullions, quoins, etc. He said this was very
essential for setting the tone in Dublin for the next 50 years and he did not want to be
presumptuous enough to copy what had been done across the street. lle said saltbox architecture
is built in Ireland and the storefronts work with saltbox architecture.
07-0992/Flll'
Final Development Ylan
Bridge and f-sigh Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
Dublin Arclntectiuat Review Board
Minutes -July 25, 2007
Page S of i4
Mr. Currie asked how many tenants were envisioned for the two buildings. Mr_ Bird said there
will probably be three or four major tenants and throe or Eour smaller tenants_
Mr. Currie referred to the dumpstcrs shown on the two corners and asked if they would be
sufficient_ He asked how tenant deliveries and pick-ups would be handled_ Mr. Bird said in
German Village, the Short North, and Grandview, they have unconventional truck dock
deliveries. He said the entire square footage is 23,000 feet_ IIe indicated on a drawing where
there would be opportunities for trash pickup and where delivery trucks could stop on Darby
Street_ He said Vying Hill is a deadend street and pedestrian-walkway, so it is an opportunity for
connectivity and trash pickup.
Mr. Holton asked about fire and emergency access on Wing Hill and if it would be closed for
thru traffic. Mr. Bird said that had not been determined. He said there is accessibility to about
95 percent of the project, and a breakaway or removable bollard or a heavy-duty walkway
system if required by the fire department could be added.
Mr. Holton asked how Modem Males' access and egress was affected by the overall plan. Mr.
Bird indicated where their main entry was on the east side and a proposed parking lot was to be
located in the back.
Mr. Bryan said that when this project was initially put forth and the reason that The Stonehenge
Company was selected in part, was the Tax Increment Fund (TIF) which was calculated based on
Modern Mate becoming atwo-story structure and a larger building with additional square
footage_ Ile said now that it is being removed from the project, it automatically impacts the TII'.
Mr. Bryan questioned whether or not the formal green area needs to be the size proposed and the
restriction of the intersection view as tight as it is. He said Commuruty Plans in the past have
talked about having both buildings set back from the corner. He said he thought that issue was
raised shortly after this plan was brought forward_ He said he understood the removal of the
tower, but another issue that came up with another plan that had been presented was access for
ADA accessibility. He said now, there are stairs alt the way around the comer, and someone in a
wheelchair would have to go around the rear of the building to get dropped off and go into the
format green. He said there was no direct access off the site without going through a series of
stairs. Mr. Bryan said these were three critical issues that were discussed frequently after the
fast presentation of this project. lie said he saw this as going backwards now that Modern Male
is removed from the process.
Sara Ott said the T'IF was a business point which City Council took into consideration when
making a decision to approve the final development agreement. They are comfortable with this
square footage and economic component of the project as it relates to the funding of the public
improvements. She said City Council is comfortable at this point and tonight they are really
soaking for the Board's feedback on things they are concerned with such as how close together
the two buildings are and whether or not 2S feel is wide enough between them_ She said
regarding Darby Street, it is a main street with right-of--way and it is created like other streets and
the City wants to ensure that access off there is maintained because the primary public space is
that public green. She said being able to provide access from that side is important because the
buikings do not have a front or back. Nis. Utt said the architecture has been designed and
presented to wrap all the around, and includes being able to keep the dumpsters on the interior of
07-0992/Fl)P
Final Development Plan
Bridge and high Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes -July 25, 2007
Page 6 of 14
the buildings and things like that they think are of benefit to the entire District as a model of a
way to address some of those site-servicing issues.
Mr_ Bryan said he did not want to belabor the issue, and he understood that the City was
comfortable with the business decision to go forward, but when the plan was originally decided
and a contractor was chosen, it was based on "CIF planning of Modern Male being atwo-story
structure. Ms. Ott said that was one portion of it and it was a property nett under control of the
City or the developer.
Mr. Holton asked about ADA accessibility from the corner. Mr. Bird pointed out that this was a
concept plan only. He said presently, there is no ADA access from the corner. Ms. Scott said
that had also been noted in the staff report and it will be addressed later.
Mr. Holton suggested that there be a water feature planned in the center part of the development
for children and families to gather.
Mr. Eiolton noted that the historic consultant recommended avoiding the use of stucco He asked
how much stucco was planned and what was Mr. Bird's feeling about stucco as an exterior
materiai_
Mr. Bird said stucco was 4,04Q years old_ He said his perception was that he thought the
majority of these buildings need to be brick, stone, and siding. He said one benefit of stucco is
that it provides another texture and appearance. He said they are trying to create a variety of
architecture to appear like it was built over time. He said he saw stucco as a viable option,
especially if color is introduced. IIe said he did not see stucco as a predominate material, but as
a possible material. He said he thought the City had done a great job with signs, but he would
like to see some sign variety because it adds to the flavor and character of the space.
Mr. Holton referred to the consultant's comment about the window shown on the Bridge Street
elevation being out of scale and asked that it be described. He said it did look extraordinarily
large in a tustoric perspective.
Mr. Bird said towns in the Midwest share several typical components - govcrnrnent buildings,
churches, and some icon that recognizes the character of the center of the town. 1 ie said he was
trying to reflect that in this concept. lie said the large arching window was an architectural
eoruiection to a church that added a different scale. lie said churches have had large windows
for thousands of years. He said he was trying to convey the character of what he saw in small
towns.
Mr. Curve asked if this was to look as though it was built over a period of time, why the
structures were so unique from other existing structures in Historic Dublin. 1{e had concerns that
this would create a visual conflict between this project and Town Center [.
Mr. Bird said he agreed with all the comments of the historic consuttarit, and he could easily
comply with those rec:omrncndations. He said he wanted to initiate a dialogue through these
proposed elevations as to whether perpetuating the architectural character of "Gown Center I with
this project was appropriate. l fe said while Town Center I is of high architectural quality, there
would be a missed opportunity with this project to introduce more potential detail and character
07-0997IFll1'
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
~n ~lPCt RriAaP R1'rP,P,t
Dubtia Architectural Review Board
Minutes - iuly 25, 2007
Page7oF14
within the District. He questioned at what point replicating the same architectural character
would become monotonous in the District as more redevelopment occurs.
Ms. Kick asked about 'the overall use of the buildings. She asked if one tenant would use the
first and second story as opposed to Town Center I where tenants are separated by floars. She
said'she thought there would be retail on the first floor and the second story would be offices. .
Mr. Bird said the first floor would be predominately retail with predominately office upstairs.
He said ifie interiors have not yet been divided and potentially one tenant could cross over three
building facades, not unlike across the street.
Mr. Souders said he enjoyed this development being close to the street. He said in an urban area,
you needed to hold the buildings tight to the street. He asked why the development did not close
the corner with buildings, instead of being left open. He suggested that there could be a covered
plaza with the second floor of the buildings meeting at the corner with no first floor.
Mr_ Bird said if they squared this comer of the intersection uQ-with the other corners already
enclosed by buildings-there is no "visible public space" at the main intersection of Dublin and
they felt that was a missed opportunity. He said instead, they tried to keep that public space
intimate so that they maximize the edges of Bridge and I~gh Streets.
Mr. Currie said he envisioned a covered atrium at a 45-degree angle across the corner going back
in and on the sides, for instance restaurant menus or stock prices, etc. f-Ie said he would like it
more enclosed due to concerns of children darting across the street to go to the water features.
Mass and scale of the buildings:
Mr. Souders said he thought the scale and massing was well done.
Mr. Currie asked if the buildings would have basements. Mr. Bird said they were not anticipated
because of bedrock. He said if a basement could be done without blasting, they might look into
it after a soil sample is done.
Ms. Kick said the mass and scale was very attractive and pleasing to the eye.
Mr. Bryan said strictly from a mass and scale standpoint, he would like to be able to see this in
relation to Cite other adjacent structures- EEe said he would have problems accepting this
development if alt of the roof tines on this project are higher than the rest of the rooflines in the
area.
Mr. Bird said there was a 35-foot height limit and floor-to-floor heights would be comparable to
the other buildings. Mr. Bird said the only other variables were the roof pitch and the depth of
the building. He said his buildings were 40 to SO feet wide and there were ways to mitigate that
by creating a flat zone on the top that visually shortens the roof height. He said they were also
looking at screening rooftop mechanicals.
Mr. Holton said he agreed with the historical consultant's comment about avoiding chimney pots
and ite thought the number should be reduced since the traditional squared-off chitx~ricys are
more typical. lfe said the roof angles appeared to be steeper than other roots in the I{istoric
District.
07-0997.,/FDP
final Development flan
Bridge and I-ligh Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
Dublin Architecivcal Review Board
Minutes --July 25, 2W7
Page 8 of 14
Mr. Bird said the church element exceeded a 12:12 pitch. He said he expected the typical roofs
on this project to be approximately 9:12 to 10: i2.
Building material use and type:
Mr. Holton noted that the consultant commented that it was busy, that there were a lot of
different kinds of materials being used and recommended the type of building materials be
reduced_
Mr. Bird said he agreed with the consultant_ - He said the vernacular architecture of Dublin is
supple. He said some degree of detail and complexity tends to hold your interest_ Mr_ Bird said
he felt that some areas could be done with more variety, but with restraint.
Mr. Holton noted that there was a lot of ornamentation_ Ele said he felt that although Dublin was
a simple farming community historically, through other developments it has been upgraded and
modernized. Ike said they have made it more similar to Dublin, Ireland, and this takes it another
step. He said the ornamentation was a little dramatic, but Ice did not want to be the one to say
"don't go there."
Mr_ Souders said that if the leap is made from acountry-type situation to a more urbanized
Dublin setting, then what the Board is looking at is workable. He said he liked the variety, the
texture, and details of the windows. Ile liked the chimneys with this style of building. lie said
there are similarities with the building across the street with the roofs, colorations, and
storefronts_ He said it is just enough to tie it together, while still being completely dif~erent_ Mr.
Souders pointed out that Town Center II was a step up in architecture and would look slightly
dif~'erent than this. He said if they are trying to emulate another type of Dublin, they will not do
it with a country setting because that does not exist any more.
Exterior Finishes:
Mr_ Currie asked where the dry laid stacked stone would be used.
Mr. Bird said they tried to show two stones, the conventional Dublin limestone roughly squared
ashlar and a Digger and Finch stone which was more squared, with a different coloration, and the
mortar joints on it are very tight_ He said the Digger and bitch architecture ciid a very good job
of emulating Dublin, Ireland.
David Garcia, 109 South Riverview Street, said. he prefenrecf as a District resident, the stone, not
stucco used on the buildings. Steve Rudy, 129 South Riverview Street said he agreed with Mr.
Garcia
Window and storefront placement and design:
Ms_ Kick said the North High Street elevation two by two windows looked very modern and the
first floor storefront windows on Bridge Street looked too contemporary. She said it seemed like
it was two different buildings.
Mr_ Holton noted that the large window will be very visible at the corner overlooking the open
space_ He said from the consultant's standpoint, his comment was the number of bay windows
should he reduced.
07-0992/FDP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
Dnbiio ArchiteduraI Review Board
Minutes - Iuly 2S, 2007
Page 9 of i4
Mr_ Bird said the consultant was saying that there was no precedent for bay or bow windows in
Dublin. He said he thought it referred to minimizing the dormers, which he may have thought
emphasized the height.
Mr. Holton said historically, there were a few stores with large display windows. He said the
closest he could find in Dublin was Cullen Art Glass, 30 South high Street, which was probably
the last building with the large display windows:
Mr. Holton said one of the window challenges will be signs because in many of the Historic
District stores, there is a visual pollution of signs- lie said with more windows, there is the
attraction of putting a signs'in them- He said strong, enforceable guidelines will be necessary to
keep the sign clutter to an absolute minimum. He liked the window merchandise display shown_
Mr. Currie agreed the dormers added detail and were not out of place- He said the back of these
buildings will be as important as the front with the patios and green space.
Mr. Bird said his intent was that the building images were the same on the front and back.
The overall archetectural design as related to the l~istaric District:
Mr. Holton asked Mr_ Bird to sununarize what he had heard from the Board_
Mr. Bird said he vaaz hearing that they need to have more connectivity from what he proposed to
what is existing in Dublin. However, he said he was also hearing that there is some interest and
support to having elements such as more articulated storefronts that expand the vocabulary of
downtown Dublin a bit beyond what we have seen. lle said he was feeling that it needed to be
tempered back a bit, but that there is logic and desire to expand the detail and variety of the
buildings.
Mr. Holton asked what Mr. Bird saw possibly happening with the comer by being open and what
kinds of things aze being communicated to the public by leaving the comer open.
Mr. Bird said they envisioned something happening there - an element or art piece, etc. but they
saw that it would take more time, thought, and evolution- He said the water features are to add
acoustic separation to mute the traffic noise and create a different environment visually and
acousticaily_
Mr. Currie said the view looking to the west was not very attractive. He asked if a boundary on
the west side had been considered.
Mr_ Bird said they proposed planting two edges of the green space, still being flexible for public
events. He said they are trying to make the experience attractive and provide a variety of spaces.
Mr. Holton asked about the landscaping planting area shown. Mr. Bird said it was there for the
possibility of a valet service.
Mr. Rudy said he was pleased t#iat there was a conversation going on which meant that this was
early enough to get a fine result out of this. He said when he saw this and thought about walking
from his home to it, he felt that he had done atime-space leap up to Avery Road or to Shoppes at
07-099Z/FDP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and high Streets Development
20 West IIridge Street
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes -July 25, 2007
Page 10 of 14
River Ridge. He said as an 11-year resident of the District, he was really aware of the scale and
character of things.
Mr. Rudy said he had not seen the draft plan, but there was a revialization plan that looked at the
entire district. He said the plan showed this type of development lined up all throughout the
District, and implementing that plan will give the desired urban feel He said he did not think
that they should go for the urban feel in the fast blow. He said the unique thing about the corner
is creating a public square. 1-le asked that the architecture not clash with the true histvtic
character of the District. He said he did not think the intent of the ARB was to integrate the
District with Dublin; he thought their intent was to maintain integrity of scale and character. He
said he hoped it would not be pitched aside in view of some creativity, as beautiful as this project
is. Mr. Rudy said he looked forward to the day that the plan was implemented and the District
has critical mass to create a nightlife people want and vibrancy. Mr. Rudy suggested that if the
building were moved back, it would block the view from the square and people would see
nothing but the new architecture and not the parking lots.
Brenda Kocak, 8135 Davington Drive, said that she thought that Mr. Bird brought a lot of
character and flair to this project. She asked if the Boazd's vote tonight agreed to the approval of
the dumpster placement. Mr. Holton said that this was just a concept plan review and the
dumpster placement would not be decided.
Mr. Garcia said this was. going to be the only public open space in the center of Dublin. He said
they want this to blend with the rest of the District. He suggested finding a way to tie this into
the history, by giving information to the public, which would encourage people not only to
investigate alt the great stores, but complete the walking tout, etc. He said he did not want new
visitors to Dublin to be confused that it is Easton or Dublin, Lreland. Mr. Garcia said he wanted
them to know that they had been to a town that has about 200 yeazs of heritage and it is Dublin,
Ohio.
Mr. Holton suggested the informational and wayfirrding signs discussed could be incorporated
here very naturally and easily.
Mr. Holton said exterior lighting had not been discussed or shown. Mr. Bird said their notion
would be that there is already a context of lighting downtown. Mr. Holton confirmed that there
would be just subtle lighting thuoughout the interior plaza to invite people to walk through it at
night.
Mr. Bryan said tre agreed with what Mc Garcia and Mr. Rudy said and would like to see a better
connection to what is in the community. Ile said it was great architecture, but he thought there
were half of dozen places that would share very similar concepts in various areas of Columbus.
He said that was where the distinction was for him to connect it better to what exists in historic
Dublin, not shat every building has to be that way, because if it is going to took as though it was
built over a period of time, obviously there will he different styles. Mr. Bryan said there was too
much of a h~>rsh conflict to have a totally different type of architecture on one corner across from
another both trying to appear as though they were built over a period of time. Mr. Bird said that
was never his intent, but he understood Mr. Bryan's point.
07-0997/FDP
final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes -July 25, 2007
Page 11 of 14
Brian Kocak, 8 i 35 Davington Drive, noted that every building in Tartan Fields is different and
they all co- exist together and make a very nice comnnttnity. He said if they try to emulate the
same exact feel in every building in the same corridor, it looks too planned and it does not look
as though it was built over a series of time at all. Mr. Kocak said if it is caiutected too much to
what is across the street or the style of even 20 years ago, it is }ust too close. He said something
different would definitety add a lot of character to the District.
Mr. Holton concluded saying that Mr. Bird had plenty of input from the Board. Mr_ Bird said he
appreciated their time and comments.
4. Bryan Reside a South Riverview eel
06-156 Building Mod' atioas
[Board me er Clayton 13ryan rec himself from this y leaving the room.
Jo e Ochs[ presented this ptication for buildin odification review an pproval. She said
s case was heard by a Board in Decemb 006 for an informa eview_ She said the
applicant has revis ris plan to reflect ch suggested. Ms_ Oc said the quarter-acre ' e
is located on th t side of South Riv iew Street, south of erly Hill_ She said site
contains a 1 0-square-foot single-f lily residence on two ts. She said the app ' t must
combine tlt lots prior to constru on.
. Ochal said there is a -foot easement in G of the structure and a building currently
encroaches two feet_ a said with the propos addition, it will encr h approximately seve
feet. She said errc - achment approval mu a obtained from the ly Engineer. She sal he
minimum front [back for this zoning sification is 30 feet: a said the applicant h filed a
rezoning a . [cation changing the assification to HR, H~ oric Residential Dis ,which if
approve ,will reduce the front d setback to zero.
. Ochal presented a s ~ c showing the existi and proposed west a ations. She said the
existing elevation fe res a neutral coloreds re fa~adc with light b trim. She said then ~n
portion of the ho e features a gable roof id aluminum caseme indows are located c oth
sides of the r rn entrance. She said a existing garage is a shed to the main po ~ n of the
house thr gh a single-story corm • or. Ms. Ochal said th roposed west elevatio indicates the
adciiti of a gable on the nr ~ r portion of the hous . She said this gable ill include four
in [dual alurrrinurrr clad endows surrounded b edar lapped siding. a said a new wood
oor wittr sicielight_s is roposed for the front trance. She said the o-story connector h
been modifted sin the first review by c aging it to a shed ro artd using a sittgte or
entrance with a [ling. Ms. Odra! said c main entrance featur as also been altered t ~ rclude
a front pore ith stone pillars and ~ umns. She said the e elevation is primaril red brick
fa~adc ~ ~ some areas of whit urrizontal siding. Sh said a shed dorttrer is ocated on the
elev ~on. She said a door cated on this elevatio to provide access to c deck is located
ween the garage and t primary building area.
Ms. Ochal said se ral modifications are oposed for the east ele lion including the wi ing
of the existin r red roof, which will n from the north side of e building, across the cage, to
the south. re said a portion of th~ a~ade will protrude o the existing deck, a this section
07-099Z/FDP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
Dubrirt City Corral
.luty ~, 2007 Page 3
drat ttrey uty¢e appropriate stxrtter :and chat ttrey be of '
arr~ritec3luat .This language was induct rn the Cound packet
Mrs. ed that Cound did irrdica the appearance Dods be reviewed
, in ordEx b address ttrese d issues. She thanked ff for taking the
initia " e b do this review.
code. Howev
detemrnes th
materials a"no~d
ebecarne r0t7o~
~Y,
rs a ple cyCrndrical huidirg_ t1e ers b what extent there ' to be some stiffing of
tivity with the appearance e.
Vice Mayor t_ecid"der to amend the ordrr-ance the rrrodificat'an
regarding shutters.
Ms. Salay second the motion.
Vote on the met ' ~ Mr. Reines. yes: Mr. K .Yes: Mrs. Boring. Yes: Chirrnid
Zuercfier. y .Vice Mayan Leddider, Yes: . Salay, Yes: Mr. MoCa_Sh, .
~+. Yes. /
Ordinance 42-0T
Rezoning Approx"rrrrately One Acre, Located on the northwest Corner of Darby
Street and Wing Hill, from C13, Central Bus"a~ess District and R 2, Limited
Sutwrban Residential District, to: HB, Historic Business OisfrieL (Darby Street
Municipal l of - 35 and 37 Darby Street -Case No. 07-036ZICU).
Ms. Grigsby stated that this relates b the corutruction of a nxrnicipail parking tot at 35-38
Darby Street.
There were no additional questions.
Vole on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor tecldider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr.
Keerk3n, yes; Mayor Ctunriiei-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Mr~Cash, yes; Mrs. Boeirg, yes.
waive the Cou Rules of Order r
the Clerk sad the Warne of the 1
Mr_ Kee n seconded the motion.
Vote the motion_ Mrs_ Boring,
Ordinance 43-07
Appropriating a I
More or Less, Pr
Easement, Iroon~yy
Side of TutUe~Cr~
races 7 through 49-07, and mo to
l r ding of the title of each ordi nee, askirx3
rs intb the record.
Keenan, yes: Mr_ Rein ,yes; Mr. McCash,
nnici-Zuercher, yes; s. Salay, yes.
ss, Fee Si le Interest (With 0.103 Acr
and 0.0 Acre, More or Less, Utili
rple rporation, Located on the ortlr
Ap Hating a 0.069 Aue, Mor or Less, Utility Ease
velopment Co., located o e North Side of Tuttle
ranklin, State of Ohio, ropriating Funds Therefor
Emergency.
Ordinance 45-07
Appropriating a 0 7 Acre, More or Less, F imple
More or Less, esent Road Occupied) an .069 Acr
Easement, m the Anita Joye Realty C party, ltd..
Went, m B.E.D.
Cr ing, County of
nd DerJaring an
Interest (with 0.103 e,
More or Less U itv
Located on '
/ 07-099Z/FDP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
Dxxb{in City Caxnci
,fuse 18, 2007 Page 2
e~Wer to place
Corxrx9 did rwl
protocd - that a matter d be addressed b the pr officer' of Corxid and not
to the staff a audience_ a oonfiiDrrtation belweert of order of the Caxral.
Roberts Rrrle~s of and the First and Fourteen ,which would
the othef? Not after the Oexober meeting. pape~Mrork came urto his
regarding '~ Counal in.- l1e has not pr ed with Uric adios becau _ 1) he
has trot 1o undertake the tighty a work; 2) he re_apy wadci t care to wgt
this wav sit would not tx: a oroocx vi ' v wtwc~ wa>td occw cx>av trv re natsrrP of the
duce the Relocation and E~ansion of Its Operations
the City of Dublin, and Uror¢irg the Execution of s
I1Af_ M rues stated that there have no clrarges st>!>lseQu~rt b first reading.
fle ' oduoed Sharon Kesler-, Pr ent of the BMI Fecierad Cred' n who is present
' evertirg_ She is a Oubfin r ent and very involved in the xxrrily.
w~ take place ort Friday, y 6 at noon. Cauncd is 1 forward to 8M{'s expar-s'
In Dublin.
Thee were no furl r questions.
Vote om the Or rrce: Mrs. Borvtg. yes: Mr_ n. Yes: Mr. Reimer. Yes: . Salay,
ye:s: Mayor rrurid-Zuencte;r, yes: Vice Leddidex, yes.
Ordinance 33-07 (Amended)
Authorizing lire City Manager to Enter into a Development Agreement wish the
Stonehenge Company for lire Redevelopment of Certain Real Property at the
Northwest Corner of Eiridge and Ngh Streets for a Future Town Center; to
Authorize the Sate of a Portion of the Fixture Town Center Site to the Stonehenge
Company for Developnterrt; to Authorize the Acquisition by the City of Dublin of
the Property at 37 Darby Street from the Stonehenge Company for the
Development of a Public Parking Area; to Enter into an Agreement with the
Stonehenge Company for the Maintenance of the Future Town Censer; and to
Lease a Portion of the f=uture Town Center to the Stonehenge Company, and
Declaring am Emergency.
Ms. Ott reiterated the details of the proje.~d as provided al Ure fust reading.
A ttrerrac- has been provided on the dais torriyhl wiUr an arru~rded agreerrtemt
Sutrsequent to U-e first readirx~, agreement regarding the: patio areas and the
contribution for pxxblic art has been readied.
• There is a provision in the agreement to allow up to 3.000 square feet of outdoor
dinirx3 space, which would be a permitted use im the project goirx~ forward.
• The 3.000 square feet wcx,ld be broken irKO two types of plaza space: the exclusive
use areas would require a fence or barrier to separate the patrons frcxn Use gerxx-ai
public areas Other tenants who serve food and tx;veraye not requiring patrons to
be wiUun a fenced art'.a wouM have patio hxmiture to be placed in the general public
areas. i his patio fumiture~ would also be available to general public, wtto are trot
patrons of the establishments.
• Stonehrmge win be responsible Eon any iaxprovernettis necessary to create the
exclusive arx}~ rxx~-exclusive areas wiU;in the 3.000 square feel As sexdr, ttre
improvem-e.nts are geared toward enwring they meet the intent of creating vihraruy
in the outdoor area.
• The patio area is indicated on the proposed cxmcept plan on the mnh ~~.~+ ...~~ro...
07-099I1FnP
Final I)evclopment Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
tarblirr City Cound
June t8, 2007 Page 3
side of-the Bridge Stream buids<tg. and on the south and west side of tAe tfgtt Street
~~S-
• Storw~rge has agreed b make an arxx~at oontribtt6w't /oward public art for Itte site
at 56.lxxHYear for the fast fen years. Thai oorrtributian is in recognition of the value
that the public space sixrourrdrg tt>e~r pmrate use provides b them and in
recognition of fhe fad !fiat they can use this space for their tenants.
• After the ten year period. Ittere is an escalator to the eon[n~rRiorr !rased on the
oortsrxner price index- It wtll oatAinrre perpetuaCy anti the expiration of the 99~rear
tease «t the patio space orunLl Stonehenge revokes their right b use any patio
space b the plaza area.
Yrce Mayor t_oddider asked if tttis contribution is in lieu of rent for the patio areas.
Ms. Olt respondr~ that staff developed ibis arrangerrrerrl to allow the yenrxaf public b
use the patio space and found this would work better' than draryirxg a per foot price for
making the space aM exchrsive. Fiavirg the rqn-exdusive patio space was felt to be
berreliaal_
Vice Mayor Leddirfex asked about the 56,0(x3 anrxral contritwtirur. is public art limited b
the boundaries of this partiaflar projrx!?
Ms. Ott responded d is firnited b the scope of this project, which indtsdes itte future town
centrx site and the parking site. 77irs contribution would also help b pay for the
maintenance of sudr public art
Ms. Ori rx~ted that rice public imfxovernenis for the projrxY total up to 13 rnilion. Staff
has been working m txiuv b best utifrze furxiirxJ t:«rnal has already atbcated in Ure C1P
and planrwrg fuhrre CIP funding proposals. Staff i, refuting the estimates aril wiH txing
this bade b Corxrci for ooruideration. She tlien recapped the reverwe sources as
outlined at the fast reading.
Ms. Oil summarized what is tre_ing requested toragM:
• Appro+ral of the devetoprnent agreement
• Introduction of the first reading of the rezorrirg for the land for the parking Wt.
with sec«rd readag on July 2: after approval, the parking Fot constnrUion r;an
be corranetx~d in 2007
Tt1e project wiB then have concept plan review before P87_ and AFZB; it wilt Dome bade as
• a oanbined preliminary ctevetoprnent and final development plan later in 1007. She
• rated than the agreement corrtairts ff>e folbwirg contirgendes for bath partir:s~
• If the rezorwg does not go forward, ittere are provisions to provide
reirnbtrrsement to Strxtehenge f« their costs f« 37 Darby Street -their
oonfritwtion to that ac;quisitan as well as out of pocket design costs U~ey have
inasned for ardutectrrral erx3ineenrx3 Fees.
• Stxwld S&~ have already ocxiUitxrted 5100,000 toward the parking lot
prior to the rez«arxg approval, that would also become a reimbursable expense
for them, should Ccxrndl not approve Urc rezorwng.
She noted that additional darifica(ion ttas been added in the agreement regardirx3 the
default provisions- ?f ri~ City defaults, i[ is dear ri,at Ure City would maintain
reurrbursearerrt an those provisions.
She offered to resporxf to questions arxf noted that Mr, Oioun a present as well.
Mrs. Boring noted that patio spaces are generally rronditional uses 1n ri>u case, they
are a pemtitted use. Will they be sut>jed tc !tie cprxlitions that F'23~1 typically apperxls,
such as banners, storaye of funuture, and raise levels?
Ms. Ott responded that Itus will be addressed in the zormx~ text for the lxoject. ft will be
hr~d to Uie same starxfarrls as oUrer businesses in !tie area
MO Dirwn, Stonetu~aUf, Ccxrrtkrny, 147 N. Nicth Strr~r~t (;ahi~na rested a clarification
regarding the patio areas and exclusive versus non-exclusive use. Part of the success
of the project is deperxir_~nt up«i Ure rrk3rfcet response. Tttiey cannot market the project
effectively wdtaut beirx3 aWe to inform tfx' prospective tr~anls atxxrl wtrat ri,ey can
expect to have. The City has waked witty them to rYaft a good program rice! far~tirates
the needs for the project. The pate spaces are aitir~! to Ux; livelitxxxl and the
dynamics desired al Ut;s corrtP.r_ He is definitely corrxnitterf to lwblic: art
07-0997,/FDY
1?inal Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
OuttFrt city Caine
.kite 18, 2007 Page 4
the oortlrbrstiort represents a great 9ohrtiort.
Irtayor Ciw>rtici-Zuer~her asked rf there wry be benches wihn the project or seating for
loose strotlirtg through the area vufto are riot patrons of irtdrvidual tenanls-
Ms. Ott resporded atT+rrrtativeiy. They plan b use more nakual rrtateriats that vr~ be in
keeprrtg witt- the design of the pr~ojed.
Mr. Reiner asked for dariirtCatiort The graphics infected that there woukf be pmrate
dirtirtg areas associated wrth tenants- is the area designated on the concept what wit tte
needed for the private dirtirtg areas?
Mr. Diorrn responded Thai there wil tte identified areas defined for exdusive use. up to
what <s shown on the plan. Arty deviation wit have b Dome for review by administration
acct appropriate regulatory bocSc-s in ttte City_
Mayor Chirvia-Zuercttc'r stated Ittat Courts! is looking favrard b this project- An
exCe)fent amide about the project and the Gattama project was irtdud~ in Business
Frsf.
Mr. Qiorut responded that rte is thankful for this opporikutity of a lifetirrte_ Council has his
camitmerN regarding sensitivity for the design and b creating somethirg that wil fast
though time.
Wallace Maurer. 7451 17ublin Road asked for clarification regarding Attadtmertt B, page
5. Itie last section called. "Devcdolxrterti Work" -acrd Ute word "perrnittrctg "
Ms. Ott stated that Itts relates to obtairiirtg ttte necessary buidirtg permits acct appro+rals
from Cte trarious dc~acnients.
Mr. Maurer asked about the f03 packing spaces- Witl the aiteria for public parking be
for anyone. anytime, first Conte, first served?
Ms. Ott respcxded that is oomecL although there is a (imitation for ovemigM parking in
the ffistocic District This wilt be a public packing bt with public uses outlined in the
agreement.
Mr. Maurer asked atxxrt the brick plaza at the iMersec~un of Bridge and High, is that to
be used for saiic~ttirig such as a rotating sculpture or artworl~ ifl capture the
quiritessertoe of Dublin? If tliat is the case, are there any catidors within the ttuildirx3s
whidi would oorttain lhiriys such as historical photographs of Cte City a artifacts of the
City, or oorrickxs oulSide which cook( acoonxctodate these? This inlersectiori is intended
to provide a first impressa+t of ore City.
Ms. Ott responded that in regard to Ute platfcxm in the tower plaza, there has been rto
work with artists to date, nor teas there tx~en any disarssion with the cortanunity about
appropriate art in this location- Once Uie concept cfe:vdopmterit ntov~ along, and ttie
zoning issues are addressed, these matters will be disarssed. In regard b elemir~tts
atxxrt the tiistoryof Oubliri, that idea can certainty be considered at a later point in the
process .
Mr Reiner mtoved for emergency passage.
Ms. Satay seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnid-Zirerd~ter, yes; Mr. Kecvtart, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes;
Ms. Satay, yes; Vice Mayor LecklidPS, yes; Mks. t3orirtg, yes.
Vote on the Ordnance: Ms Salay, yes: Mrs E3ocicx3, yes; Vice Mayor Leclclider, yes; Mr.
Keenan, yes; Mayor Ctunrud 7uerctier, yes; Mr. Reiner. yrs.
Mayor Chirwici-I_uercher asked that Council be kepi apprised of the progress on the
f~l~.
Ordinance 34
Adapting th roposed Tax Budget for "cal Year 2008.
Ms. Brain m stated there have teen dianges subst~ueril to lire for readirxT
Vote to Ordinance: Mr Keenan k;s; Mr. Reinex, yes; Mrs. ,yes; Ms. Salay,
yes- cce MayorLecktider, yes: M or CFtiruica-Zuucher, yes.
Ordinance 35-07
Updating the Arterial T is Plan (Thoroughfare PI ) of the City
07-099Z/FDP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
Dublin City Cound
June ~ 8.2007 Page 10
Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes: Mayor Clinrici-Z4ierct+er, yes: Ms. Salay, yes:
Yrce ~Ya Leddider, Yes: Mr_ Keenan Yom: Mrs_ Boring, yr;s.
Ordinance 42-07
Rezoning Appr~ntdnratefy One Acre. Located orr the Northwest Corner of Darby
Street and Wing Hill, from CB, Central Business D"esstriet and R-2, Limited
Suburban Residential District, to: HB, Fistoric Business District. (Darby Street
Mtubcipai Lot - 35 and 37 Darby Street -Case 1Lo. OT-0367iCU)_
Ms_ Salay introduced ltte ordinance.
Mr_ Piadlabarxn noted ills! the proposal is to rezone this to Historic Business District. lie
desarbed the grxterat location of $te site and the surnwndrrtg zorirngs_ Two strucXtmE`s
curr~er>1ty exist on the site -Dublin Banquet HaN and the former Krems Products budding.
These ixrildings have been deemed by the Cilt/s historic pr~sertrafion cor>suftartt as
being of no ardtitectura8y historic significance and wdl be razed tp faditate the
development of a muriidpal parking bt of lQ3 spaces. The lot wiR be accessed from
Darby Street to flee southeast and across from the library to the north. A sidewalk is
indicated running north to south on the west side of Darby Street. and an additional
sidewalk rnrvreclion is shown in the rarRtwest Donner of the parking lot which wdt
cortrted to the trdian Run parking lot.
Ne rated that the plan meets all code requirernentz for landscaping and wit be
liuminated with decorative light fixtures which are compatible with other factures in the
district.
Based on the rezoning criteria, Planning staff Nieves Rte proposal CorTlpiies with the
. rezoning criteria, that Rte use is rbnsistent with the Conunextity Plan, the zoning code
and draft Historic Dublin revitalization plan. his cornpaGbie with and supportive cA the
adjacent lantf usr~s The site and existing infrastruerirre are capable of supporting this
use under the assot~atrxf develop[rtP,nt standards.
The Plarvtutg 8 lorang C«rmission recorrmerded approval on June 7 and staff
recocrunends approval of this rezoning at the second reading on July 2.
Mrs. t3orirg rested that she is pleased that a bike rack ttas bees shown on the plan. Sty
is hopeful that artistic bike racks wilt be considered for this installation.
Mayor Chinnia-Zuerctx:r noted that she has heard a suggestion from cdi::ens that tnlce
racks be installed in retail areas to acoorrtrradate the bike riders. Perhaps a contest
could be held For an artistic design, and DAC could participate in lftis undertaking.
There wiq be a second reading/public: hearing at the Duty 2 Council meeting
General
f Epperson indicated that part of the grant request ea year, a resolution of
at from (:ity Coundl is ~edecf_ They expect to recei 537,000 from Ihis grant.
will help to pay fort costs of the existing staff to a O.A.R.E. program.
Wallace Maurer 7 t Dublin Road asked about ecacy. He is interested in ng
;,Date contlx~lli observations ttk3t havr, text ief Eplx~stxt to be a dtarn ~ of this
endeavar_
Chief Ep non {xovidex7 a pcrstxt<tl t.' cxx~y eegardirxt Rte Wsi[ive nments hc: has
dote on the Resolution Mr. ~nan, yes: Mr. Reiner, ycs: . Salay, Yes; Mrs Boring,
yes; Mayor Chinnia-Zuer ~ .r, yes; Vice Mayor Lecktider ~
Mayor Chinnici-Luur er in[rotfuced Resolutions 3 T through 42-07 and moved
waive the Rules Ordec to have the Clerk read names of the property ow into
Rte retard.
Resolutlo 6 07
Intent Appropriate a 0.227 Acre, re or Less, Fee Simple Mt st (With 0.103
Acr ore or less, Present Roa ccupied) and 0.069 Acre, rtro ~~ 1 e« rrar:...
07-099Z/FDP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Strcct~s Development
20 West Bridge Street
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
JUNE 7, 21107
C11Y OF DUBt1N_
li.i use .d
~ Rye ~~~
5168 SLKr-~ W
11n1~, ~ 43E1i-iz3a
ri.~ c14 a1o ueo
(:+nc 1114 41~~10
lyd S~Ae .wv.d~6iL~~t
The Planning and "Lotting l;ommission took the following action at this meeting:
9. City of Dublin Parking Lot 35 Darby Street
07-0367JCU Rezoning/Conditional Use
Proposal: A one-acre stand alone parking lot within Historic Dublin, located
on the northwest comer of Darby Street anti Wing Hill_
Request: Review and approval of a rezoning from R-2, Limited Suburban
Residential District and CB, Central Business District to HB,
Historic Business District (zoning district map amendment) under
the pmvisions of Code Section 153.234 and a conditional use
' under the provisions of Code Section 153.236.
Applicant: lane S. Arautigam, City Manager, City of Dublin and lack
Eggspcrehler, owner.
Planning Contacts= Dan Phillabaum, AICP, Planner I[ and Abby Scott, Planner.
MOTION #1: 1'o approve this Rezoning application because this proposal complies with the
rezoning criteria set forth in Section 153.23 of the Dublin Zoning Code. .
VOTE: 4 - 0.
MOTION #2: To approve this Conditional Use application because this proposal complies with
the Conditional Use provisions of Section 153.23b of the Dublin Zoning Code, with two
conditions:
1) That directional signs be coordinated with existing signs in the Historic District, subject
to Plarulillg approval; and
2) That a bicycle rack (minimum capacity of 10 bikes) be placed within or adjacent to the
parking lot.
*Sara Ott, Senior Management Anatyst, representing the City Manager, agrced to the above
conditions_
RESULT: This Rcr_oning and Conditional Use application was approved.
S~'AFF CE;>l2'>rIFFFC.ATInN .~
07-0992/FDP
~--- Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
Dutstin Flaming and Toning t'.ooncnzssioa
lone 7, 2007 - Mctiuug Minutes
Pages t 3 of 14
"Landscape ele ents included with chitectural elevations a for general su lion of
landscaping nly. Refer to landsca does for actual pur ed plants, species, associated
locations". She said she did not d that in good faith the drawings need to consistent_
_ Oney, Architectural fiance, said Ms_ Am se Groomes contm were correct and he
logized for incons' ency. He said the col elevations they brow tonight represent exa y
what is there_ if said on the site, the ve totally, 233 tr , 289 deciduous shru , 28 t
evergreen shru ,and over 3,000 gro d cover and perennia plants. Ms_ Amoro mes
said she no problem with andscape design .Gerber confirmed t staff wa_S
satis6 fiat this met what w discussed by the Co fission at the prelimi development
Mr. McCash noted t the handicap parkin spaces did not coon to the main entrap d
there was no con lion to the public wa shown on the drawin He said there need o be a
sidewalk in nt of the handicap p ing spaces that bri it around and cros with the
crosswalk er to the where the c omen service center ~ ocatecl. Mr. Oney a to comply
with A requirements_ Mr. rber requested a si condition. Mr. G tman suggested:
Th a addition of sidew connecting rn the p is sidewalk and co Ling to the handicap
aces as they are now ~ oposed. /
Motion aaci Vo
Mr_ Gerber ade a motion to ap ve this Final Devel ment Plan/Corridor velopment
District iew with new condi ~ ns S and 6 because • mplies with the F• Development
Plan ~ eria and the Corrido evelopntent District the Dublin Zoning a and the existing
de opment standards w• rn the area, with six ditions:
That the applican rovide the easements d dedicate the right -way as indicated on e
Banker Drive t;
2) That the Ear -cape plans be nevi incorporate landsc ithin the boundaries the site
if Davi oad is not vacated;
3) Tha onstnrction access fo a site be off
ve and Shamrock Bo ward;
That the tree replace nt fee be paid prior to
5) That no tents, bal ons, streamers or stmt <
G) That ADA ac ssibte parking spaces core
in compy• e with the Ohio Revi • Eluildir
Mr. H agreed to the six co rtions as Listed
Th ote was as follows- s. Amorose Groom
aneho(tr, abstain, Mr_ ", mmcnnact, yes; and N}
during .the con_st~ion of Banker
fie issuance of buildin ermits;
;plays be permits n site; and
;led to the plat ntrance and public
Code_
Mr.I_imtnetman sec ded the motion
Mr_ Waltei, yes; . McCash, yes; Mr.
r, yes. (Appro 6 -- 0 - l .)
9. City of Duhlia Parking Lot - 35 Darby Street
07-03GZJt'(1 - RezoniuglCouditioaal Use
Mr. Gerber and the Commissioners decided to forego a presentation for this rezoning and
conditional use appiication_ Mr. Gunderman confirmed that two motions were necessary. Mr.
Gerber swore in Sara Ott who, on behalf of the City, agreed with the following conditions on the
conditional use.
l) That directional signs be coordinated with existing signs in the His'
PEanning approval; and 07-099Z/FDP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
Dublia Ping and Zoning Colon
luxe 7, 2007 -Meiling Minuets
Pagt 14 of i4
2) That a bicycle rack (minimum capacity of 10 bikes) be placed within or adjacent to the
parking lot.
Motion t xnd Yote (Rezoning)
Mr_ Gerber made a motioa for approval of this rezoning. Mr_ Zimmerman seconded the motion,
and the vote was as follows: Ms_ Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr_ Walter, yes; Mr_ Zimmerman,
yes; and Mr. Caerber, yes. (Approved 4 - 0-)
Motion 2 aad Vote (Coaditioaal Use)
Mr. Gerber moved for approval of this conditional use with the two conditions listed above, acrd
Mr. `Zimmerman seconded_ The vote was as follows: Ms. Arrrorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Walter,
yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr_ Gerber, yes_ (Approved 4 - 0.)
l0. Shamr Auto Spa -West bGn-Granville Ro
07-0 P - ConcepE Plau
(No di ion took place on - ease_J
M ron and Vote
r. Gerber made the otion to table this ncept Plan at the w ~ c
representative, Cor Colombo, Wiles, B le, Burkholder & d gar
Groomes sewn the motion The v e was as follows: . Walte+
Ms. Amoros mes, yes; and _ Gerber, yes. (Tabl 4 - 0.)
Admi tralive Business
Mr immerman asked the Speaker Sign-[n t names printed
ould like the direct. one number for earl a staff contact inc
Mr_ SaneholV. req ted that Planning E- ail addresses be incl eci
"I he
request of the a u:~~rnt's
;r Co, LPA_ . Anu3rosc
yes; Mr_ 7_i em~acr, yes;
d legible. Ele said h also
de~i on the Plannin eports
also on the Repo ~.
Respectfully submitted,
Flora Rc~g~t~s and Lrbby~arlcy
Adrninistrativc Assistants
07-09)7,/FllP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
24 Wcst Bridge Street
Oubfin City Courtci
.kure 4. 2007 Page 5
Ordinance 33-07
9 the ~Y ~~9~' to F.attet' iiaEo a Development Agreeaent with the
Stor~tgc Company far the Redeveiopreeat of Cerrtain Real Property at tfte
Tlortlrwest Comer of Bridge and High Streets for a Futuna Town Center, to
Autlwriae the Sob of a Portion of the Future Town Gaoler Site to the Stonehenge
Company for Deve4oprnenfi to Autlrorizt the Acquisition try the City of Dublin of
the Property at 17 Darby Street from the Storriehenge Camparry for Ure
f3evetoprrrent of a Pubkc Parking Arm; to Enter into an Agreement with the
Stonehenge Corrrparry for the tlftaintenance of the Future Town Center; and to
Lease a Portion of the Future Town Center to the Stonehenge Company.
Vice Mayor Leddider introduced the ordirtartce_
t1Rs_ Ott noted that the proposed agreement has been developed jov-tly by City staff and
Stoneherge Company- Present >A assist with the preserttatiorr is Gerry Bird of Bird-
Houk Co#alwrativeand Mo Quin of Storteliertge Company-
She reviewed the out6rte of the presentations for tortigltt, whidt irxludes_ project tsistory;
a revrew of the property irtvotved; a modified Concept plan for the project; information
aborR sale. purchase and [ease of [and for the project and review of public
intproverrtents, financing and [afore [and use approval process recontrttertded in the
devdopntertt agreermertt.
>~
1M1rtten Courtal authorized issuing the request for qualificatiats in the fall of 2005. the
desire was to acate a dyrtarnic plate on this Crty-owned land arxi to fnd the right rrix of
public and private use that would oorttritxrte b the forx~lern vetxartcy of Historic Qublin.
This is outlined in the seven objectives listr:d in the staff report dated May 31.2007.
Srtbsequent to issuing the RFQ in November of 2005, staff proceeded with a request for
proposa[ process, selection of fire Stonehenge Company as tlx- rr;cxxrvrrerxied
development partner. and stow has brought the devdoparent agreermerrt for Gounal's
consideration.
Properties [rnrolved
There are tltrce properties imrdved in this project highlighted in yellow is 37 Qarby
Street - a privately owned parcel, curenlfy housing the [h,blin Banquet Hatt and
Consisting of about orte-ttrird acre. Irttntediatt~y adjacent to that higtdighted in pur[rle is
the former iCrema Peanut Butter Crxrrparry site ttrat the City acquired in 2006_ I bud.
highligftted in red is tfte proposed future town center site that tl>e City acquirr~ci in ]996
with the purdiase of the fcxrrter gas station on the site. Gopectivdy. the yellow anti
purple areas constitute the proposed future parking bt site and the area sf awn rn red is
the proposed future town center site.
Modified Concept Plan
Gc~ Bud, Bird~buk (.opaborative. 6375 Riverside Orrve stated that the concept was
based on the dP.sire b maintain Ute streetscape fed in downtown i)ublrn_ Currently, ttre
lot is an open field and parking bt There was a desire to rrraintain the urban edge of
both Bridge and High Streets. In addition, ttre desire is to create public space that would
open up at the corner that a~uld bc: ttseci for small events and dewrations of a seasonal
nature. lire original concept included a dodo lower as an iWrr, but prat ccxtc:epi tras
been revisc,*d to Creating a platform at the corner to house a future art or display element
yet to be determined -- a placehokter wiUrin the urtran plaza fur srxnethiny of itkat nature
in the front plaza, an allowance is made for seating to come cwt on the Iwt>Irc plaza so
that there is activity in that to~Cron Tire rx~ncept stx~ws the pos5rhility of sonx~ water
walls or features that albw water to come over the edge -adding sourxi and rruiigatirxj
Ute traffic impact with a snap auditory trar~itiort. For the large plaza to the back, the site
drops fcwr feet from west to east, so the irtcter plaza aaesses tx)th of ttrc (wiWirtgs at
grade for AOA accessibility. There is a strap down to Bridge Sweet and t sigh Street,
accordingly, based on grade, so tlrere are stoops and steps along Bridge and High. This
allows for handicapped accessibdity_ There are steps and ramping down for
pedestrians. In addition, tlrere is potential for sea4ny i<r the irv>Pr public square. There
is a lawn space or green space whidt softens the plaza and is flexible for some
activities, although it is small. Thee is an oppo[turtity for a valet drop-0ff, if desired, to
serve properties in the downtown area
07-099E/F'I)P
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
2U West F3ridge Street
Dublin try Cwncil
.1ru~e 4, 2007 Page 6
IJts_ Ott added that staff felt this oattoept seated a small parts feeLng inside the plaza
vvei0orttrrg b both patrons of the businesses as well as pedestriar>SS thnxrgh the
district - ttta~g openness and a visual ooruiection throrx3fiokA the pra~ec;t.
Mr, laird asized that the desere is m crea to an edge. not a barrier separatrg
sidewalk from plaza. tie showed slides depicting the concept plan. with the water vra4s_
There is traruparencar between the front and the rear p4izas The c«rcep[ is to create
the urban edge. to open up the corner and to invite people into the site.
fiRs_ Satay asked about the distance of the txriTdings from tlx: ccxrccx and the distance
between-the two bindings.
Mr_ laird r Crat they elected b set the bindings bade somewhat from both
Bridge and High to allow for the steps and more of a public sidewalk space. There is
approximately25-30 feel they are trying to create a definition, twt also a visual
oonrtecliort - it is a balarxing issue.
Ms. Salay suggested that stakes be installed to demonstrate ttie aehral setback of the
6uirfings from >he street This was done for other projects and was very helpful for
visualization Purposes. She has had some corx~errts expressed by residents about
dosing dawn the turner arxf it would be txgpfirl to stake it. once staff can defrutivdy do
so_ ,
Ms_ Ott responded that when rie details are more defined. this is certainly possible.
NAr. Reiner asked about the finest footage between the bunktirg fa4-ade to Ure edge of the
curb.
Mr_ Bird responded that they have pushed the bindings bade five feet from the tight of
way One. and he believes the riyht-of-way line is approxirnair~y 12 feet from the curb.
Mc Reimer noted chat the steps wit also take up some space. tie is cirious abaft how
much corrtfoA zone ftxxe wdl be for people usirx3 the sidewalks.
Mr. laird stated that the steps will enCroad: into the additiork~rl five feel They do
anticipate some entries recessing into the bonding, however. which was typical of the
period design. At a rnaxirrxrm, he ernisiarts the steps ertcroacturrg three feet into the
frve foot setback.
Mayor Chinrrid-Zuercher asked how these setbadks cornpace with the burTdings on the
south side of Bridge and hGgh-
Mr. Bird responded that it a oompacabie.
Ms. Ott added that it is fatly close.
Mr. Reiner stated it would 6e advisable to have the actual setback figures dtedted.
Four feet is neP~ed for two peol~ie traveling one direction. aril therefore eight feet is
needed for a total of four people traveling along tt,k: sidewalk at one time.
Mr_ Bird wal check on this. He is certain that there is easily eight feet available for this.
In acklition, witty light poles and trees, there is likely eight feet at excess of that.
Site Perspectives witlxwl Ardutecture
Ms_ Ott showed slides depicting the site and tiow someone would experience arriving at
the site, eitfxx by vetiKie or walking.
Parkirxl
Ttte rendering shows the fxoposed parking at 35 37 Darby Street. There is a portion in
the deveiolxrx'nl agreement that provides fur StoneherKTe to sell 3T Darby Street to the
City for parking purposes, creating 103 spaces, inCtuding some harxii~ ~lrpE'd spaces in
an area wh;di wrrently has linutr-d handicaplx_a1 parkirx3 The adriition of the 3T Darby
Street parcel has wcxked out to be a great beret. for the 35 Darby Street parcel, staff
estimated it would acc~nmodate between Tp and 75 spaces. Tlus represents a
measurable increase as a result of the additional land acqu,sitron.
Mr Keenan asked how the pedestrian or bicycle traffic Mows back into the space.
Currently, there are some parkirx3 opportunities there, but traversing the alley areas is
not safe for walkers or cyclists.
Ms. Ott responded that it is definitety a challenge at space not under the City's controi_
What tk~s been done is to add a sidewalk on the eastern bocrndary so that people witl not
have to walk on Darby Street. Additionally. a connection wdl 6e created r- `- "- `-"---
Run parking lot in the northwestern axrxx of the project There will !x
0~-o99ziFnr
Final Development Plan
k3ridge and high Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
Dublin City Cotmdl
.lone 4, 20(17 Page 7
[rom the sauMeastem edge of the parking lot aver b tfYrng Fit and Modem Mate b easier
the plaza itself. Gx+r+ently, it is drffiarlt kr create a pedestrian way abrg the City rightof-
way without redrxdrg the width of the alley. making it ur,rssaWe.
Mr_ Keenan asked if there are some pedestrian aossMratlcs that can tte inchrded.
Ms_ Ott responded Mat oonsider-ation w~ be given iv the poss~rlity of additional striping
and sigrtage M ertsrrre Mat people driving on Darby Street are aware of the increased
pedestrian activity from the new parkirx3 k>t
Mr. Keenan asked if signage will be included in the plaza io direct people to the
Veterans Park_
Ms_ Ott responded that she believes the best way to address that i5 outside the scope of
this project, through way finding for all of tlcsbric Dublin. This worAd allow everyone
tlrougtxxrt ttte District to be aware of all of the bcations in the District utduding
'Grounds of Rerrx~mbrarx:e: once it is oortstruded_ There wig tie way finding in the
public space in these plazas. Staff wdl briny t,orurd a proposal for surfi a system and
Ere assts anticipated for it b be in place tluougtaul the District
Mr_ Bed added that Wiry FiiM in the Master Plan would riot be for through traffic, but
would beaxne more pedestrian oriented, whidt would help the transition fnxtt this new
parkng bi to the Modern Male Eng.
Ms_ Ott added that constderatiort has been given to cbsiag Wng N~, tookittg at the
traffic on Wxxg Hip and those attempting b tum bff cash North High SVeet_ This wit fie
sometlwtg to be considered within the concept plan stage as R is brought forward to
I1f2B and Planning t;orryrussion.
Areas of Dev Agreement
Ms. Olt noted that
• The City wrTl seU the Stonehenge Comparry approximately 10,1)00 square feet to be
used as txrilcf irx~ footprints on the b.r6ure town center site at a price of 525.307sgtrare
foot The exact square footage wid{ be determirx# after the project has obtained Me
necessary zoning approvals.
• The City wilt acquire 37 Darby Street at the appraised price of 5375,000 from the
Stoneherxye Company directly. Stonehenge is incurring additional costs of
@S 100,000 to make that property avar7aWe for the City's purchase for this project
• Stonettertge and staff are stilt working out temps for Stonehenge to tease some patio
space within tltie plaza area that would be primarily for use of the tenants for outdoor
dining. Ihose terTrts wig be txought Uaclr to C~rrx~l ai the second readirx,~.
• There are several public improvert-ents assor~ated with this project. Staff is
estimating tttie costs conservatively at this time because ttre projrx~ is al the ooruept
design stage. For land at~uisiticxr in total, the Crly will spend just over S 1 million for
35 and 37 Uarby Street, un<1c,~r the terars of this agreernenL Addilionafly, to construct
a parking bt on that site wAl wst approzirnately 5400,000. with lir}tRirx}, striping,
asphalt, curb replacement, etc. The plazas. hotly upper and bwer together. wiM
water features, raised planters. yreenspac~, incorporating tree grates. outdoor
furniture, etc. is estimated at tx~tween Sfa85,000 aria 512 million- Additirxtapy, br
economy of scale, staff is recortuttending that Ure City invest in streetscape
improvements alorx~ West Bridge, North High, Wing ltip Alley anti Darby Stree! as
part of tlris project, the irrtprovemGUs include installing new txidc pavers on a
concfete base instead of tl~ sand base rxrrrently in place Nt downtown Dublin,
adding new cxrrb where ntsc~ded atortig all four roadways, inslatling new street trees,
aril installing tree grates F'relirnirtary. the estunate of these elements is between
534(1.000 ~rx] 5460,0(x)
Mrs. Boring asked if the cost of the pavers with a concrete base is double that of the
sand basr:, based upon the life of the product.
Ms. Ott responded ttrat it is not Wilts the s<trd base, the cost is 510-12, and witty
concrete, it is approximately 5161square foot.
Mr. R~aner asked if staff t>ijs c:onsiderecl a 6 or 8 inch base for pavers that is used for
areas witty vehicular traffic This instatlaUOn would have a longer Irfe, atthour;h there may
he rtrore cx~st.
Ms. Ott responded that staff wAt rnvestrgate this.
Revenue Sources
07-0997,/FDP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
Oublirt city Cound
June 4, 2007 Page 8
Nls_ oa stated that a sign cant amatrit of terxxfsra~g has been poviaed in prior yam' CiP
budgets and has then used for land a~ogrrisitiiort oosts_ Addriiorta~y, Ihere is 5500.000 in
the 2007 budget dedpted for Historic Dublin improvemerrts_ The sale of txald'u,y
footprints to St~e~rge will grxierate approximately 5253.000 and Stonehenge wr3
make a S 100.000 contr>brdion to parkirg as part a(this agreement Staff wit brirg back
b Cocrnci a proposal to modify the aurent Town Center I and l l tax increrrxvit 6rtanxirg
dist,id far the future pautcirg tot site and future Gown center site for this projed_ Sta$ wiM
afro request additional fiu~diny for this project in the 2008 CIP_
At the time this projec-,t goes forward. staff wit request Cawici approval of a new fax
incx~r,ent financing district speeificaiy for Ittis project fo allow service payments to offset
the cost of public imExovemenis_ WRh 20,000 square feet and a oorrservative estimate
of it,e county's v-aloe. staff believes that service payments generated ,rv~ be
approximately S55.O1)D per year from the projec.L Without additional square footage
added into the TIF district in the future, it u tat likely that this TIF wit reimburse firgy the
capital expc~c]itures for this project over its 30-year cycle.
P~zsed Process for Land Use Atxxovals
The Plarrirxg Convrussion wilt review the rezoning praposat for 35-37 Darby Street at
U,e .tune 7 meding. This irtvOtves rezorurg the property to lTistoric Business zoning
dassificaticxi and requires a cor~tiorral use for stand atone padcirg_ h addticxt, the
plan calls for a review by the ARB for fghtiny and landscaping details_ Ultimately, ~e
rezoning w«,td come to Canxal for Frrst rea~rg on June 18 and second readig/pubfic
hearing on Juty 7_. A oondrtinn of this is the Crty t,eoorrwrg the tantdOwrterof that property
at 37 parby Street, anc] staff anticiipates dosing on U,e property in June, should Council
approve the deva,t agreement at the Jrc,e 18 Corrrrc~ meeting_
Once Courral has approved the rezoning, parking lot oonstnsclion wit cOrrui,enoe irr
early fact, with completion prior to winter. Stgr,e#ienge Conparry wr31 provide oversigts<
fcx the ccxrsirudion.
1n regard to the future town center site, staff would take the conoepi plan for review this
summer at Planning Conxnission artd the Architeckrral Review Board Atter receiving
their feedback, staff will bring back a combined preliminary and final development plan
for review by ARE3. Plaruurxl Cormussion aril City Ctx,npl_ Provided that is approved,
cor>,struclrex, wit conm,ene:e in the sprirxJ of 20(1£3 and would Ge ccxnpleted vi 2009_
There are some conbngencirx ur Ux° dr_'vdopmenl agreement The oontingerxy period
is defincxl as the time after which the agreement is exea,ted aril expires when the futa!
rezoning is either approved or derur,~r]. During Urat period, e_iUier party has the ability to
wittrdraw from tttF: agreement uruler certain oonditicxxs. There is a tx,dt-in recrognition
that Stortettenge is incxunrxJ cx,sts on L'ity projects, and should zoning lie dettied, there
is art obligation chat the City would reictYxuse up to 525,000 of the design of the public
space aril U,e parking tot AAditiOnalty, shook] U,e rezonng not be approved, the City
wocrld reur,burse Stcxretrerxte up to 5100,000 in land costs for their aoc}uisiticut of 37
Darby Street and sale to U,e City. Finally, the City wouk] consider reimbursing up to
35,000 of Stonehenge's interest costs, should the rezonury not he approved, kx-any
loan taken nut for 37 Darby Street. Thal wa,1d only be considered if tt,e rezoning were
to be denied. Stonehenge must also make a good faith effort to address issues artd
conditions to obtain rezoning approval. They have an obligation to be diligent in their
pursuit to address the issues within the review process, similar to that required for any
other project That comes thra,gh City review.
She sununanizcx3 that staff recorrunends approval of the agreement at the June 18
Ccx,ncil meeting. She offered to respond to questions.
Mr- fteiru~r askr~c] atxx,t the arrhitertural de43ds, such as Ute water walls on the
entryway. Wilt tfrose be clone t)y StoneherxJe and their arct,iteeis, or by the City?
Wttc~re is Ure actual design component of this element?
Ms. Ott resix~rx3ed [hat it occa,rs sirrwttaneor,sly with the public and private
improvements. Tltie challerxJe with that feature is that it nwst be corutructed at the
carne tines as ttre lower plaza ancf upper plaza becrrue of extending utilitic~ aril
bE,G1u5e curuUucting it later wi11 require rernoviny material. if it does trot occur wilt, the
initial protect. it remains an option. but the prig wouk] increase.
07-099Z/FllP
Final Developmcnt Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Stireet
Dublin city t.,awrd
June a. 2007 Page 9
Mr_ Reiner asked wino is funding 8ne axdnitedurraf catnponernt forlhe water fealties on
the plaza.
IAs. Ott responded tifnat Itxnse vrotrld be City resporrs~iily. A oornsidera5on in tlne design .
is having four mairrternance costs for any water fealties. That is why a k>trr water vraa
was vtcuded versus a foruttain_
iNr_ Reiner noted that because this is being designed as a unit, wilt tlnese elerrnertts be
inducted in the design by Bird-fior~ICl
Mr. Bird responded that they anticipate inducting this _ Ar~oUner consideration far water
wars is when the water is not runttnirng, it must be atirdc,'6ve_ They do anticipate
designing this feature as part of the package.
Ms. Salay asked about Une oontirgerncies an page S of Une staff rrtenrto where it
discusses obtairang Caxici approval and arty othex required approvals by ARB, PEZ cx
otttervrrise_ VYt-3t octttrs if eiifter ARB or PbZ do not approve th<s? They are advisory
tnodies to City Council, so she assumes float trttaaately, the total decision rests with
Counai.
Mr. Scrim confirmed that is correct
Ms. Salay noted that Uus project is being referred to as a "fawn oentr,r_' She wouid
suggest another name in view of tfie ezssting Town Cer-t+er 1 and U aavss the street.
Ms_ Ott r»ted staff is in agreement- This is at an early design stage, and therefore a
name has not been suggested.
ttM. Keenan agreed that another name would be appropiate.
AAs_ Satay noted that staff has indicated SLonefxx~ge had approximately Sit)0,000 tint
expenses in arqu~irrg 37 Darby- Is there detai about what That incktdes?
tuts. Ott responded that her understandrrg is that Stonettertge is pucd>asing 37 Darby for
Sd75.000 and then sexing the property to the City (or S."i75.fl00 - ttne citys appraised
value for the property~
Ms. Salay r'c~oed'Mr. Keenan"s cormtents atxxri aossvralks. Perhaps there would be a
way to use the printed blacktop sucfi as Ihat used on Une Tara Hil rzosswalks_ tt w~arld
assist people in way finding and accessing parking. She added that pr~edion on the
sireetscape side is needtxl for pedestrians, whether it is done with large tower pots or
boxards to rnrxease the feeling of safety. On the south side of Bridge Street, at Town
Center I. the pedestrians may rxrt feel oornpletely protected from traffic corrwg over the
hit ht'ading east- She wants to be sure iris m considered in the design for the
sdeetscape improvement. She vr~~y much likes the water features. Pefiaps smax
sculptures cart be irxdudecf in them so tt-at they wit tie attractive when the water is not
nrruiing She has observed sonrettvng similar at the Nationwide Plaza downtown
Columbus. This may be anoUtier way to indtrde more public art in the space.
She thanked Ms. OU for the'very Unorotgh sta[f memo. .
Mayor Chinnia-Zuerdrer statr~ that while she appreciates U-e oomrnents about sidewalk
aril safety issuer for pedestnarLS, irtstaxing bdlards a flowerpots may lake up space
needed for strWlers and wheelchairs. it would be very i~pful to have staking done
soau~r tt~an later, even if Une design is not axnpleted at Uris tirrx:. it would have been
helphd to know wheUier tt~est; fwildirtg setbacks wdl 1]e identical to Ux~se on the south
side of 8ridye or larger. tt woukf he important not to wait untnl all of the approvals are
obtaincvl to stake the building locatans
Ms Salay added Urat approximate setback lines kbtrld be staked.
Mr. Reiner asked about Exhibits 7 and 8. 1\re U~ese reflective of what es expected with
the tower design?
Mr. Bud responded drat a oonceptwas asseri+bled at Uic RFP stage 15 mrxrttrs ago.
1_xhihits 7 and 8 are from U~at sulxnittitl. The intention was to retain the craracter of the
arcritrxture of downtown Dublin. tHrt to potentially enharxe the storefronts so that Unere
is some more detail and character. Wtwte he supports ibis approach, there are several
steps ahead in Ux; review process.
Mr. Reiner noted ttrat the ardritecfural detail on these elevations is crxnplicated, so he is
hotx'ful of having something this interesting and elaborate for itte downtown center.
Mayor Chinruci-Zuerctter noted chat she likes the front doors being seri•--` -'
demornUated in ltte renderings.
07-0997./FDP
Final Development Plan
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
t7ub[irt City Ctxrrta7
.tune 4, 2007 Page 10
Mr_ Bird tesportded ~ wifi @tis design the doss do tat enaoach upon ttte selbadcs
ar-d some otter is pro+rided outside of tfte door_
tNo Diocrn, Stortettertge Corttparty dared that at Itte time of submittal of a response b
the RFP, they made a cormritrttertt b deliver 3T Darby- SOortettertge is roaming -- at a
mirtgrrum - S 100.000 over what the Cily can pay under Bte appraisal price of 5375,000
in order b acgtrire 37 Darby_ kt addition, (trey are contributing S i 00,000 tovrard the
cortstrudion of the parking IoL 7tterefore, there is a total of 5200.000 wen and above
the 5253.000 toward the ptmcttase of ttte footprint and arty lease agreement that rs
werked out with staff regar~rtg the path areas.
There witl be a second readinglpt#ic hearing at ttte June 18 Coundt meeting
(At tftrs poak, Mr. McCastt arrived.]
Adopting Proposed Tax budget fo fiscal Year 2008.
Vice May Leddider introduced the rrtance.
Nts. 8 - m stated this is the start of the budget year .Grigsby can
res tQ questions.
T e wdt be a sr~ond r public hearing at the June Courtci meeting.
Ordinance 35-07
Updating the Ante ' nffic PI_an (lttoroughfa Plan) of the City of t>tib '
(Thoroughfare Pla meet -Revision of 2S -Case tVo_ 07-04 ).
Vice Mayor L er inLudtrced fhe oirii
Ms. Adkins that this amendrrterx requested by City Cou nd the Plartrting
8 Zoning rmtission after the Apd work session. This a will
irtcreas !ulnae riyt-tof-way a gland-Croy, as indicat red, fnxn 80 to 100
feet a variable widtlt median. is based upon road irrrprwecttents, as
d rated by lakx] use arxt nsporiation modeling. S offered b respond b
lions.
Mayor Chimici-Zuer asked wttic#t streets wen ed as oottedors, if arty n Utis
Thoroughfare !'tart.
Ms_ Adkins res she does trot have tt ' rotation.
Mayor Cttimi ' erdter rer~rested that provide inforrrtation a ny streets
added, part' lady as cdtectors at the s reading/public treari on June 18.
Ms. S y stated that the fcxas is an amendment rr~ated b gland Croy, but there
are me outer inaocuracicx in map attadted b the ord' nce. The staff report
nliortecl ertoouraging a cot setback, although trot dually requiring it Is ttrat
consistent with what ttas dome in ftte past?
Ms. Adkins responded tissue is trot part of Utis ment, txrt raUrer tlx: I er
Community Plan u e as a whole. It is consrs tt with what has tx>en rk~n at the
past in itiat the 2 -foot setback is a recd anon arxt trot a regain nt
Ms. Salay not , t the 200-foot setback rrtertticxx•d in conjun with scc~tic.
«hcds.
Ms Salay tecl that WAcox Road is s wn as a through street all way b Hayrien
Run, ar it is not. At what point wil se cortedior~s be made r is this something that
will < ne with Ute enure plan ad ion? The WAcox Road d le cut de sacs ace not
rc ~dr~ on ttte at4'tctrrrtr_nt.
Mayor Cturuiici-Zuerdte ted that it is important to eve an up-to<tate Wrap, re ing
the dtarges since the 9~ TTxxougFtifare Plan u ate_ Stte asked ttal staff ~ corporate
all of ttre dtangr~s de sincx~ 1~J9 to ttus ma riw Io ttie next reading
There wdl be " se~z~nd readirxt/rHrblit; he: n<r a[ [tx: Jurx: to Courx~l ~~etrrHr
zing the City Manager t ter into an Agreemen ith the f=ranklin County
stoners regarding t Administration of the W' Bl ess o.+_+ c..r.r_~~„r
and Oectaring an rgency_
07-0997./FDP
Final Development Platt
Bridge and High Streets Development
20 West Bridge Street
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR
BRIDGE AND HIGH PROJECT
Zoos
INDEX Of SHEETS
nrre sheer and rneex Mop ..... . .............. ............. T
Genera/ Notes .............................. ............. 1
Oemolltion P/on, Typka/ Secfkns,
& Niscellaneous Oefails ...................... ............ 3
Slaking P/on ............................... ............. 4
UtdRy Plan & Proldes ....................... ............. 5
Crodmg Plon ............................... ............. 6
$BENCN MARKS
Based On Franklin County NASD 1988 (U,SG.5.) Datum
IkSIfR 8M Aluminum disk in concrete monument, of the junction oI
SR. !61 and Ne main entrance !o Dublin Cemotery, IS legit
foss of the ceme(ery enhance, 1 /set Norrh of v stone
rents, 2 feeE Wesf o/ o witness pas(, 1 loot South o/ o
decorative ground plaque, 2 inches below mulch (USG & GS
~ ss Gisk)
ELEVATION = 850.4!
SOURCE BM Sfofion is o stainless steel rod driven to a depth of 16
/set, in a trion9u/or shaped grass median of f/a Northwest
corner of (ts juncbbn of SR. 16l and SR 257, 59.9 lee(
Sauthans( 07 the tlarth comor of fha median, 28.4 lost
h0r!hwnst o! the Soulheasf comor of the melon, 201 last
Snuthwest n/ the Saulhwasr comer o/ the median, 2 /oaf
South of a witness post, access through aluminum occass
cover.
frf/AnoN = BG1.71
BM/r CAise/ed X' on top of Southwest Dolt of o halfrc signal
support pofe, located on Ne Northeast comer of the
inrerncGon o1 Nigh Street oM B6dge Street.
ECEYATlON = 82558
BM,/? Top oI roflrood spike scf in the S'o+dhensf side D/ a woa0
powar pain, located on fha NortA side of !,orby Street, the
third pota Waif o/ the inlarsectien of Darby Street, North
Nigh Shaet and North Sbcet, opgoximo(s!y 200 feet West
QLYATlON ~ 834.53
I
1
~ 1--1- ~--_-_
---_ I ~;I
~ ----}~~
- - - - r - -
rat o rro' xa' ~ _ BM, j2 ~ , ,III -
J _ OARBY ST. NAPAI S7:
GRAPN/C SCALE
(!N FffTJ
nom; 1./Ci ~ ----
C.k 17594 G(r:
~---- . --
u: 2~;nax oa .s.~~, •PG. 6C1I ~ 1~s~;yc:GS;:/
,A.~cr.ti, INS,. J
~,.,,.~,~'AN; Rw;YK;~ - - ~ 5 ,'w9;J1 "^ 1:J`- --
~~ ~)°i Ism ~ ~ 33 .'~i h •••-r.
f c; I 'I~ ~S`cr,0 r n
~ ~ N 70: 14°3
-- ----------J ---~-JJ ~--~=-a .-
ee~or~ srn~r
~~ ~~~ ~ III - r
INDEX MAP
1 ~ 100'
f~ Z W,",fiUh'G GAYS I
~~ Jil"Oit~ YOU file
cr.t rG.t Ivn~ A(l0 .562-21fi<
(llq'JAIlr:S ~PChCr:Ai 2MY
STANDARD DRAWINGS
nre S(andad Conslrucl(on Orowiogs lutcJ on Uese
pons shall Da considered o part lhsreaG
CITY OF COLUMBUS
A4-5133 L-G306 L-6316
M-5138 1-6309 1-6473
A4-5149 L-6310 C-6640
A4-5150 L-6317
M-5151 L-6311
CITY OF DUBLIN
RO-04 PD-O6
PG-01 PD-07
PG-G2 PD-08
PG-G3 PO-09
PO-G4 PG-1G
PO-OS
0 D.O. T.
h
Il
U p
~ o r
0
E ~ 7.
E c N
i e N Q
0
Z j
4 ~
~i
U
w
Z
_~ a
°Z =
maw ~
Qoa =
LL~ Q
()
J
Ua
2 w
LL
G9
a
wa
w~
NW
wp
J
I- ?
'"
1
6
LOCADON MAP
Swlo: Noo Scala