Loading...
38-08 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES Inc. 38-08 Ordincn~ce ~~~'n. Pcrssc~cl 20 AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 0.7 ACRE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF WEST BRIDGE AND NORTH HIGH STREETS, TO AMEND A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (BRIDGE AND HIGH STREETS DEVELOPMENT -CASE NO. 08-034Z). 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. P Iassed this e/ ~ day of , 2008. In Mayor -Presiding Officer Attest: Clerk of Council Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 CITY OF DUBLIN_ TO: Members of City Council FRONT: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager DATE: May 29, 2008 Memo INITIATED BY: Steve Lang~vorthy, Director of Land Use and Lang Range Planning RE: Ordinance 38-08, Bridge and High Streets Development {Case No. 08-03~1Z} Request This is a request for the approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan to modify a recently approved planned district and development text fora 0.7-acre parcel, zoned PD, Planned Development District at the northwest corner of the intersection of Bridge and High Streets. This rezoning/preliminary development plan would allow for the limited use of an additional 6,416 square feet split between basements for the two previously approved buildings for storage, coolers, and building support functions such as maintenance and janitorial services. No changes are proposed to the site plan or building elevations. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission On May 15, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the rezoning/preliminary development plan application. The Commission had no concerns regarding the proposal and recommended approval of the rezoning/preliminary development plan with two conditions: 1) That the previously approved development agreement be amended to reflect the increase in usable space within Subarea B; and 2) That the applicant conducts a visual analysis of the foundations of existing adjacent structures documenting conditions prior to, and following, basement excavation and construction, to the satisfaction of Engineering. Description The proposal includes the construction and limited use of two basements -- one each under the previously approved buildings -- that i~•ould be used for a combination of occupiable and non- occupiable space. The basements would be permitted for use as a location for building mechanicals, stairwells, elevator shaft and mechanicals, and water feature mechanicals and equipment. These are uses that would be permitted to be located within non-occupiable basement. space. In addition, occupiable basement space ~~~ould be permitted for use as tenant storage, location of coolers, and building support functions such as maintenance and janitorial services. The use of this space for purposes of assembly, including dining areas, food preparation, office space, etc. is prohibited under the proposed development text. ~s proposed, Building ~ (t~4'est Bridge Street) would contain a total of 3,906 square feet of basement space -- 1,500 square feet dedicated for "building mechanicals" -- and a maximum of 2,406 square feet for "storage space." Building B (North High Street) would have a total of 6,510 Ordinance 38-08 -Bridge & High Development May 29, 2008 Page Two square feet of basement space -- 2,500 square feet for "building mechanicals" -- and a maximum of 4,010 square feet for "storage space." Through the development text, access to the baserent space is limited to The Stonehenge Company or designee, Washington Township Fire Department, and City of Dublin Building Standards and Parks & Open Space officials. The City of Dublin Building Official or the Building Official's designee are granted the permanent right of entry to the structure for any purpose, including, but not limited to, compliance with the restrictions on the use of the basement space. Excavation of the basements by blasting is prohibited based on the age and proximity of adjacent existing structures. Engineering has requested that the applicant conduct a visual analysis of the foundations of existing adjacent structures documenting conditions prior to, and following, the completion of basement excavations. The approved development agreement states that the parking spaces constructed by the applicant within the Darby Street lot are deemed sufficient to meet the City's zoning requirements for parking for up to 22,000 square feet total building area. Based on this general parking waiver, no specific parking requirements or calculations are provided in the previously approved development text. The addition of basements would increase the building area by 6,416 square feet of usable space. The development agreement must be amended to account for this additional usable space, and the development text proposed has been amended to include this additional square footage. Recommendation Planning recommends Council approval of Ordinance 38-08 at the second reading/public hearing on June 16, 2008. SO I'~~ I SO I 1 II I CB CB ~- HB HB -~ CB ~~ CB HB HR HB CCC %' PUD PUD ~- ) ~r~ ~-- _----=Bridge Street CB r~ CB CB r~~ CB ~~ CCC ,~ CCC 1 //~ ~~ CCC PUD O - _ - ` i, ~' CCC i 1 = CCC '~' HB ~-~~~ ~-~ _- '~ ~' ~ ? PUD CCC r PUD N --- ~ ~ ~ j _ 1~ t '* PUD CB R-4 CB R-4 _~ --- R-4 R-4 ~~~~~ '~~."~~n!`i~l ED TO COUNC!I_ City of Dublin 08-034Z/FDP Land Use and Rezoning/Final Development Plan ~~/~~ ~~~~ ~. i ~t~~~rt~ i)~~;_~p/~ Bridge and High Development Long Range Planning 20-21 West Bridge Street o ~o0 2ooP~ APP RAVE D STAKING PLAN . _ __ _ . ,,.FJ ~ U ~_ ~ - iJ~ ~~ ~I OS-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 2(?-21 Wet1. Rri~l~e fitreet. CITY QF D(JBLIN,. Land Use and tong Pangs ttanning 5800 Shier-Rings Rood Dublin, Ohio 1301 b ~ 236 Pnane/'DD: 6°A-A14A600 pax: G' 4 4144747 W eb ~ le: vww.d~~+l~n oh,vi January 2007 EXHIBIT "B" REZONING APPLICATION (Code Section 153.234) TO EXPIRE ORDINANCE NUMBER CITY COUNCIL (FIRST READING) CITY COUNCIL (PUBLIC HEARING) CITY COUNCIL ACTION 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} X^ Other (Please Describe) II PR(~PFRTY INFnRMATInN: Thic sPrtinn must be comoleted. Property address: 20 West Bridge Street {Northwest Corner of Bridge & High) Tax IDIParcel Number(s): 273-000002, 273-000064, 273-000065, 273-000148 Parcel Size (Acres): 0.687 Existing Land Use/Development: Mixed Use Proposed Land Use/Development: Mixed Use Planned Unit Existing Zoning District: Devc;lcpen~~ini Planned Unit Requested Zoning District: Developement Total Acres to be Rezoned: 0.687 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: Add basements to buildings, for storage and mechanical housing, to existing pre-approved plans. B. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the existing and potential future land use character of the vicinity: Adding basement square footage will improve the use of occupiable space on above floors. to addition, basement space will alleviate the need to locate mechanical equipment elsewhere on site. C. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan and, if appl dp4ei~,~9F91tt!~TPir~l?~+~ed rezoning meets the criteria for Planned Districts [section 153.052(8)]: Further meet objectives of original preliminary plan. ~'` _~FOR M EETI f';t.~ 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): Does not change the pre-approved plans which already meats section 153.055 (A). ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ;Oi_I~~C!L ~~r D_g.. z ~ ~ ~ ~ LUU Page 1 of 5 /~vn ~I I Y Ut- d ; ~ I ~~y~ LAN[? !1SF ~ -ONG RAf~i;F i-'~ t~ii~il~,,: 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 (1tX17) sets of plans. Please make sure all plans are stapled and collated Large plars should also oe folded. Staff may later request plans that incorporate review comments. Fourteen (14) additional copies of revised submittals are required for the Plann,ng and Zoning Commission hearing. TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS AND THIRTEEN (13) COPIES Please notarize agent authorization, 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 ail parcels within 500 FEET of the site (Maximum Siie 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 Auditor's current tax list, including parcel number, owner name (not Mortgage Company or Tax Service), and address (Maximum Size 11X17). It !s the policy of the City of Dublin to notify surrounding property owners of pending applicatiors under public review. Please contact I..and 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) tJ1RGE (24X36) COPIES OF SCALED SITEISTAKING PLANS SHOWING: a. North arrow and bar scale. h. 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 •.ypes, square tootages, parking, open space, etc.). d. Size of the site in acres/square feet. e. All property Imes, setbacks, street centerlines, rights-of-way, easements, and other information related to the site. f. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries. g. Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties. ^ IF APPL{CABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14j LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING SCALED PLANS: a. Grading Plan. b. Landscaping Plan. c. Lighting Plan. d. Utility andlor 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 makeriats 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 ^ MATERIAL/COLOR SAMPLES (swatches, photos, plans, or product specifications). Include manufacturer name and product number. Page 2 of 5 ()WNFR(S): This section must be completed. Please attach additional sheets if needed Name (Individual or Organization): City Of Dublin Mailing Address: 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017-1066 (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Daytime Telephone: 614.410.4400 Fax: Emait 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 o.i~~ Name: The Stonehenge Company Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): Developer Mailing address: 147 North High Street, Gahanna, Ohio 43230 (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Daytime Telephone: 614.509.9000 Fax: 614.509.9016 Email orAlternate Contact Information: mo.dioun@stonehenge-company.com 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: Mo M Dioun organization: The Stonehenge Company Maiiing Address: 147 North High Street, Gahanna, Ohio 43230 (Street, Clty, State, Zip Code) Daytime Telephone: 614.509.9000 Fax: 614.509.9016 Email orAlternate Contact Information: mO.dioun@stonehenge-company.COm Page 3 of 5 VIII. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE(S): If the applicant is not the property owner, this section must be completed and notarized. I ,the owner, hereby authorize to act as my applicanUrepresentative(s) in all matters pertaining 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. ~\ j~,~,~ `~ ~~~`~~ ~ Yv Date: G~ I~, i / n ~ _J / , - ~ Subscribed aid sworn to before me this day of , 20 ~ ~- L ~P S~. ,. state of ~~ r i ') ~ ~ ~-' ~/ ?~ .=~ ~~~ :,~.;~" :"l:'i`NDA L. GLICK ~..~-t, County of ~ ~f i~l~ ./,~l/r/~-. Notary Public ~ `~'~"'1" `~~~ r ~ --, ,: I Notary Public • $IatB 010h10 ~ , ~ o~ My Commission Expires May 19, 2009 IX. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City representatives are essential to process this application. The OwnerlApplicant, as notarized below, hereby authorizes City representatives to vlslt, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. X. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The City of The Owner/Applicant acknowledges the approval of this request for rezoning by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission and/or Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said Owner/Applicant. AFFIDAVIT: Thls section must be I Mo M. Dioun read and understand the Contents information submitted is complete a the owner or authorized representative, have this application. attached exhibits and other 20 State of ur""~".,n^~",5,~ County of ~ - ~/ ~ { Notary \J ~ :~ _ii'~Y My Cornrus~,c;n N<.s f~G E:~:pi .;;~,,,n p,ir„ 3LE, WILL RECEIVE A FACSIMILE CONFIRMING f~ECEIPT OF THIS APPLICATION ~. FOR OFFICE U~SE'ONLY Amount Received: Applicatio o: -D_ P&Z Date(s): P&Z Action: Receipt No: Date Received: ,f 12 ~ Received By: "T~ .. Type of Request: ~` / ~r ~ /NI S, E; 11 Circle) S~e o ll// Nearest Intersection: Distance from Nearest Intersection: Page 4 of 5 ATTACHMENT A: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA § 153.055 PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA. (A) Preliminary development plan. In the review of proposed planned developments, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall determine whether or not the preliminary development plan complies with the following criteria. In the event the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed preliminary development plan does not comply with a preponderance of these criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall disapprove the application: (1- The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Zoning Code; (2) The proposed development is in conformity 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; (4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the city so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded; (5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; (6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site; (7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; (8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide Ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on the 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 PO and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; (10) The density, building gross Moor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and structures, yard space, design and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overall accept- ability of the development plans contribute to the orderly development of land within the city; (11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas; (12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed 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; The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable ante 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) Tho proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements and not impair the existing public service system for the area; (16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. Page 5 of 5 o.6e7 acl~ Situate in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, lying in Virginia Military Survey 2S 12, being all of Lots 144 and 14S and part of Lot 146 of the Town of Dublin, of record in Deed Book 1, Page 193 1/2, as com~eyed to City of Dublin, Ohio by deed of record in Instnrment Number 199801090006648, (al] references refer to the records of the Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio) being more particu]azly described as follows: BEGINNING at a magnetic nail set at the southeasterly corner of said I,ot 144, being the intersection of the northerly right-of--way line of Bridge Street (S.R. 161, U.S. 33)(60 feet wide) with the westerly right-of--way line of High Street (S.R. 74S)(66 feet wide); Thence South 81° 42' SS" Wcst, a distance of 166.33 feet, with the southerly line of said Lot 144 and said northerly right-of--way line, to a magnetic nail set at the southwesterly comer of said L.ot 144, being the intersection ofsaid northcrlyright-of--way line with the easterly right-of--way line of a 30 feet wide alley; Thtnce North 08° 24' 12" West, a distance of 154.00 feet, with the westerly lines of said i.ots 144, 145 and 146 and the easterly line of said 30 feet wide alley, to an iron pin set at the southwesterly corner of the tract conveyed to Thelma I,. Hill by deed of record in Deed Book 3560, Page 602; Thence Nor-h 81 ° 42' SS" East, a distance of 80.00 feet, with the line common to the remainder of said I..ot 146 and said IIilI tract, to an iron pin set; 'Thence North 08° 24' 12" West, a distance of 50.00 feet, with the line common to the remainder of said Lot 146 and said IIill tract, to a magnetic nail set in the southerly line of a 16.S feet wide alley; 'I'hcnce North 81° 42' SS" East, a distance of 86.33 feet, with the northerly line of said Lot 146 and the southerly line of said alley, to a magnetic nail set in said westerly right-of--way line; Thence South OS° 24' 12" East, a distance of 204.00 feet, with the easterly lines of said Lots 146, 14S and 144 and said westerlyright-of--way line, to the POLT~'T OF BEGINI\ZNG, containing 0.687 acre, more or less and being all of Parcel No. 273-000002, Parcel No. 273-000064, Parcel No. 273-000065 and Pazccl No. 273-000148. Subject, however, to all legal rights-of--way and/or easements, if any, of previous record. Iron pins set, where indicated, are iron pipes, thirteen sixteenths (13/16) inch inside diameter, thirty (30) inches long with a plastic plug placed in the top bearing the initials F.MH'I' IIVC. Bearings arc based on an asstun d bearing of North 81° 42' SS" East for a portion of the centerline of Bridge Street (S.R. 161, U.S. 3~ HIK/2Ju107 0_687 °c 710S8AS ~ ,,,~~~-(E OF Oy/o,, - P)'ate EDWARD _ * ~- = MILLER ~p~FiS' F $S.~oOp. ~~0~ S~ANAL SUF`~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ `~~~ ~ UUtJ _ I:l r~,~- ~;~~~,l~~rr~~ ~r 0.096 ACRE (TRACT 1) Situate in the State of Uhio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, lying in Virginia Military Survey 2512, being part of Lot 144 of the Town of Dublin, of record in Deed Book 1, Page 193 1 /2, as conveyed to City of Dublin, Ohio by deed of record in Instrument Number 199801090006648, (all references refer to the records of the Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio) and bounded on all sides by the outside face of wall of a building, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning, for reference, at a magnetic nail set at the southeaster]y comer of said Lot 144, being the intersection of the northerly right-of--way line of Bridge Street (S.R. 161, iJ.S. 33)(60 feet wide) with the westerlyright-of--way line of High Street (S.R. 745)(66 feet wide); Thence South 81° 42' S5" West, with the southerly line of said Lot 144 and northerly right-of--way line of Bridge Street, a distance of 57.37 feet, to a point; Thence North 08° 17' OS" Wcst, a distance of ] 3.41 feet, to the outside comer of a building, the TRUE POIiVT OF BF,GfNNING: Thence with the outside edge of a building the following twenty four (24) courses and distances; South 81°42'59" West, a distance of 18.42 feet to a building comer; North 08° 17'01" West, a distance of 3.00 feet to a building comer; South 81°42'59" West, a distance of 6.29 feet to a building corner, South 08°17'01" East, a distance of 2.96 feet to a building corner; South 81°42'59" West, a distance of 3.33 feet to a building comer; North 08°1T01" West, a distance of 2.96 feet to a building corner; South 81°42'59" West, a distance of 17.37 feet to a building comer; South 08° 17'01" East, a distance of 0.50 feet to a building comer; South 81°42'59" West, a distance of 30.00 feet to a building corner; South 08°17'01" East, a distance of 2.00 feet to a building comer; South 81°42'59" West, a distance of 27.00 feet to a building comer, North 08° 17'01 " West, a distance of 27.00 feet to a building comer; North 81°42'59" East, a distance of 0.62 feet to a building comer; North 08°17'01" West, a distance of 18.04 feet to a building corner; North 81°42'59" East, a distance of 26.42 feet to a building corner; South 08°17'01" East, a distance of 2.00 feet to a building corner; North 81°42'59" East, a distance of 30.00 feet to a building comer; South 08°17'01" East, a distance of 0.54 feet to a building comet; North 81°42'59" East, a distance of 17.29 feet to a building comer; North 08°1 T01" West, a distance of 0.67 feet to a building comer; North 8l °42'S9" East, a distance of 16.75 feet to a building comer; South 08° 17'01" East, a distance of 11.58 feet to a building comer; North 81 °42'S9" )/ast, a distance of 11.33 feet to a building comer; South 08°17'01" East, a distance of 32.08 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 0.096 acre, more or less and being 0.029 acre out of Pazcel No. 273-000002 and 0.067 acre out of Pazcel No. 273-000148. The intent herein is to create a boundary Line that follows the face of a building and uses the outside building corners as the physical monuments for each comer; "I'he building itself represents the actual location of the boundary lines. Subject, however, to all legal rights-of--way and/or easements, if any, of previous record. ted bearing of North 81° 42' SS" East for a portion 16I, U.S. 33). Edward J. Mil~~~ Registered Su veyo No. 8250 E1~v126Feb08 0.097 acre.dce O.1S1 ACRE (TRACT 2) Situate in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, lying in Virginia Military Survey 2512, being part of Lots 145 and 146 of the Town of Dublin, of record in Deed Book 1, Page 193 1 i2, as conveyed to City of Dublin, Ohio by decd of record in Instrument Number 199801090006648, (all references refer to the records of the Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio) and bounded on all sides by the outside face of wall of a building, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning, for reference, at a magnetic nail set at the southeasterly corner of Lot 144 of the Town of Dublin, being the intersection of the northerlyright-of=way line of Bridge Street (S.R. 161, U.S. 33)(60 feet wide) with the westerlyright-of--way line of High Street (S.R, 745)(66 feet wide); Thence North O8° 24' 12" West, with the easterly line of said Lots 144 and 145 and the westerly right-of--way line of High Street, a distance of 133.52 feet, to a point; Thence South 81°35'48" West, a distance of 6.64 feet, to the outside corner of a building, the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: Tl~cnce with the outside edge of a building the following twenty four (24) courses and distances: South 81°35'48" West, a distance of 2.29 feet to a building wrner; South U8°24'12" East, a distance of 30.37 fees to a building corner; South 81°35'48" West, a distance of 1.00 feet to a building corner; South OS°24'12" East, a distance of 28.04 feet to a building comer; South 81°35'48" West, a distance of 12.00 feet to a building comer; South O8°24't 2" East, a distance of 7.96 feet to a building corner; South 81°35'48" West, a distance of 23.50 feet to a building comer; North 08°24'12" West, a distance of 8.00 feet to a building corner; South 81°35'48" West, a distance of 12.00 feet to a building corner; North 08°24'12" West, a distance of 28.00 feet to a building corner; South 81°35'48" West, a distance of 5.13 feet to a building corner; North 08°24'12" Rest, a distance of 30.37 feet to a building corner; South 81°35'48" West, a distance of 2.17 feet to a building comer; North 08°24'12" West, a distance of 30.75 feet to a building corner, North 81°35'48" East, a distance of 4.17 feet to a building corner; North 08°24'12" West, a distance of 29.37 feet to a building corner; North 81°35'48" East, a distance of 10.13 feet to a building comer; North U8°24'12" West, a distance of 1.00 feet to a building comer; North 81°35'48" East, a distance of 18.00 feet to a building comer; North 08°24'12" West, a distance of 4.00 feet to a building comer; North 81°35'48" East, a distance of 23.50 feet to a building corner; South 08°24'12" East, a distance of 34.37 feet to abuilding corner; North 81°35'48" East, a distance of 2.29 feet to a building comer; South 08°24'12" East, a distance of 30.75 feet to thc TRUE POINT OF BEGINI~T~1G, containing 0.151 acre, more or less and being 0.075 acre out of Parcel No. 273-000065, 0.004 acre out of Parcel No. 273-000064 and 0.067 acre out of Parcel No. 273-000148. The intent herein is to create a boundary line that follows the face of a building and uses the outside building corners as the physical monuments for each corner; The building itself represents the actual location of the boundary tines. Subject, however, to all legal rights-of--way and/or easements, if any, of previous record. Bearings are based on an assumed bearing of North 81° 42' S5" East for a portion of the centerline of Bridge Street (S.R. 161, U.S. 33). ANS, ART, HAMBLETON & TILTON, INC. ,,,,,, ~~3~db `,,,.~~P-t E OF O --,,,, `~ EOWARO y~0*'~ J. Edward J. Miller .~ ? M«<ER Registered Surveyor ' .8250 ~o,~':~'F825D 0 ,~yp~ EJM26Feb08 ass/~~/A $ ~~~`• ~~~u~i n,pN`~ 0.097 acte.dx ZONING EXH/B/T t~/RG/N/A MILITARY SURt/~'Y 2512 CITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO ember 3. 2007 JoL No. 1007- 7058 Scn/r!: 1 " - 40' ALLEY 76.5,) Thelma L Hill oti D, B. 3560, P9. EO? o ~; Lot 146 p n. i FlD 2 73-000 065) `___ __~_~ b ~ ~ ° tar ;4s ~ oo v ~ ;' o ~~ The City of Dublin, Ohio ° l.N. 199801090006648 --~ ~ ~ o ~ ?, 0.681 Ac. ~; ~ ~^ ~ ~,o~o :a. ~~ ~ p ~, cot f44 1 p oOO~' (PlD 273-000148) ~J h A ti 5 ~f~ B IROGE SIRE ,~~ 40' 0 40' 80~ GRAPHIC SCALE (lN FEET) l~-~.....~-- 1 .~ ~- I t 1 Z I I ~ ~~ > I 1 I :L '.ONG Rarai~,r= ~~ Note.• This survey was prepared using record documents only and is NOT to be used for transfer. Stonehenge Company /Dub/in Town Center AL TA & Topo Survey / 2007-1058 / 71058zn1 AL TA/AGSM LAND TI TLE SURVEY VIRGINIA MILITARY SUR l/EY 2512 & CITY OF DUBLIN LOTS 144, 145 AND 146 CITY OF DUDLI~/, FRANKLIN CUUNTY, OHIU • ~ 'o ~~ 1 f~ !y. ~r r- ~. •. 3 11n. 28G9. y 3 q e I °1 ~ Y 37 DaDy CcmF .V r~ i ni a Q J22 A y f L w. ~ f.N. 1GG2GI30( a,liy 0.689 AC u.,w ~ ~•$ ~ l.N 1Gp6G7G7GJ3.RSG5 i Lo.e! { ~ .: Cmc. rK . ~ ~ ~~ _ ,- ~ k m~ a R' ^ I ~~yy++ n c1',R ~~` 'nTg~ ~~1-~ Amur ~, w LJ 0 >v~ ~ I ~ ~ ' _ ti 11 _` •~'L, 4 , '3 z.~ _f~ ,p?/9 sa rt A WAf! . -~ ti~ ~ ~-~~ ~ n- ~' ~ ~ ~. ~. Apa~ocn - Ullrfy Pde ~ - lYafnaM Ppb Powr Pdv ! . !slpnana Mxwn Poet . l'%/Y NYI /Anpror y r IMyAOns Peveffd ( Yad :9nt Yr r . Y/p Tiwf. Sprrol Pyn O + L:pn( Ppa -~ Tru/6r LIq,LhO Cmfrd Bon M. - Eheffk phra hJ - honk Lien!inp Afn Bor O . flecrrk Tranef @• ^ Srwm MmnWs D . ffacnk pedeafW O . /a'aaAanv NaMda r w r va.w -+- - 6 . co: ssr.t - w - -Harr cm. s+ f Ahfp -ell-- m r A•a .r M tT .. ~ Nywa+t --.. - ^ Cup Cms r - Mars yes,. -~!v- - sfPme Lme ® llbrr Serarcw -,yfN- - aprRay Lha • . Mein Na/n uCC- - Vndrg•w.nd E1KtnD ® - Chfpn -tf(SPP- . G6'drpand F;K/rk Pr >.or . Sign -pX- ^ Onwreod tYxND o Bcwpd --aKPP- . OeeMwd Jsabe Per P!m m GLYD k/er -fJGl-- - rMdrPovnd rYpM a ^ .. GnlOn BofM - T - O:wMwed Idyanvno ® . !Yaancnfl -A°P-- - Orornauo' [NYMma pr Pkn p - Smftay YMMpe -LP!a- = aepnaMl t'tTlfy £loine M WrlonO GN. 199B12G3G31229; ^ Ero-p'wx+ fryo . f7seideova i . ananm!m see r:1 ., Serve Q . S!AVF ALD. / r ~ ' • . F. fNa hC Run•v~ O . GP .Sf7 ~ ~y ~ ~ r YAG NAfC FSrD. '~ '-f .••l~ tr^ O +YAG AYK SfT ~~ -- ~ 1Nek~ • .. R,A. SOX. lNp. D ^ RR..5gY SF7 ~ PK. NAR fNa GP Swf m. f.f~b' GO. Xm S7~ pys viM c'fD nscrr'.ed EYN7 AYL _ ~~ BASS !Y BEAXCXrS Emvy ara DoaM m an asMfmW Da'ori+9 or Nall BI' 17 .~!- Ea. lw v paMkvr o/ lM eM(ewbre o/ B'(1pe Street (S P. B( us JJ) U8C/rv sTA1pIQkA IAe u(N%Ys ..ham hrMY Apes brw+ bc'arM Opn M'd y »/amrafkn and asYtmg aawnp. Ma w-•e}ti moka M yapm[er Mnt fns uh'~Y•b aMM oa+,f ha oa .wch ufJipas h (M 's'eu «RAp :n a a:mdL++sd Tv xvew(a- AfrlA.v dvs nnl asrm: 1Aa! fM aINY ~ ,fnnM a * Mn srp-I /ocvf.m hd!ro/ed pbafyn M ear DH.%y foot rMy pe koalN os a_wotMY a Pcfwl' a hwx ir/pnwfbr vwbuN+ iEVA NOfE~ Aaradd+g ro w !x'np fmwgncy - ~'~ ANn J•'Tnnf Agwrcy'x Fond MT.Mance Mop (eH(M Moran, /6. zall fnv Paewcr pa[N anom nYem lw> N/nh Yms X ! Os/ewnnM h M oufaAY 3017-yxw na00 pkmJ, Caanror/fy PMM Np .xpJlxo!Tm(. 1 \v I ~\ 4 i ~ ' - 11` I alt's nay A+n- Al'1r '0 S.^. A1C ]C' J 3p' AO' C•RFK4/C SCALC rN F'1'(' '/" ~Rool Mer, ~N ~ ~ ~ Lo( 109 { N) x r ~ &orray r3roMers L!d. LN. 2GrJBOB210761BS7 i I Q i ~ _ C ~ -~ eA { ~-- ~ 1 - ~, ~ I Lof f4B 01 $OVIktaP PfapvfinJ, LLC I I ~ LN 20G6Gr?18G763923 ` _~ ~1 - !1 ~ ~7 ~ _ Slap (fp) f _ _ I - - r- f- I w ~• ~ `Lkn:ff a N'i.mKl;p• Area Lpl [.~ 1 ~ ~ lANfno L HB! , ~ M ,~ QR 2758+4b'i ~ [rc. so3 T!1 p ~ ~ ~ '~~~ ~(nLT!' {M1Vv NILE ~F ..&nw rms -rte .T c .~- ~ tt3 eMm /GV:'r171<(1T' 3rDfcr !rc<'h p .a[rM mvxfy c poor. c i.a' Busi+saa ono (nnrfro :]fnwbon Mr. donnas ^s sAa. -.+ par MO Cify o! 9.W.n QS ra"Nlar N01£• 14u ~mi ~~gvaro/ u~~h~ dxnmwrh Odsrnr?Y !S!O efdMee. py MsY cl~~-fylr4ra "-.. '/ r Gy.c / Y'ia raa•~ ~ t ~ ~® ~G ~~-~' 7 ores ~. IRd<n A•ro _ _ 1 Ppa/ po-a. \ ro J~ { .. a 6d5 Aasa aul Ace (Trove 1) Shrft n w t!wa o[ dex G Ly M rrnxh Gfy N O..dal rg n IfQirb MEJfay S.-reY 1St]. Defy w .+/ Me 06A"y xr> n•eel <m.Mrod [o Crry w Cid'n $.%vnfv :r. foe ttoh a! Coq, CaMty oI! kl», f:lY r.r L~:L:.i, ry»g in tT'gkub Yfir ~.Rr-nY T11?, Oehy ppf u! Lon tN :nd r15 al fM Tom c[ OeD;m, o! L>d0 nl nowt of snarl h Mffrsma,l Nr. ~ 70n'6e]J]OI,L'J(.ii. (on nI recp0» GMd BOW' 1. POya r9J !~, a cmfeYed ra :;ty v/ fl.nrk. (Nor ny Md ro/r fo tM rwnab nI mr Nw.+.N-'c GIKa rnf;cn -nrtlA O! :y ON+C !sort [ rKWJ yr Mr/nn.Mt /FDrcr 19980!09iYY.K6l8. /r~N rNwm~cbt rn/r !a Pe'tKV/p'Y ataAed a !prows. roearW w Me RecerMVS Wdaa i fro Caw:fA OngJ Md na.ndrr an W awfM Dy ' ~ [/'de ! rlnfkN +d-' el a bu/aGY. DS;ro H'a's %^z^.'eveL.ty dn.+o".a>d a ~ c na,f eel al IM no-/hsnrMy eerrrs o/ ByDrm+g, la fa/rnfae. o: moa'eL `d o! rscorn i, In rl t L-n'^DL^ i!a D p'o a 2 b l aJY (>pw ,n e n e J ? ove oc cmeefa l Y X Mslrvnenr 'romDM aoBTarwa9zez6. OfYy ;+ Mr washy [:+. w o 20 Mf ands aNw fAf9ewYryt ~ ro/erexa o: n mnpnf:c nN »t o! Ms fafMeal«•ty CPmr of Lef 1H O[ MO iom 01 CuDrsL Dsv+g Me »rntscfhn N /M naMeny r1aMt-ol- y Y• R+e w &%Jyn s6Nr (S. R. 15 r. U.S JJi(60 Mf rarJ NM fM wateNY IAenae Sc,ftn pR'1<' !7' EutL o Cbtann o/ IJSOC Mt. r;fn rnr Ma1M Y right-eHwoY fMe or N:gn Sfraf /S.e. ]aSX66 /yf MMJ, y rynf~~a/-r) roe. to o mog»tk li+w of fu:0 aJ1T can boll NM Yad wwtfe•! raY »f e! :Harr/MOfrvfy eOrw/ or raid QDB9 c[r. trot( Me /R[/£ Poplf Qr JAa•,rv /(ptn M' 7<' f1' Wet/. will W eaffaVlY R^w ul sahf IAtS It< pd /4T 6tEQhMWG OM /ne wetLenY ry f-o!-,roy Lke of M'a'r S'resG o alb!aae or /JS 52 Mf, fo a 1Mncs crn MU.Yy' SsvM OB' N' fY Car, a b(mcr o/ lA9B hat wfM fM tMy /ne / aPC a.BB9 one 6a<! ord Hal aw•IW'r;pAt-o[-evy Alfa fo o f ' ' pant; ineoca SarfM eI'JSIB' e•tf, a farm !B.6! fat, to Mo aufaiaY Caner a pool h awu arlfMY r'9n1-el- ~ an mtlgnefc MS wl a[ v pep w a ,p•, yflon nvn; Ma JPL'f PQ'NT fi BEOCd/OVC' 1nMp SaffA BI' J3' IB- west a astax< er 10861 Mf. wan fM aarmaMY N,e N>cl OA69 ocn ba'f ApOrflD' r:lA ,e! m>fMy n'pnt-o/_ y sM p,0 w ,ealnMy r»r of rM 01!s oa. !'r~~rp,wlsa of F N v ro lAw Snanpnf IAMLI n%n Ma outrkfa alp N a wfndoh'm son foes lodeNq fvsnry /aw (7•) ~,~ w10 Wfancvr' fnfMy 'm~fal Lam"-~'IY CCn1aTY Dy oMd of ranrd n MStn+n,•f Atrnar iYYJXfTfrW7J5{rL fo o, oaf pn fN :+ w eoft,.+y fno Ol w rwnroYefr of w rpi,N IR ti ecn trxt <en.ryai h M Rope N f0.eafb+ o[ wYfn.vyru. !ttp 5arffh fry JSYB' NISL O Nn[ono w 7.1- M7 fo a ra'Mbf:M .all aP'n/, J7 I t s' emm r 1 ' a ' - Sm+ ' [n.nre Dy cord N rn-ofd n Of.d AW Ta6J, gfp.:J2 tiwfn OBsY r2 F 3I. o afYfmo. e J0. [ o o wxro a(. n wa ~ , fnucv Nw!n Ol" Ss' J7' Msr, o o9ffaan wr 11i.A !roL .+M me l+'.• SafM 6)'3518' Waf(O a'sfpw N I.QO ML M a Ncrr.Ufwr eaR cpnn. a. fu ap'd a08'9 and fM rPna'fc'sr a/ In. ayL+M ,Y. ID pro becfa !o o mopelk nap louuG' SouM ~!'l7' East o dh fonee w ?89a Mf to a Ass+MNia+ .at coma, MMCe Nafn Bf' J6' OY F t o aYfo-.<e o/ 10J LL !<. ritA (M /ms SpfM Bl'JS'<B' wut n dofm<s w 11 rK leaf fo a AswMnfMn .vR <amr, mmrm fo ao[d a689 vntl Uv r«+rpac'ar or lM aryyrN IB 11 pan bacfa fo on fron P» >H o.' foe npNwef<e'ry corns c/ nob O.J?? trio lrocF SouM 0.47!'1?' fdit u grlmd 017.98 Mf fo d / .daffan wrN cant, MMw SauM OB' 21' 1T- Ea(. o oh(mca o! IJS00 !aL wfM fM Imo SarM Bf S'IB' AEfG n dtr(MU oI 1259 MI fe a /omdolion wrY camsr: ca'rvnM In aonf Oeby and OJ?? ccra frrK!x [o m im pr ast' NorM OB7!'f2' •af!. a dhfines o/ 800 Afel fo O wra'afvn waD carts. 1Ae.rca Narfh 81' J6' Di Cal. a aLfw,w o/ IaI. R7 lost ven Mr /»a e QE69 arrd OJ72 xra rra:fa fo Ma 1RU£ PANT a BEGWAM.G SovM Bl'35YB' NaaL n aa/on<e w f?.Oa M! ru a Awndeliwn nap e0rfrv, [e»hq a3b3 afro. mero a foss. Demp pY wPWCY No 2lJ-LbJ8B0 a+d ipcN Ah 77J-00031a Awls fK'7t'1<" Mb3t a oDlw<a w TB M M1 to a rovnW/,» aa~' N'nr. a Bel Ades S'iwle n fM S!Oh N LMC fy N / ir. L•ty N .Aaot Awry n WpMo YN 1 tr'e/ ISl2 C,eq W N tot, hI pf.< t15 pC Aver :/ ;nf f<B o/ 1M lass or OWtn e/ rsratl n tsar 6.+W L R, r9! f/Z a 2nNye:' fe Oly N OW'n Ono DY dMf N total n nftmm~f hfYt~L' IS9BCfG9[Y/.S641 (eC lYlrr+ . reL~ fo tM recores eI !nr hkwvri ahe, /reYtn ianff P.vJ fr,»g mere Dpfkur0'IY dper•Md a lpkwr 6lf~MwfC er a ~efK oar rrr cr me fat n+.x;r~ amt or ,oru Gor fu, De:+p fM nfn,arf:m o Me wNrY~.;pnf-N- .y •••e err pndp Shoff (SR /Or, VS JJX6o Avd sarJ wren N•e wffenl rgnr-M-.ay :fv err rrv Sonar (SR 1a5X66 Mr »roaJ: fnM<a Sarln B/' e2' 33- arerf, 0 6ffpvv al r5p A ML ntn fM roulnrny /ha Ol JO.C Go. r!1 a+l rol frrMMy ryMl-:'- wo ^J`a to O 'M1 ,afn' na! Mf N w ,WMwoftMy .Y/rW N roC Lot Il, lasy Mr IrvcDw /rod np1My Nan(-p/- / the .ill Mr ep,(M/ riyrf-N- ~ In Oro JO !Irf mM mn' MM<a Nptn 08'?<' 12' Mr>l, o d(frace Of 15<.Lb ;eeL nM rM weal My fs»3 el so;l tots (a! tai O+l !b MO tM Ml: y.Y' • o/ ,otT JO /rot wde akey. fo on v p<. ref of fM asumwffrl// N tns fncf cm. JeC b Ilsmw L, fIV ey dead a' nepn n IWl Bed J.56R Pep eGE /na+n h'pM BI' fT' 3.5' Eat. n at/o+ce s! ea G9 ML w:f[. Ms /hs omYnm f0 fM rem<v,der w turd lo( 1i6 and and Nfi NnCt, f0 m rm pM rot' lA«xe NprM Cd Ss' t7- hest o oY'ttarnre cl Sa00 nMt .nn Ma (ma can+na+ fC Mn ramO:nM w anN la! lab and add IBV 60:1. fo O magnatK nap sN M MO ewMMY l'+• N u Ib:t Mr wide a+en 1rr,L'. xam e!' rz' Sr' ea>t o earn.:. err ee.v h.r. Nrn fn. naM.dy nry. nl So;o tot 1e0 a+d w >wfrnwy c a nr xT emn M o mop~elk Hop aer n sPN rrotMy Npnr-et-my p+a 1Awec< :efrfn ~ N' 11'fat. o tlfv+aa vI20100 Mf. e:M rho eaf[py fMa a/ foes' iota IIQ lay O`er !It all Pao wafMY r;gnf-a!-wY G!'a f0 M. PONT ry 3CGy:NMNG m:a."<p a68] aaa .. « ab Da»9 a! of Parch 1/0 1]J-GG<Yg2 NrN Ho JYJ-CCipSI, pY.ar hc. ?7J-LOGOSO and PpaY NO 21J-~0pt11<d. .SMSaW1 B Y.smr 6Lm R(4 Cmmifmmf M. ?d'O7CO1s aswd 0y Sfe+pf LM ApM<Y of Caumous .:A M wMCpnr doh w.tw )I, 2007 of ): 00 A.M /<sn 9 Rgnf of •ey EaYnMt [o w 4Ma9s c/ GWvh, lrarb'h Cowry On;o w rsDpd n Girl BnN ?GfS. Pogo 78 is NaT fpLyrfx.' m fAe suDlfcf trot! err Hem nnMn Item !0 J' FrafrK EasanMt ro LgxbreAU+ and s«.fnem 0.hq Oecfrk Cbsfypry N Cad M Good BPOY 16Da Pagt ]00 ? NaT rOm!q m <M arulYct froCf a anOm nraa+ Nsm II 15" tanl(ay tower COa«n«m/ Ie w vMOge of BuD.Fr, !A1%a o/ .anal M ffeM BCVk J31L Pap J is NOT lacaled err w fupPCf fmcf a nMrw, /torn fT fs' amts r se.r c f to mf w.'eyw N even. cnk el rarwd a Oseo Bask JSlO. pogo 9l1 Y MO! Mental m lee PfOPCI L'otf a W nrwm Rsm ]J !s' SanRay Satyr Eafrmrnr ro /ne nm'm o/ tlve/h ahro of racoro m awne-e' Raard 781 lICB fa NOT bcs!aaf m rho suD/DCt !roc(w elra+n Arm. Ilan !I mgw» one Eprou Earnwrf o/ -pd :n 0.7ck.J Rscml BB06 f0l a Naf [w'nIM err Me sWrKf NoCf of d+m. Mlam. Ilan !S Sfrm Srnwr FosemYrf fo fM P'fy N JMNir or tonal aw MsfrumMf n'umDr ?t\0105r70N1Y56 a Ip (M m the avbscl Isar nr .ehom Aw'em a(nedN1 B /fans nom RM Comm/Nnsnf /% . T8Ga7IM`? iawetl DY tfawpl 11tH AgMCy of LobmD4Y nYn nn el/ rrn dale ar A.vu I<, 2001 0l TW A.Y. Ifam l B» su0,scf lrnc'f h /xotsd » I.ne all derpded Y Me YaT.wMrlwn w f M» a/ rrpd 4. Ort<'.cM Racae ITfL^'Y Cfl. of ea:n>d m Ara(9Mnent / f aaa (e r ~ £esgY r:efmarro+ N ,wa.-rl n 0//s+'a( RacpO 17961 Ald mtl MIM .yW fl4wr^e+t or AtypmM/ or,<' ASevrtDlfm o/ stool n ON•'r+ul Xsrae : %6M !Ol /ran B SvD at tract is .v-<er~ M Mn all laaeYfle! h [ I A~asfn•rf w » MfIrWnM! NpnDd 7a9J017f0052J1I; seM.'nMt p-mfao Morin d foam nrsa+ ScAfpJr N /tams hcm TAre C ,NYnf Ab 16CM.7005J iraued bl' Sfawal RM LYaprfY C timY wr(A M sMefM obls of Jura 11 2L1n7 oI J: LV A.M. /lam 9 10' IIbfr .ere foslmrt fo Ms C/ly al A,M4r o/ ncpd n fnaNrmanf Mr.nber IOOJ12f0039T41J h larolad w w suD:W.t low ere shots waon (IfSCMPIIAV Of R£LYYpa (0.117 AGaE) Brhg pp: o' Sow/ Na TSl2 YFYnia MA'I / tally pro D«ny a pat u/ Ms amt Nort err fB is aaa. m or ,'and (Co<nrr AvM'ew'x PpeN Na 1 n /ne nAh9s o.' Gau'nur cpnyad fo AfX,onr P /ape DY LucN> 0. Toyer end ffraf C. T !w' n, u ,1sW iut.,d Yu J~ 10, 195), rxadsi i^ Grad Bank XTJ, Pops 61Q Rarn~la-'.• or a Ffonas, aanrr. t».ra. ArM r..i:9 e lX/rf a/ o nape recent cm MlOnca OY ~'~ P aypv af0 XOtNf, a fw~ m sand er Em'num. IWandgLm («a• sMOL! aflrKC lrardM eevnrn UYia o fined aulwn fkfeees rl, r9D], rxordY. reff+f Boa, YJC), PaW IJ1, XacPMr'r Gln<a Fra"Wn Qur+fn !:nA ml DMny maw Pa'!r<uraRY deamRad a ruawr f9egnrn:+q /p u !•o»r or .nrafn<. err c roD.na n„a Cord fy Mtn fM/ w w nfa'aeDfron ! Gv xlr.My !»e N + lD 50 / (ply ( niy amt afM .eat r» fM nP-fn t;i, o[ ad sN,ay to ~ nna u...rrrly r ..r e m kae pr.~ (rw.nty nosh afM >m fA en fM tsar aYt of <;.f stood M!L' rwrae Bent rna 0ti "+ Poor el dfrMas Swfn 7 esp <6' sa-Cwr ewes me wniMy Yf. N feu N ~of mnr lp a dhfa.a. err zz, Mr rv o, Xm pm S.r err w hve PAfp err eayrniq N %nis Jw.fc/YIM+: remrw csnt»uhg auy fno weft I»s or rml iV /oof oNvy SovM 1 dsF IB' <0- off c M'slmra o/ [SS MI ro aan Ph (oat»y fw pm an !nv at 185 /pf fJ, 10 fM rortrteofl cans N Bard o/ Mfan»9fm rTamtnG IrVYfror O!%N o<ro Jecl: MMw S M B7 awg. IJ' 70' rlbf/ a Gsfo.rca N l01 Mf fo a km pm n fM Hato lr.. e/ ford Glre era. rrx~ Inenro .Ydtn B? <bq IJ' 29' Ecsf n aHpar o/ 1.N / t fo fM (rva Plxs w Beynnny c/ fort dacrgrrcn LGWfASMN'L' 0.111 Anti; mmr d hf3 SLN:£YA4 `> CYTr AFlCAR' 1NS u+ldv}ead crfiCy fD IM SlaMna„p Canpmf pat fo Oanp»o--Crwr:,adr .n.wtrmnrr f1c and fo B y. pre l6pn Ln+ras ee ro rA. NwrMgfv. A'olcru' BpY, a+.Y •h sC<as>,vf a"tl aegeN aed fo 1h.prl Tr'fM Lua'a^tl La^pp'1 a wYddr iY fv.A that fM Nfa Aq 3/,wY 'rr• aefuYj well [M 4 < mN..f a-i Me »AVmariaf. nano, ofd Jhfonee, foes, t ~fw pw xwv fMt fM I.na ..,a wC rnn e/ xfup poaawen pr w foot IM Dmprly darY(olKn 'aofev' DY mplrrrw-irq roYUrot 3 p+d aro wed fill co'rrv erred .(s as<ao.a Ih.• arwe.r caracpr Nrvwe M ft4c ttnfW tM lAae a/ a D!rfAe9N SarM ?1:14'18' NbsL v Qb1MU al 81J bCI to a kundvpon wall CerMr. Nano C87<11- Mort d dbloffea er JOJ7 MI !o o /pyndoliN vpY aome^ Sall Br:T3'IB- MNf, a oWhnu el 2!l MI M ^. Ar»dnD'o.r .all er»rar, Nall OB7<'I?' Mat, a maronel ol.tp YS /ro! re o rwndoAOn wan Danes. Nall BI J.6'M- EofL o dh7Mro of 41Y Mf fo o taunW:ion wW DNr. Nafn OITIl7T' ptt a db(mce o/ T7.J/ tact tc a /ovndofia+ ra4 <omn: NQroh BI:fS IA' f L o Catpxs of 10 l,t Mt to o I ntdv!im wan Camr. /la(n 0871'11' M•eC a atlort<r of I.Oa Mr to n A>unMfkn woD' cant, NLwM BL ~,h's8' Eal. n atfvn aI rBDD M[ In D Mandofim vac aAmsr, Na'fA GD7<Y7- Msaf, a p'frm% o/ e;19 Mf b a ~ dolipn wvp <onwr NOIM Ar•~•i Itl' foa(a olreaxe w7J 30 /ssf h o krhMNkn .~' eo.mr So<'tn L0'la %Y" f nt[, a pY(mce aI Jl.J7 hvf to a kYndaoon wM' cwnn:' ,wnfA m:u1e^ raft. o w>!anaa of zr~ Mr ro a rp, we,» wan Dan«. Swfn Af?<Y2' fat. a d!s(MCe of la 1fJ M(h [M 7M PYril7 a^ raa3aY.G eY»rerrrq p 131 rfa-a rmve p ref om0 DsY~p Gals ever euf of Pp<W Na 7yJ-LU0?it 0.C09 Ltrs all N PmcY Ib, ?7J-0.Z%V'I eH a067 wn Oaf cl PaeY M. 71.1-flx)la8 Me ;nfw+l rwsM h fo loofa o DowMdy Yre (nd N<Mwe w vulfkF .SYCe of a ~Nm sap and v»r IM nuticb Monobflan Darns a w M)r'Ka wnMrf i .DDn oa+er, Mn /unauar rteNi reps f> M. offal rornum or w Dwr.+hry rmvc l ~ ~ PnR,r,A'c Nwt: d'<v 1 °" ury or na!» (L<r. 1 -'.e,(' J~ RrTia D-yi:y -Srer.r JS Yore slrr.+y SDxra i y t ~' G~ RpfAp (I4annq :pcem~ ' ~ ~ I J! rota Pa.nvp tbors N OpDY Campo+f lyd~ B R•Np Das:ey apart" e TO:p Ppanq $cm BO'On 0.096 Aps (tract IJ .SiLrntn m fen SMIs o/ drq. Coan!y or fraNGh, City of (A/DID1, lYf'r9 N WpYb Mii[cry .SfM,C/ T3r2 he++y Prur nr ; of rH e/ Nra T m o/ fyfbfr„ w rs:nn' h lJwnl a<Kw r, Pqa 1 y.', r/7, cr cm rsYSd [a Grty N A,tlrm, an.b OY dead er rxpd h rnfMwnMf Ilwrbr 19ySL109[K[tibsa (aD .e/ +pfa n/r fo Ine rarp+da el (ne .r...tr'e OK a ire+xrAr C'nvn ~: Cv;.. ~, rod Dcvnu'rJ m ak ores DY !nn eu/s.Ns T .,a:frue Nb of a AuIa4!p, D>.nq mar Optkub-ry dOar~9ert as /LNC'.a, Bw9d^nn9• t nrarrTa. err a mOOyr>Gt ncW »t foe >af!Ma[ewy «vnp o/ soil Lol !M. Dshp [M AfraeL'[ra+ ) fre fra'Mefy r!p^f-,n.'- Y /ha n/ N'.Vp 5'(raf (SR. !e't, p.S JJX60 Mt ro i w:fA Me roslndy rn,Mf~~w-roY /"fs oI N.'at tlraet (SR, 713X68 Ieaf wbinl' 1lrente Sotto 81' lT' SB' •baL rifh (M SprMany /,ra cl mrd (Of I!1 a'M nP'YhsNY rpnl-et-xpY rd;e of fN /n tbxf, o dSIM<s of S7 J7 ML fo a Dont,- /Anres NONA OC f7 G4" M4fI, a dbtmrce a/ I,'.IJ / L fa fM arfmlr camx o/ o /ev dal%m saC tAe rr~ClE PCwfT 6 r#CBMrn1K; IAeme+ wilA Mr affil edp w o /afndol;a• wMr fM leaownq fsmfy Tarr (z!J <arraa, and mtrmaaa SouM Br 1139 •beG O OFlonro o/ 1Q I? hat fo a lvundarim woB caner, NpM 4477"C' rnsL a dbrma o/ x(A7 Mf fo c / folio. .a[ cpr.~ SafM el sz39- Waef. o pYtarro al Ol'3 Mf loo / dofka .a! cans; Sartn OBYYOf' East. o o,'rrab or T.9B Mf ro v laumdorKn sat toms. SouM tlIY7:S9' Abft, o Mnfones w 1.7J laf to a kundotiar mW calla Awln 087Yp1' MbfL a Orrla+cv e/ 2% Mr to o faAWOfia+ ran' ca?~ sofa BrIT's9' wear. o avfwc. o/ I7 ~ rat! m a i defw, war calla Soule 0877'01" F.»l, o defence o/ 0.50 / f b c /orrnWD'vn soe camsr Fwfn 811?39' MaG a dhrmca or J000 Ifs! fe o k0+dotgn wit cans. SwrM OBIPOI' Fat. a aara`ro w I.CO !rot fo o /cudaLttn wok' tans, SpfM 81YT J9- MML o cp>fmp 011700 seat fa o / da(.w waV cans. NxM ~'IIOr' •isfL o fivfmn 011700 Mf to o !anrdorv» wall coma- Npth 811119' Earl o eafpws oI 0.611 I fa e h .Mlrm wd/ cmno- Norte tJ1 f7'Of' M(ur. a Ms[anro w fB.L! /p! h a /ovd fM wan' mn>. AbrM e1Y139' t'ar, n OIafM4 0/ 16.1? Mf fo o IG padefrm raB Dprttm; SafM 08Y7'Ol' E'aL n dwlarfn of 1(K /atr M o kYlndot/'m wa/ Darr, Np!n 811239- E C o dsroxs at JaW MI ra c / derkn weY camas, Sw!n fA1: 01' EcsL o O fMr. err ass I»f ro O /srmaNw .aY toms: Npln 8112'59-foot, o Swlmcv oI l1, Z9 AW f0 v / ronar wos' cans. NaYn C87TC!' Weft. a l/ftam n! 06] M/ fe o kuapff%m war eemr. NdLh Bl1239' EaL o arxraxs w IQ73 law ro a /acnlal:m nW eormP^ Scull 0!nTOf- fat a aUfprw o/ rI. SB /af fo a IoMdot:an r<D cans, North Bf'1239- EoaL o tlpta+ca o! II. JJ Mf fo o femrdof:m wM cant; Swfn OBYIb!' Eo.t a d:vfoncr o/ 32!6 Mf ee !ns MX[£ PCp.'1 O^ ~GnarAVG Mp ao9B Des. ma r.aa axes M.,g aoT9 <.cnf wr w Pesos NP I7J-o0YXi1 and O.LKI ace rxr/ el Pon:M tie 2lJ-LWfaB Mw Yrrr! nrah n f0 rm!e a Dor^'+M'1 /ne that rafrem w evlNda % nI a /osvraafbn sal all u3ss Me wfr:M Ipnrbl;m Darnel s M. MYaX'p fMh /a near cPmn; !M kvrndfffpe ,fvN repnfmla Me oe!ua lo<efkn at fM Dfundory /mm MraaM1 trot a> norrarwrr vtrty a,rwra naaate'y W M• Pewrrpr N Me +cn: ,b:r'.fu~t r,anuY r n li o•. ,.., starts fro p ~r a. fM xrorly a .:%nn wfKwfr Puer< ryf-'!-"arro _w,K.'n:. r~~.•«.,.r-:. . s<i.,.- ~.n Aa.v, r.cpd.d r rrgr Lnr. p x:rosr ro ne!a p>t- fMr era ^-.'.. rp+dmmr, e. oY~• ~Lrwncfes mar. rfrola err my or ,p;. Duldnpc _ _ y~ Ihvcfur» p Char 1, a rn.-nurMnMffa N'or' /ne aaaa'fY DY My _ Dutr,9 •, p oMr a-~ors.snr r.Yruta cPm p`Y edlDi`r:p ru«+waes one Mo! fM p'att"fy all Mf 4 w.'An o+y Rab• naps vreo sncwn m py aS w ,'LE1.75KY Canwhnmr of NOVanq ofd Ln:.Y. d..aamnr /f H MfrAO•<e P b]' YM .v uacY MtF L1CYlM'MM ye:ea' Haul narda ow fqr paagYw' nY M, !oath Crr'wYw+rY Y.naprnmf ftf a<rtl Rnasffrrfrmm~v Agency FILE CG%Y 4~~u Proximity Report Results Proximity Report Results The selection distanre was 500 feet. The selected parcel was 273-000002. To view a table showing the 64.parcgls within the displayed proximity, scroll down. Get Report t~ Print Window ~ Back. to Proximity_Report Address Disclaimer this map is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It is compiled from recorded deeds, survey plats, and other public records and data. Users of this map are notified that the public primary Information source should be consulted far verification of the informatior: contained on this map. The county and the mapping companies assume no loyal responsibilities for the information contained on this map. Please noGFy the Franklin County GIS Oivislon of any discrepancies. Proximity Parcels Hint: To copy this report to another program: 1. Hold dawn the left mouse buttton over the top-left comer of the area you want to get. 2. Drag the mou se to the bottom-left corner of the desired area. 3. Let go of the mouse button, 4. Select Edit dopy from the menu bar. You can then Paste the report into another application. Parcel Owner Name 273-000016 25 NORTH CO LTD 273-000071 ZS NORTH CO LTD 273-000003 25 NORTH COMPANY LTD 273-000088 37 WEST BRIDGE STREET LLC 273-000028 72 HIGH COMPANY LTD 273-000044 ALLESPACH SIEGBERT A TR ALLESPACH R 273-000093 ALLESPACH SIEGBERT A TR ALLESPACH R 273-000073 B E T INVESTMENTS I LLC 273-000042 B E T INVESTMENTS I LLC 273-000107 B E T INVESTMENTS I LLC 273-000068 B E T INVESTMENTS I LLC 273-000024 BASSETT THOMAS L ET AL 273-000012 BASSETT THOMAS L LYDEN VICKI E 273-000029 BLARNEY BROTHERS LTD 273-000099 BUSH JOHN BUSH MICHELLE K http://209.51.193.87/scripts/mw5rcr.pl F!! E CCPV Page 1 of 3 ~~C~~~~~ r, ,~:;,)i)U Q~~ ~ t:l(Y~~ UuGLi `' l~~ LAND ±15~ -.~, dNG RANi.;I= rr1;tiQI~JfiVU 4/18/2008 Map Search Real Estate Search Auditor f tome Image Oate: Fri Apr 18 1221:16 7..008 Proximity Report Results 273-000109 CASSADY BETTY J 273-000079 CASTRAY TIMOTHY E 273-000062 CITY OF DUBLIN 273-000037 CITY OF DUBLIN 273-009979 CITY OF DUBLIN 273-000111 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 273-000148 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 273-000002 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 273-000064 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 273-000065 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 273-012200 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 273-003680 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 273-000018 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 273-000310 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 273-000098 COFFMAN COMPANY LTD 273-000032 COFFMAN COMPANY LTD 273-004507 COLUMBUS METRO LIBRARY SD OF TRS `273-000010 COLUMBUS METRO LIBRARY BD OF TRS 273-000025 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 273-000113 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF DUBLIN 273-000096 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF DUBLIN 273-000077 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF DUBLIN OHI 273-000096 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF DUBLIN 273-000089 CULLEN THOMAS 273-00000$ CULLEN THOMAS 273-000001 DUBLIN CITY SCHOOL DIST BOARD OF ED 273-000022 DUBLIN MARATHON SERVICE CO 273-000072 G&S PROPERTIES & SANFORD J SOLOMON 273-012158 GRABILL & CO LLC 273-000023 GUTHRIE TRACEY J 273-000102 GUY INVESTMENT CO LTD 273-000040 GUY INVESTMENT CO LTD 273-000121 HAYDOCY KATHRYN H 273-000112 HILL THELMA L 273-000054 HILL THELMA L 273-000053 JC LAND COMPANY LTD 273-000051 JENKINS DUBLIN LLC 273-000080 JONES BRION D LANNAN KATHLEEN M 273-000047 JONES HERBERT W & LEONA M 273-000100 LAPIERRE JAMES M DDS INC 273-000138 MALOOF MICHAEL F &VANESSA G 273-000177 MALOOF MICHAEL F &VANESSA G 273-000069 MCCORMICK CHERYL L 273-000056 PRICE JACK A 273-000087 RAY MICHAEL LTD 273-000084 SHANGHi ENTERPRISES LLC 273-000036 SHANGHI ENTERPRISES LLC 273-000050 SONKSEN PROPERTIES LLC 273-003411 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN http://209.51.193.87/scripts/mw5rer.pl Page 2 of 3 4/18/2008 JOSEPIi W . TESTA FRANK7~IN COUNTY AUDITOR sbbruck DATE SEP 25, 2007 273-000001 Owner: DUBLIN CITY SCHOOL DIST BOARD OF EDUCATION Address: 80 W BRIDGE ST Mail To: DUBLIN CITY SCHOOL DIST BOARD OF EDUCATION 7030 COFFMAN RD DUBLIN OH 43 DUBLIN OH 43 273-000002 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO Address: N HIGH ST Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017-1066 273-000003 * Owner: 25 NORTH COMPANY LTD Address: 56 N HIGH ST Mail To: 25 NORTH COMPANY LTD 20 NORTH ST DUBLIN OH 43017 273-000008 * Owner: CULLEN THOMAS Address: 30 S HIGH ST Mail To: CULLEN THOMAS 3065 BROOKDOWN DR COLUMBUS OH 43235 273-000010 * Owner: COLUMBUS METRO LIBRARY BD OF TRS Address : 75 N HIGIi ST Mail To: COLUMBUS METRO LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES 96 S GRANT AVE COLUMBUS OH 432.15-4781 273-000012 * Owner: BASSETT THOMAS L LYDEN VICKI E Address: 35 -39 S HIGH ST Mail To: THOMAS BASSETT VICKI LYDEN 148 E NORTF3 ST WORTHINGTON OH 43085 273-000016 * Owner: 25 Address: 24 Mail To: 25 ?.0 DU VAN53 NORTH CO LTD N HIGH ST NORTH CO LTD NORTH ST 3LIN UH 43017 11L~ MMPC07 Pa e 1 ~oI V 9 ~~~~ ~' (A P~ 2 2 2008 x:17 5" U V~u~Li~ ~ F~ LAND ~)cF ~ 4 =LNG R~S~t;j: "~:~~9~~jV(iV~„~ JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AI7D I TOR sbbruck DATE SEP 25, 7.007 273-000018 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN OHZO Address: 37 DARBY ST Maa.l To: CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 5200 EMERALD PARKWAY DUBLIN OH 43017 273-000022 * Owner: DUBLIN MARATHON SERVICE CO Address: 1 -19 W BRIDGE ST Mail To: GRABILL & CO LLC 109 S HIGH ST : DUBLIN OH 4301'7 273-000023 * Owner: GUTHRIE TRACEY J Address: 32 W BRIDGE ST Mail To: TRACEY GUTHRIE 3300 SCIOTANGY DR COLUMBUS OH 43221 273-000024 * Owner: BASSETT THOMAS L ET AL Address: 41 W BRIDGE ST Mail To: THOMAS L BASSETT 148 E NORTH ST WORTHINGTON OH 43085 273-000028 * Owner: 72 HIGH COMPANY LTD Address: 72 N HIGH ST Mail To: 72 HIGH COMPANY LTD 20 NORTH ST DUBLIN OH 43017 273-000029 * Owner: BLARNEY BROTHERS LTD Address: 53 N HIGH ST Mail To: BLARNEY BROTHERS LTD 53 N HIGH ST DUBLIN OH 43017 273-000032 Owner: COFFMAN COMPANY LTD Address: 27 N RIVERVIEW ST Mai 7. To : THE COFFMAI~I COMPANY LTD : 20 NORTH ST : DUBLIN OH 4.3017 ,i,VAN53 MMPC07 Page 2 ~, ~a * 'Y' ~ ~ , JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR sbbruck DATE SEP 25, 2007 273-000036 * Owner: WILAND ELAINE M Address: 38 W BRIDGE ST Mail To: WILAND ELAINE M 38 W BRIDGE ST DUBLIN OH 43017 273-000037 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN Address: 25 S HIGH ST Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017-1066 273-000040 * Owner: GUY INVESTMENT CO LTD Address: 14 -18 S HIGH ST Mail To: GUY INVESTMENT CO LTD 20 NORTH ST DUBLIN OH 43017 273-000042 Owner: B E T INVESTMENTS I LLC Address: 37 N RIVERVIEW ST Mail To: B E T INVESTMENTS I LI,C 94 N HIGH ST STE 10 DUBLIN OH 43 017 273-000047 Owner: JONES HERBERT W & LEONA M Address: 19 S RIVERVIEW ST Mail To: CHASE HOME FINANCE I,LC : FIRST AMERICAN RE TAX SRV 1721 MOON LAKE BLVD #400 HOFF'MAN ESTATES IL 6 273-000050 * Owner: SONKSEN PROPERTIES LLC Address: 45 N HIGH ST Mail To: SONKSEN PROPERTIES LLC 5679 HADDINGTON DR DUBLIN OH 43017 273-000051 * Owner: JENKINS DUBLIN LLC Address: 6 - 12S HIGH ST Mail To: JENKINS DUBLIN LLC 26566 LAKE RD BAY VILLAGE OH 44140 VAN53 MMPC07 Page 3 JOSEPH W. TriSTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR sbbruck DATE SEP 25, 2007 273-000053 * Owner: JC LAND COMPANY LTD Address: 22 N HIGH ST Mail To: JC LAND COMPANY LTD 16 N HIGH ST DUBLIN OH 43017 273-000054 * Owner: HILL THELMA L Address : 35 N HIGF-I ST Mai 1 To : CRAIG BP~RNUM 94 N HIGH ST STE 10 DUBLIN OH 43017 273-000056 * Owner: PRICE JACK A Address: 24 S HIGH ST Mail To: PRICE JACK A ET AL 2 7294 STEITZ RD POWFT,T, OH 43065 ?.73-000062 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN Address: 27 -29 S HIGH ST Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017-1066 273-000064 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO Address: E BRIDGE ST Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017-1066 273-000065 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO Address: N HIGH ST Mail To: DUBI,I:N CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OFi 43017-1066 273-000068 Owner: B E T INVESTMENTS I LLC Address: 40 W BRIDGE. ST Mail To: B E T INVESTMENTS I LLC 94 N HIGH ST DUBLIN OH 43017 VAN53 MMPC07 Page 4 JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR sbbruck DATE SEP 25, 2007 273-000069 * Owner: MCCORMICK CHERYL L Address: 8 -12 E BRIDGE ST Mai]. To: MCCORMICK CHERYL L 208 ASPENKNOLL DR POWELL OH 43065 273-000071 * Owner.: 25 NORTH CO LTD Address: 28 -26 N HIGH ST Mail To: 25 NORTH CO LTD 20 NORTH ST DUBLIN OH 43017 273-000073 Owner: B E T INVESTMENTS I LLC Address: 45 N RIVERVIEW ST Mail To: B E T INVESTMENTS I LLC 94 N HIGH ST STE 10 DUBLIN OH 43017 273-000084 * Owner: SHANGHI ENTERPRISES LLC Address: 50 W BRIDGE ST Mail To: SHANGHI ENTERPRISES LLC : 7765 WAVETREE CT COLUMBUS OH 43235 273-000088 * Owner: 37 WEST BRIDGE STREET LLC Address: 3"7 W BRIDGE ST Mail To: 3'7 WEST BRIDGE STREET LLC 37 W BRIDGE ST DUBLIN OH 43017 273-000089 * Owner: CULLEN THOMAS Address: 32 S HIGH ST Mail To: CULLEN THOMAS 3065 BROOKDOWN DR COLUMBUS OH 43235 2'13-000098 Owner: COFFMAN COMPANY LTD Address: 53 N RIVERVIEW ST Mail To: THE COFFMAN COMPANY LTD : ?_0 NORTH ST DUBLIN OH 43017 VAN53_MMPC07 Page 5 JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOK sbbruck DATE SF~P 25, 2007 273-000099 * Owner: BUSH JOHN BUSH MICHELLE K Address: 36 -38 N HIGH ST Mail To: NATIONAL CITY 5303 I,,RIN ISLES CT : DUBT~IN OH 43017 273-000100 * Owner: LAPIERRE JAMES M DDS INC Address: 40 N HIGH ST Mail To: LAPIERRE JAMES M DDS INC 40 N HIGH ST DUBLIN OH 43017 ?.73-000102 * Owner: GUY INVESTMENT CO LTD Address: 22 S HIGH ST Mail To: GUY INVESTMENT CO LTD 20 NORTH ST DUBLIN OH 43017 273-000107 Owner: B E T INVESTMENTS I LLC Address: 1'1 N RIVERVIEW ST Mail lo: HOUSELAND BANK 94 N HIGH ST STE 10 : DUBLIN OH 43017 273-000111 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO Address: 34 - 36 FRANKLIN ST Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017-1066 273--000112 * Owner: HII.~L `1'HELMA L Address: `L4 DARBY ST Mai_7. `I'o : `I'HELMA HILL C / O 2.5 NORTH CO : 20 NORTH STREET : DtJ13LIN OH 43017 ?.73-000138 * Owner: MALOOF MICF-iAEL F & VANESSA G Address: 16 -18 E BRIDGE ST Mail To: MALOOF FRED 2.362 N HIGH ST COLUMBUS OH 43202-2.922 VAN53 MMPC07 Page 6 JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR sbbruck DATE SEP 25, 2007 273-000148 * Owner: Address: Mail To: CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 20 W BRIDGE ST DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017-1066 273-000177 * Owner: MALOOF MICHAEL F & VANESSA G Address: 16 E BRIDGE ST Mail To: MALOOF FRED 2362 N HIGH ST COLUMBUS OH 43202-2922 273-000310 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO Address: DARBY ST Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 ~;MERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017-1066 273-003411 * Owner: VILLAGE OF DUBLIN Address: 19 S RTVERVIEW ST Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017-1066 273-003680 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO Address: 35 DARBY ST Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017-1066 273-004081 * Owner: 72 HIGH COMPANY LTD Address: 20 NORTH ST Mail `Po: 72 HIGH COMPANY LTD 2 0 NORTH S`I' DUBLIN OH 4301"7 273-004507 * Owner: COLUMBUS METRO LIBRARY BD OF TRS Address: 75 N HIGH ST Mail To: COLUMBUS METRO LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES 96 S GRANT AVE COLUMBUS OH 43?_15-4781 VAN53 MMPC07 Page 7 JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR sbbruck DATE SEP 2.5, 2007 273-009979 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN Address: 1 W BRIDGE ST Mail. Ta: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN UH 43017-1066 273-012158 Owner: GRABILL & CO LLC Address: 55 W BRIDGE ST Mail To: * 273-012200 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO Address: N HIGH ST -Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY : DUE3LIN OH 43017-106F VAN53 MMPC07 Page 8 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT (REVISIONS NOTED 1N RED} NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST BRIDGE AND NORTH HIGH STREETS DEVELOPMENT TEXT Approved: ;.... DEVELOPMENT TEAM The City of Dublin Bird-Houk Collaborative 580o Shier-Rings Road 60o Creekside Plaza Dublin, Ohio 43oi6 Gahanna, Ohio 43230 614.410.4600 614.418.0600 wwiv.dublin.oh.tcs www.bird-houk.com Stonehenge Land Company EMH&T, Inc. 147 North High Street 5500 New Albany Road Gahanna, Ohio 43230 New Albany, Ohio 43054 614.509.9000 614.775.4500 wwwstonehenye-company.corn www.emht.com 08-034ZlFDP Rezoni~ig/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................... x General Development Standards ..................................................................................................... x Special Parking Provision ................................................................................................................ x Maintenance Agreement ..................................................................................................................1 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 (.25x acre) ...................... .................................. 4 I. Permitted Uses .............................................................................. .................................. 4 71. lk+nsit~ : ..............._..._................................................................... ...................................;; III. Basernent lise ............................................................................. ................................... IV. Setbacks ....................................................................................... .................................. 6 V. Building Lighting ...................................... .................................................................. .... 6 VI. Circulation and Access ............................ .................................................................. .... 6 VII. Waste and Refuse .................................. .................................................................. .... 6 VIII. Architecture .......................................... .................................................................. .... 6 IX. Signs and Graphics ................................. .................................................................. .....~ APPENDIX Exhibit A: Subarea Plan Exhibit B: Site/Staking Plan Exhibit C: Architectural Elevations Exhibit D: Patio Plan Exhibit D: Sign and Graphics Plan 08-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street NOR'T'HWEST 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 .251-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 he sensitive to the presence of this building. The Development is intended as a vertically integrated, mixed-use project tidthin 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. Sgecial Parlcin_g 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 39 Darby Street, but the foregoing shall not be construed to restrict such parking within the municipal parking lot for dze 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 he governed by a maintenance agreement negotiated and entered into by the Developer (as defined by the Development Agreement) and the City of Dublin. 08-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street SUBAREAA-PublicAreas (.a46 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 will 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. t) Vendors Mobile vendors shall be permitted to operate within 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 High Street to public traffic in order to create a service court for deliveries and refuse removal. 08-034'L/FDP Rezoning/P'inal Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street 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. b) 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. 1'he 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 fire 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. Iti 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. OS-0342/FDP s Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street 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. Landscapine The Developer shall install landscaping in Subarea A as well as street trees within the right-of- way in compliance with 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 within the Buildings are to remain closed when not in use. No exterior dumpsters are permitted in any part of Subarea A. VI. Storage and Equipment No placement or storage of materials, supplies, equipment, or products shall be permitted in any part of Subarea A. VII. Site Li tin Subarea A lighting shall utilize decorative fixtures with a maximum pole height of twelve feet (r2'). The site will be appropriately lighted to ensure safe access and circulation. Lighting shall comply with the Final Development Ylan. SUBAREA B-Buildings and Building Footprints (.2~i acre) Subarea B consists of two z-story buildings, one oriented parallel to West Bridge Street, and one oriented parallel to North High Street. Eaclz 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 §rg3.o36, Historic Business District, excepting those listed under Institutional, Child Care, Bed and Breakfast Establishmezzts, and Dwellings. b) Specialty /neighborhood /miscellaneous food stores /retail food stores. 08-0342/FDP Rezoning/Fina] Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street II. Density Subarea B shall contain two buildings with a maximum first and second floor combined size of twenty-two thousand (22,000) square feet and a maximum combined building footprint area of eleven thousand (ii,ooo) square feet. Ther<~ ~l~all he an additional ten '~lunx~ancl f~~ur hundred anal si~ciceu (.to,4~t.~) s~~~..i~lre feet of basement space co~uhined ~~~~ithin the twu iniildings. III. Basements Basements are permitted ~~ithin Subarea B of this de~Jelopment as outlined below. Any modifications to the approved site plan or building exteriors related to the creation or use of basement space will require ARB and PZC approval. a) Permitted Use i. Building "A" Basement (West Bridge Street): 3,go5 square feet of total basement space ^ a,4o6 square feet maximum may be used for storage, location of coolers, and building support functions such as maintenance and janitorial services. Use of this space for purposes of assembly, including dining areas, food preparation, office space, etc, is prohibited. ^ i,~oo square feet of space dedicated to building mechanicals, stairwells, elevator shaft and mechanicals, and water feature mechanicals and equipment. ii. Building "B" Basement (North High Street): 6,5io squaz•e feet of total basement space • 4,oio square feet maximum may be used for storage, location of coolers, and building support functions such as maintenance and janitorial services. Use of this space for purposes of assembly, including dining areas, food preparation, office space, etc, is prohibited. • 2,50o square feet of space dedicated to building mechanicals, stairwells, elevator shaft and mechanicals, and water feature mechanicals and equipment. iii. The actual location of these uses within the basements shall be determined at time of building permit and tenant fit-up submittal. h} Access i. Access to the basement space shall be limited to The Stonehenge Company or designee, Washington Township Fire Department, and City of Dublin Building Standards and Parks & Open Space Officials. The Cit3T of Dublin building official or the building official's designee shall be granted the permanent right of entry to the structure for any purpose which shall include, but not be limited to, compliance ti~ith the restrictions on the use of the basement space identified above. ii. Portions of the basement space dedicated to water feature mechanicals shall be fully partitioned from the remaining space, with access limited to City of Dublin 13uildin~; and Pads ~ Open Space Officials t•ia a dedicated exterior door. 08-034Z/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan 5 Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street IV. Setbacks No property or rights-of-way line setbacks are required for the $uildings. Stair handrails may encroach a maximum of twenty-four inches (z4") into the public right-of-way (sidewalk). V. Building Lighting Lighting attached to the Buildings shall utilize decorative light fixtures appropriately sited according to the Historic Dublin Guidelines. Lighting shall comply with the Final Development Plan. Site lighting shall be as required in Subarea A. VI. 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 will 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"). VII. Waste and Refuse All waste and refuse shall he contained at all times within the Buildings. No exterior dumpsters are permitted in any part of Subarea B. VIII. 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 dowirto~nm 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 2r/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 to 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 (3g') in height as measured by the City of Dublin Zoning Code. c) Exterior Colors Exterior colors shall be selected from a palette of "historic" or "natural" colors included as part of the Final Development Plan. 08-0342/FDP Rezonin~Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-Z1 West Bridge Street d) Materials Permitted exterior materials include brick, natural and synthetic stone, wood siding and trim, engineered wood composite (e.g., Hardiplanlc, Smartside, etc.), or any combination thereof. Permitted roofing materials are described below. In all cases, materials used shall be natural or he natural in appearance. e) Roofs i. 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 toand/or compatible with die 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. fj Balconies Balconies are permitted. Balconies not constructed during initial construction may be constructed with approval of the P,rchitectural Review Board. Any balcony space will be included as part of the total permitted area for Exclusive and Non-Exclusive Yatio Areas. g) Wall Articulation and Fenestration The buildings should be designed so as to break up fagades 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, falsc- fences, pilasters, variety in shape and nature of lintels and arches over 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, with a higher concentration of glazing preferred for the first floor. The second floor level shall take on a more residential-style window pattern. IX Signs and Graphics Unless otherwise detailed herein, all signs shall comply vrith the sign provisions of the City of Dublin Zoning Code, §r53.r5o, et seq. In the event of a conflict between the City of Dublin Zoning Code and this text, this text shall control. 08-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development ~ 20-21 West Bridge Street Signs permitted for the Buildings shall comply with the Sign and Graphics Plan with exhibits conforming to these guidelines, as provided in attached Exhibit l3. Signs meeting all requirements of the approved Sign and Graphics Plan will not require individual approval by the Architectural T2eview 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 fagades of the buildings from public streets, but will be required to park in an offsite public parking lot. 1'he ability to utilize wall signs on the street facing fagades wrill enable passing traffic to identity building tenants. Pedestrian traffic will also view the front fagades 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 w711 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 arc prohibited. b) Design Design of signs will be consistent with the details included in the Sign and Graphics Plan. e) Size All dimensions specified are the maximum size permitted. i. Wall mounted signs. All wall mounted signs shall be not more than sixteen inches (t6") tall. The maximum width for all wall mounted signs shall beninety-six inches (q6"). ii. Projecting signs. All projecting signs shall be twenty-seven inches (z'J") tall by thirty-six inches (36") wide. iii. Duectoiy signs. All directory signs for upper story tenants shall be eighteen inches (r8") wide bytwenty-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 fagade and floor location of each tenant space as follows: i. West Bridge Street and North High Street Facing First Floor Tenants. Tenants located on the first floor with fagades facing West Bridge or North High streets shall be permitted one (x) projecting sign and one (t) wall mounted sign, on this fa4ade. 08-034E/FDP Rezoning/Pinal Development Plan 8 Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street ii. Public Plaza Facing First Floor Tenants. Tenants located on the first floor with fagades facing the public plaza shall be permitted either one (i) projecting sign or one (I) wall mounted sign on this facade. iii. Second Floor Tenants. One (r) 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 he 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 (L5') 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 with 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 Revision: May 9, 2008 ACCEPTED: THE STONEHENGE COMPANY, APPLICANT Ey Signature & Date ACCEPTED: CITY OP DUBLIN, APPI,ICAN T lay Signature & Date OS-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street CITY OF DUBLIN_ Iona u.. ana lOny Rany~ rlrnminy 58()0 Shier-Rings Road Dublin. Ohio 4.'301 (r 1236 Phone/ fDD: 614-x141600 Fox: 614-4104747 Web Site: wvnv.dublin.ah.us Creating a Legacy PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION MAY 15, 2008 DRAFT The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street 08-034ZlFDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Proposal: An addition of 6,416 square feet of usable storage area within basements of the mixed-use development at the northwest corner of Bridge and High Streets. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning/preliininary development plan and final development plan under the provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Mo Dioun, The Stonehenge Company. Planning Contact: Dan Phillabaum, AICP, Senior Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4662, dphillabaum~didublin.oh.us MOTION #I To approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan because it complies with the rezoning/preliminary development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area, with two conditions: 1) That the previously approved development agreement be amended to reflect the increase in usable space within Subarea B; and 2) That the applicant conduct a visual analysis of the foundations of existing adjacent structures documenting conditions prior to, and following, basement excavation and construction, to the satisfaction of Engineering. • Mo Dioun, the applicant a~-eed to the above conditions. voTh: ~ - o. Page 1 of t 44` U~.^~11TTED TO CCiis;P!c: ~O.l1.~OR MEETING C~'~~~/~.. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION DRAFT MAY 15, 2008 4. Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street 08-034Z/FDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan MOTION #2: To approve this Final Development Plan because it complies with the final development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area. VOTE: 7 - 0. RESULT: This Final Development Plan was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION Dan Phillabaum, CP Senior Planner Page 2 of 2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 200$ -Meeting Minutes DRAFT Page 14 of 15 4. Bridge and Nigh Development 20-Z1 West Bridge Street 08-0347/FDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development i'lan Final Development Plan Dan Plullabaum presented this Rezoning/Preliminarybevelopment Plan/Final Development Plan application. He said there were two conditions on the rezoning portion of this request, an amendment to the development agreement and a requirement that during the construction and excavation of the basements, that the adjacent structures would be protected by documenting the condition of the adjacent foundations prior to, during, and after construction to the satisfaction of Engineering. Richard Taylor asked for a definition of "adjacent structures". 1Vlr. Phillabaum explained that the City has geotechnical consultants that will help to establish the extent of the area to be monitored. Todd Zimmerman placed City representatives and the applicant, Mo Dioun, The Stonehenge Company under oath. Ire checked to see if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak regarding this application, and there was no one. Mr. Walter asked what the benefit was of a visual analysis of the foundations. Mr. Dioun said the point was to document prior to any excavation. He explained that to be safe, they made a commitment to City that they will document them within the proximity that is prescribed by the expert geotechnical engineer. He said if there is a claim, then they will have the documentation as to the pre-existing condition to deterniine if it was a condition created. He said when they do the excavation they will monitor the outside condition of other buildings. Chris Amorose Groomes asked how the excavation would be done. Mr. Dioun said it would be done by either jack-hammering or by stripping the rock with a backhoe and rock hammer. Mr. Dioun agreed to the two conditions listed below. Motion and Vote #1 -Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Mr.Limmennan made the motion to approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan with the following two conditions: 1) That the previously approved development agreement be amended to reflect the increase in usable space within Subarea B; and 2) That the applicant conduct a visual analysis of the foundations of existing adjacent structures documenting conditions prior to, and following, basement excavation and construction, to the satisfaction of Engineering. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion. Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Taylor, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; and Mr. Freimann, yes. (Approved 7-0.) Motion and Vote #2 -Final Development Plan Mr. Zimmerman made the motion to approve this Final Development Plan, and Ms. Amorose Groomes seconded. The vote was as follows: Mr. 7.immerman, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Taylor, yes; Mr. Saneholtz., yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; and Mr. Freimann, yes. (Approved 7 0.) PLANNING REPORT c„ ~~ orous~,in~_ PLANNING AND ZUNING COMMISSION lmsd Use and tang Range Phneing MAY 15, 2008 SBDD Shie~Rings Rand 1 Dublin, Dhic 43D1fi~1236 Phone: fi1941D-0fiD0 Fox: 61991 D-074I Web Silt: wwv.dub"ia.oh.us SECTION I -CASE INFORMATION 4. Bridge and High Streets Development 20 West Bridge Street 08-0342/FDP Rexoning/Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Proposal: The addition of 6,416 square feet of storage space within the basements for the recently approved 22,000 square foot mixed-use development ai 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: 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 rezoning (preliminary development plan) and final development plan to modify a recently approved Planned L'nit Development located on the northwest corner of West Bridge and North High Streets. The Bridge & High Street Development PtJD is approved for up to 22,000 square feet of retail and office space. This rezoning would allow for the limited use of an additional 6,416 square feet split between the basements of both buildings for storage, coolers, and building support functions such as maintenance and janitorial services. No changes are proposed to the site plan or building elevations. The proposal has been reviewed in accordance with the required development standards and in Planning's opinion, with the conditions listed in this report, the proposal will comply with the review standards and Planning recommends approval of this request. 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 approved on June 18, 2007 by City Council outlines the details of this partnership and development of the project. The preliminary development plan/rezoning for the project was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 2007 and the final development plan was approved on January 19, 2008. The architecture and site modifications were approved by the Architectural Review Board on January 9, 2008. City Council approved the rezoning on February 19, 2008. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 -Planning Repvrt Application No. OS-U34L/FDP Page 2 of 9 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 "Zoning acrd Uses The site is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District. A personal service use is located adjacent to the northwest portion of this site in the same block and is zoned CB, Central Business. 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, Central Community Commercial and Town Center T to the south is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District. Proposed Basement Description Location & Size Construction and limited use of hvo basements are requested-one each under the previously approved buildings. Building A (West Bridge Street) would contain a total of 3,906 square feet of basement space, and Building B (North High Street} would have a total of 6,510 square feet of basement space. The uses proposed for these spaces do not require exterior or site alteration. Any change in use for the basement spaces or changes to the building that would alter the approved site plan or building elevations would require ARB and PZC approval. Non-occupiable versus Occupiable Basement Space Building Standards and Land Use and Long Range Planning have advised the applicant that a non-occupiable basement could be constructed for the purposes of locating building mechanical equipment and approved administratively. By the Ohio Building Code, the design standards of non-occupiable space would prohibit the use or conversion of this space for uses other than mechanical equipment. Based on the very shallow depth to bedrock is in this area of the city and the significant costs associated with excavation, the applicant is seeking to maximize the economies of scale in construction costs by excavating and constructing basements to a minimum height of seven feet six inches and to other applicable Building Code requirements for occupiable space in order to expand the potential use of this space. Proposed Use of Basements The proposed basements would be permitted for use as a location for building mechanicals, stairwells, elevator shaft and mechanicals, and water feature mechanicals and equipment. These are uses that would be permitted to be located within anon-occupiable basement as described above. In addition to these uses, the space would be permitted for use as tenant storage, location of coolers, and building support functions such as maintenance and janitorial services. The use Dublin Planning and Zoning Comnussion May 15, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 08-U34Z/FDP Page 3 of 9 of this space for purposes of assembly, including dining areas, food preparation, office space, etc. is prohibited under the proposed Development text. Building A, would contain 1,500 square feet dedicated for `building mechanicals' and a maximum of 2,406 square feet for `storage space.' Building B would contain 2,500 square feet for `building mechanicals' and a maximum of 4,010 square feet for `storage space.' Access Through the Development text access to the basement space is limited to The Stonehenge Company or designee, Washington Township Fire Department, and City of Dublin Building Standards and Parks & Open Space Officials. The City of Dublin building official or the building official's desilmee are granted the pernlanent right of entry to the structure for any purpose including, but not limited to, compliance with the restrictions on the use of the basement space. Development text Modifications The development text has been modified to identify the permitted uses within the proposed basements, the additional square footage of basement space proposed within each building, and the parties permitted access to this space. Parking The approved Development agreement states that the parking spaces constructed by the applicant within the Darby Street lot are deemed sufficient to meet the City's zoning requirements for parking for up to 22,000 square feet total building area. Based on this general parking waiver, no specific parking requirements or calculations arc provided in the Development text. The addition of basements would increase the building area by 6,416 square feet of usable space. The Development agreement must be amended to account for this additional usable space, and the development text is proposed has been amended to include this additional square footage. F_ngiizeering Blasting to excavate the basements is prohibited based on the age and proximity of adjacent existing stivctures. Engineering has requested that the applicant conduct a visual analysis of the foundations of existing adjacent stnictures documenting conditions prior to, and following, the completion of basement excavations, to the satisfaction of Engineering. SECTION II - REVIF,W 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: 1) Concept Plan (Staff, Connmission, and/or City Council review and comment); 2) Zoning Amendment Request (Prclirninary Development Plan; Commission recommends and City Council approves/denies); and 3) Final Development Plan (Conunission approves/denies). Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May I5, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 08-034Z/I'DP Page 4 of 9 The general intent of the preliminary development plan (rezoning) stage is to determine the general layout and specific zoning standards that will guide development. The Planning and Zoning Commission must review and make a recommendation on this preliminary development plan (rezoning) request. The application will then be forwarded to City Council for a first reading/introduction and a second reading/public hearing for a final vote. Atwo-thirds vote of City Council is required to override a negative reconunendation 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) 77te propvsed development is consistent with the Dublin 7.oning Code; is in conformity with the ComnncnitV Plan; advances the general welfare of the City; and the propvsed uses are appropriately located in the City so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded. Criteria may be met through condition: The proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the Community Plan, which suggest conunercial development at this location. hi Platming's opinion, the addition of basements to this development and proposed use will benefit Hisioric Dublin by maximizing the use of the limited land area available in the district. The Development agreement beriveen the applicant and the City of Dublin must be modified to reflect the addition of this usable space. In order to ensure that adjacent structures are not adversely affected during excavation and construction of the basements, the applicant shall conduct a visual analysis of the foundations of existing adjacent structures documenting conditions prior to, and following, basement excavation and construction, to the satisfaction of Engineering. Parks and Open 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 urti~ue characteristic of the natural features artd protects the natural rerour-ces of the site. Criteria met: While this requirement is not applicable to commercial development, the addition of basements allows for the potential storage of patio furniture from the public and private open spaces during off season. Additionally, a portion of the basements may be utilized to locate mechanical systems associated with the public water features which will be operated and maintained by the City of Dublin. Traff c, Utilities and Stormwater Management (Criteria 7, 8, and 11) Adequate utilities, access muds, drainage, retentive and/or necessary facilities have been yr are being provided; and adequate rneastcres have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accvntrnodate adequate pedestrian and bike. circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non- COnfIICting CZYCUIatIOn system fOr n10lOr'IStS, bicyclists and pedestrians; and adequate provision is Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 1 S, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 08-034Zi'FDP Page 5 of 9 made for• storm drainage within artd thrvuglz. the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas. Criteria met: The proposed basements and the proposed use of this additional space will have no significant impact on anticipated generated traffic and does not alter any previously planned or existing points of access to the public street system. There will be no impact on public utilities or stormwater management with the creation of basements. Development Standards (Criteria 9, and 10) The relationship of buildings and structures provides for the coordinative and integration of this development to the community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; and the development standards, and the design and layout of the open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements contribute to the orderly development of land within the City. Criteria met: The proposed basements and the proposed use of this additional space will have no impact on the approved development standards and building locations. Design Standards (12, aizd 13) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify arty deviation from the .standard development regulativrzs included i~z the Code or the Subdivision Regz~latiorzs; 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 met: The development text outlines all applicable development standards for this project. Infrastructure (Criteria 14, 1 S and 16) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; the prroposed development can be adequately sefviced by existing or planned public improvements; and the applicant's contt•ibutions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan ar:d are sufficient to service the rzew development. Criteria met: The proposed basements and the proposed use of this additional space will have no significant impact on the proposed infrastructure serving the development. Final Development Plan The purpose of the Planned Unit Development process is to encourage imaginative architectural design and proper site plamling in a coordinated and comprehensive maruier, 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 Dublin Planning and Zoning Corrunission May 15, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 08-034Z/FDP Page 6 of 9 application is disapproved, the applicant may respond to Plaruiing and Zoning Commission's concerns and resubmit the plan. This action will be considered a new application for review in all respects, including payment of the application fee. Appeal of any action taken by the Commission shall be to the Court of Common Pleas in the appropriate jurisdiction. Following approval by the Commission, the applicant may proceed with the building perniit 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 Pian Criteria Section 153.055(B) of the Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a final development plan. Following is an evaluation by Planning based on those criteria. The criteria are arranged in the following categories and may be in a different order than listed in the Code: Adopted Policies and Plans (Criteria 1, 3, 9, & 10). The proposed modifications conform to the approved preliminary development plan, hove adequate public.facilities and open spaces, ar•e carried out in progressive stages, and conform to all other applicable zoning text and Code requirements. Criteria met: The proposed basements and proposed use of this additional space conforms to the City's adopted policies and plans. Site Safety and Circulation (Criteria 2 & S). The proposed modifications provide,for safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation and provide adequate lighting for such uses. Criteria met: The proposed basements and use of this additional space will have no significant impact on the anticipated traffic generated and does not alter any previously planned or existing points of access to the public street and sidewalk system. Although the use of the basement space will permit additional utilization of the other occupied floors, the overall amount oi~ space will not significantly alter expected pedestrian or traffic circulation or activity. Development Details (Criteria 4, 6, 7, & 8). The details of the development are sensitive to the natural characteristics of the site, include appropriate landscaping arad signs, and provide adequate storm drainage. Criteria met: The proposed basements and the proposed use of this additional space will have no impact on these development details. SECTION III -PLANNING OPINION AND RECO?VIMENDA'I'ION: Approval Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan hl Plazming'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 recommended. Conditions: 1) That the previously approved Development agreement be amended to reflect the increase in usable space within Subarea B; and Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 -Planning Report Applicarion No. OS-0342/FDI' Page 7 of 9 2) That the applicant conduct a visual analysis of the foundations of existing adjacent structures documenting conditions prior to, and following, basement excavation and construction, to the satisfaction of Engineering. Final Development Plan In Planning's opinion, this proposal complies with the final development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area. Approval is recommended. Dublin Planning and Zoning Corzunission May 15, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 08-034Z/};DP Page 8 of 9 Preliminary Development Plan Review Criteria: Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval foz• a Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan. In accordance with Section 153.055(A) Plan Approval Criteria, Code sets out the following criteria of approval for a preliminary development plan (rezoning}: 1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Dublin Zoning Code; 2) The proposed development is in conformity with the Community .Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing street network; 3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the City and immediate vicinity and will not impede the nomlal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas; 4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the City so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded; 5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Comznuzuty Plan; 6) Tl~e 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 he 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; l0) 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 swales, water courses and drainage areas; 12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Dublin Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; 13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the City; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 -Planning Keport Application No. 08-0341/FDY Page 9 of 9 14) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; 15) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements and not impair the existing public service system for the area; and 16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. Final Development Plan Review Criteria: In accordance with Section 153.055(B) Plan Approi~al 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 'Coning 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 Lnit 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. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT {REVISIONS NOTED IN RED) NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST BRIDGE AND NORTH HIGH STREETS DEVELOPMENT TEXT Approved: k - ~<i.~ ~' - 3~ ~. DEVELOPMENT TEAM The City of Dublin Bird-Houk Collaborative 5800 Shier-Rings Road 60o Creekside Plaza Dublin, Ohio 43oi6 Gahanna, Ohio 43230 6i4.4io.46o0 6i4.4i8.o6o0 tvww.dublin.oh.us www.bird-houk.com Stonehenge Land Company 147 ?North High Street Gahanna, Ohio 43230 6i4.5og.gooo wu~w.stonehenge-company.com EMII&T, Inc. 5500 New E1lbany Road New Albany, Ohiv 43054 614.775.4500 www.eniht.corn 08-034E/FllP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL OVERVIEW ...................................................................................... ............................. i General Development Standards ........................................................................ ............................. i Special Parking Provision ................................................................................... ............................. i Maintenance Agreement ..................................................................................... .............................1 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 (.251 acre) ............................ ............................ 4 I. Permitted Uses .................................................................................... ............................ 4 11. Dcz~ih ............................................................................................... .............................~ Exhibit A: Subarea Plan Exhibit B: Site/Staking Plan Exhibit C: Architectural Elevations Exhibit D: Patio Plan Exhibit D: Sign and Graphics Plan 08-0342/FllP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street NORTH~h'EST 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 ttvo (2) sub-areas, Subarea A, containing .436-acre (the Public Areas), and Subarea B, containing .251-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 pro«de 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 ~~isible 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 'Coning Code, then the provisions of this development text shall prevail. Special 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 ley 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. 08-0347/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street 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 will 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 A.S governed by the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances. c) Outdoor Patios Outdoor seating areas, including outdoor dining and restaurant patio spaces in conjunction ~~ith 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 may be 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. fl Vendors Mobile vendors shall be permitted to operate within 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 Wing Hill Access. The City ~o~ill take the necessary steps to close Wing Hill at North High Street to public traffic in order to create a service court for deliveries and refuse removal. 08-034ZIFDP Rezonuig/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street 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. b) Pedestrian i. 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 z4 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 ~~ith 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-F,xclusive 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 follov~~ing 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 Re~~iew Board, and the Dublin. City Council. c) Patio Furnishings, Fencing/Enclosure Materials. i. 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 variet3~ of fence options will be included for reference in the Final Development Plan. OS-034?./FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan 3 Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street 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 with 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 within the Buildings are to remain closed when not in use. No exterior dumpsters are permitted in any part of Subarea A. VI. Storage and Equipment 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 (.251 acre) Subarea B consists of two 2-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 follo~~ing 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. 08-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development ZU-21 West Bridge Street II. Density Subarea B shall contain two buildings with a maximum first and second floor combined size of twenty-two thousand (22,000) square feet and a maximum combined building footprint area of eleven thousand (ii,ooo) square feet. There shall be an additi~~~na] ~cn l}~~t~usand fcnir hundred and si::teen (io,4t6j sq~i~~re feet ~~t basement space combined ~~-ithin the ttivu buiklin~s. III. Basements Basements are permitted within Subarea B of this development as outlined below. Any modifications to the approved site plan or building exteriors related to the creation or use of basement space w-iIl require ARB and PZC approval. a) Permitted Use Building "A" Basement (West Bridge Street): 3,9ob square feet of total basement space • 2;406 square feet maximum maybe used for storage, location of coolers, and building support functions such as maintenance and .janitorial services. Use of this space for purposes of assembly, including dining areas, food ,preparation, office space, etc. is prohibited. ^ i,5oo square feet of space dedicated to building mechanicals, stairwells, elevator shaft and mechanicals, and water feature mechanicals and equipment. ii. Building "B" Basement (North High Street): 6,Sio square feet of total basement space • 4,oio square feet maximum may be used for storage, location of coolers, and building support functions such as maintenance and janitorial services. Use of this space for purposes of assembly, including dining areas, food preparation, office space, etc. is prohibited. ^ 2,5oa square feet of space dedicated to building mechanicals, stairwells, elevator shaft and mechanicals, and water feature mechanicals and equipment. iii. The actual location of these uses within the basements shall be determined at time of building permit and tenant fit-up submittal. b) Access Access to the basement space shall be limited to The Stonehenge Company or designee, Washington Township Fire Department; and City of Dublin Building Standards and Parks ~ Open Space Officials. The City of Dublin building official or the building official's designee shall be granted the permanent right of entry to the structure for any purpose which shall include, but not be limited to, compliance with the restrictions on the use of the basement space identif ed above. ii. Portions of the basement space dedicated to water feature mechanicals shall be fully partitioned from the remaining space, with access limited to City of Dublin Rtlilding and Parks ~ Open Space Officials ~za a dedicated exterior door. 08-0347./FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and Hig}i Deve}opmcnt 20-21 West Bridge Street IV. 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). V. Building Lighting Lighting attached to the Buildings shall utilize decorative light fixtures appropriately sited according to the Historic llublin Guidelines. Lighting shall comply with the Final Development Plan. Site lighting shall be as required in Subarea A. VI. 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 v«ll require the use of steps and ramps. The associated handrails may encroach into the public right-of-way consistent with the Final Development PIan, not to exceed twenty-four inches (24"). VII. Waste and Refuse All waste and refuse shall he contained at a]l times within the Buildings. No exterior dumpsters are permitted in any part of Subarea B. VIII. Architecture The architectural design of the Bui]dings 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 ti~ithin the range of 2-story and 2i/2-stony 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 to 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 1~'o structure shall exceed thirty-five feet (35') in height as measured by the City of Dublin Zoning Code. c) Exterior Colors Exterior colors shall be selected from a palette of "historic" or "natural" colors included as part of the Final Development Plan. 08-034E/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street 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. Permitted roofing materials are described below. 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. f) 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 Non-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 sSnnmetry is neither required nor desired. Elements such as recesses, false- fences, pilasters, variety in shape and nature of lintels and arches over doors and windows, columns beneath balconies, etc., are encouraged. h) Windows The facades of each Building should incorporate many ~a~indows and doors at both the first floor level and the second, v<~ith a higher concentration of glazing preferred for the first floor. The second floor level shall take on a more residential-style window pattern. IX. Signs and Graphics Unless otherwise detailed herein, all signs shall comply with the sign provisions of the City of Dublin Zoning Code, §i53.iSo, et seq. In the event of a conflict between the City of Dublin Zoning Code and this text, this text shall control. 08-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan ~ Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street 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 individual approval by the Architectural Re~~ew 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 fa4ades 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 fa4ades ~~11 enable passing traffic to identify building tenants. Pedestrian traffic will also view the front fa4ades of the buildings from the: public streets, but also from ~~~ithin 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. c) Size All dimensions specified are the maximum size permitted. 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"). ii. Projecting signs. All 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 (2c}") tall. d) Number and Location All signs shall be architecturally integrated into the Building fa4ade where they appear. The permitted number and location of signs is a function of the orientation of the Building fa4ade 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 ~~ith fa4ades facing West Bridge or North High streets shall be permitted one (i) projecting sign and one (i) wall mounted sign, on this fa4ade. 08-034L/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan 8 Bridge and Higli Development 20-21 West Bridge Street 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 (i) wall mounted sign on 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 Uxut 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. ~ Lettering All lettering is to be centered in relation to the height and width of the sign. Lettering height shall be consistent with 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 Revision: May 9, 2008 ACCEPTED: ACCEPTED: THE STONEHENGE COMPA~~TI', APPLICANT CITY OF DUBLIN, APPLICANT sy By Signature & Date Signature & Date 08-0342/FD P Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Dublin City Council February 19, 2008 Page 3 Mayor Chinnici-Z rcher stated that she ogre with Ms. Salay that the s nd building, which was on 'ally designed to be conne d to the first, be a comps n building. However, t third building to be locate outh of these buildings m t not need to be identical t should not look dramati y different. She agrees Mr. Keenan that there is no ed for that building to be of a triplet. M angworthy responded th toff agrees, and that is th eason the language in th onditions specify "compati ," not identical. Mr. Clark stated that Du is seeking a large user to ke the entire site. He poi d out that the original plat vided for a different buildi beyond the parking lot fo hose 2, although the spec location was undefined. Mr. Lecklid (asked if the footprint fort second building is intende o be identical to that of the fir uilding. Will it have the e number of stories? Mr. L gworthy stated that the s nd building must be very ~ filar to the first, so he w d anticipate that will requi it to be the same height. r. Clark responded that i ctuality, the second buildi will be five stories. The sting building facing the free is six stories in height du o the elevation slope. T architect eliminated ohe story r the second building foot ~ t to make the two comps ' le. Mr. Langworthy led that the conditions re gnize the need for the PI ing Commission review these details. IVIr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keen ,yes: Vice Mayor yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes' r. Gerber, yes; Ms. • Final Plat -Paul zer Parkway - (5151 Pa G. Slazer Memorial Par ay- Case No. 07-1 P) Ms. Brautigam slat that the applicant has re sled that this item be tabl indefinitely. Vice Mayor Bori moved to table the final p indefinitely. Mr. Lecklider conded the motion. Vote on th otion: Ms. Salay, yes; .Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner es; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor innici-Zuercher, yes; Vic ayor Boring, yes; Mr. Ger r, yes. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 07-08 Rezoning 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. 07-0992) Background: Mr. Phillabaum presented background on the application review process. This is a 22,000 sq. ft. mixed-use development with associated site improvements. The project is a public- private partnership between the City of Dublin and The Stonehenge Company. A development agreement was approved by Council on June 18, 2007, which outlined the details of the partnership. Past actions and approvals include: • The rezoninglpreliminary development plan was approved with seven conditions by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2007; • ARB approved the architecture and site modifications with conditions on January 9, 2008; • The final development plan was approved with four conditions by the Planning Commission on January 17, 2008, This approval will not become effective until the rezoning/preliminary development plan is approved by City Council. Site Description: The site is located in the historic district in the southeast portion of Dublin. The site is comprised of three parcels totaling .7 acres. It is a relatively flat site with a slight drep in topography from the northwest to the southeast. It is currently developed as a temporary municipal parking lot. In the northwest is the recently constructed Darby Street municipal lot; the 35 North High Town Center is directly to the east; Tucci's is directly to the south; Modern Male is at 24 Darby Street; and to the south is Town Center 1. The proposed site plan is comprised of two, two-story mixed-use buildings totaling 22,000 ~^ foot „s.o~.,:~ 08-0342/FllP Rezoning/F'inal Development Plan fridge and High Development 2O-21 West Rricis?e Rtreet Dublin City Council February 19, 2008 Page 4 restaurant and office use. Both buildings are oriented parallel to Bridge Street and High Street. There is a formal green located central to the site, framed by the existing building at 24 Darby Street and the two proposed buildings. A public plaza at the southeast corner provides both physical access to the interior of the site as well as visual access to motorists. Patio space is indicated along both buildings adjacent to the southeast plaza as well as facing the formal green. Parking for the development is provided off-site via the municipal parking lot and on-street public parking. The site plan also features a valet stand at the west end of the site off of Darby Street. Refuse storage for this project is proposed to be within the buildings, integrated into the architecture at the northwest corner of Building A along Bridge Street and the northwest corner of the High Street building. Wing Hill would be closed with this proposal, both to create a service court and pedestrian access and to improve the traffic function of the intersection at Bridge and High. Darby Street would provide access to that refuse storage in Building A. Plan modifications since concept plan review: A notable change to the site plan that occurred since the concept plan was reviewed by Council relates to the accessibility of the site. Initially, there was an upper plaza and a lower plaza that were separated by a series of steps between the two buildings. Staff worked with the applicant through the course of the project to make this much more accessible for wheelchairs, strollers, etc. Instead of steps, this area will be ramped at a 5 percent grade between the buildings. The access from the sidewalk has also been improved. Steps are located on the east side of the project. The south end of Building B has been revised and simplified to be more reflective of the traditional vernacular architecture of the historic district. Gothic windows, flared eaves, brackets, etc. have been eliminated. Stucco is no longer proposed for any of the buildings; it has been replaced with hardiplank. On the Bridge Street elevations, plans for the buildings provide for the use of natural materials, brick, stone and hardiplank. Roof materials are to be consistent with the historic district, standing seam metal roofs and dimensional asphalt shingles. On the High Street elevation, the plan stipulates the use of materials native to Historic Dublin. From Darby Street west to High Street, there is a 6,5 ft. grade change. Part of the 2.5 ft grade drop to the plaza is addressed with steps down to the formal green, which is relatively flat. The first floor elevation of Building 8 is nine inches higher than the plaza, and then the grade drops three feet three inches to the existing grade at High Street. Achieving the relatively flat gathering space on the interior results in some of the buildings serving as retaining walls. The drop in elevation from the first floor of the building wilt be addressed with steps to the tenant spaces from High Street. The landscape plan provides for a much more urban setting. The landscape areas rely less on lawn and more on hardscape to support the pedestrian activity that takes place. In addition to the formal tree-lined lawn, landscape materials will be located througheut the site in raised planters and adjacent to the building foundation. Street trees will be located along High and Bridge Streets. Up to 3,000 square feet of patio space is permitted with the development, some areas of which are intended for public use and other areas for the exclusive use of future tenants. The areas intended for exclusive use will be enclosed by walls, fence or some other vertical enclosure. Balconies are permitted by the development text, although they are not depicted in the renderings, as their potential use will be based upon specific tenant requests. Per the text, balconies not constructed during the initial construction phase may only be constructed later with ARB approval. This balcony space is part of the total permitted patio area. Concerns of Modern Male at 24 Darby Street: Over the past two years, staff has had numerous meetings with both the tenant and the owner of 24 Darby Street to address any concerns. The site plan incorporates the existing building at 24 Darby Street. The tenant and owner have several remaining concerns about the potential impact on their business. The principal issue relates to the retaining walls that are associated with the ADA ramps at the north end of the proposed development adjacent to Modern Male. Staff has worked with the applicant to develop a few concepts to address their concerns: 08-0342/FllP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 24-21 West Bridge Street Dublin City Council February 19, 2008 Page 5 • Option A -This is the initial option approved by ARB. This option provides for a three-foot high wall on the northernmost part of the project site. The southern wall is approximately 1.5 feet high. There is the potential for people to stand on the walls, look in the windows and potentially disturb their business operation. Staff looked at ways to lower the walls to address their concern, yet maintain ADA accessibility. Option B was then developed. • Option B -This option lowers the portion of the wall to the east of their existing staircase to the business, and adds landscaping. The associated cost is negligible. Staff would recommend approval of this option. • Option C -This option provides the same wall height as Option B. Moving to the east, when the wall turns the corner, steps are added adjacent to the eastern elevation. This is currently the main entrance to Modern Male. The additional cost is estimated at $5,500. • Option D -This option was created subsequent to the distribution of the Council packet on Thursday. Staff met with the owner's representative and the tenant on Friday and developed this option, which would incorporate steps to the north of the existing proposed wall. The wall height would be the same as Option B with additional landscaping. The additional cost would be $1,600 more than the cost of Option A. Staff would recommend approval of this option, as well, as it addresses the concerns of the existing tenant and owner. Ms. Salay inquired if the owner or the tenant is willing to participate in the additional cost. Ms. Ott stated that they have not indicated that they would be willing to do so. If that is Council's direction, staff can discuss this with the parties. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked who would be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the landscaping. Is all of this structure on City property? Mr. Phillabaum responded affirmatively. It lies within a permanent easement that the City granted to 24 Darby Street when they constructed the site and building improvements several years ago. The easement runs parallel to the south and east property lines and down the middle of the proposed ramp. It would encompass everything on the east side. The existing steps of the business are within the easement, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the City's goal in providing one of the retaining wall options. Mr. Phillabaum responded that the goal is to better incorporate this use into the proposed development. The access to the Modern Male building would become circuitous. It would be necessary to come from the south to access their main entrance. Recommendation Mr. Phillabaum stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning and preliminary development plan with the four conditions listed below, and requests that Council add a condition with their directive regarding the preferred water feature: 1. That trash is 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. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony. Brenda Kocak. Modern Male, 8135 Davinpton Drive stated that they met with Mr. Langworthy and Ms. Ott on Friday and agreed to Option D. This option provides a more cohesive integration of Modern Male into the development. The larger wall that was proposed would have cut off accessibility to the front entrance of Modern Male. In regard to the cost of the construction and upkeep, it would be on City property. ~8_U34Z/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Dublin City Council February 19, 2008 Page 6 City is requesting the owner of 24 Darby Street to grant an easement to the development for a walkway on the west side of the building. In consideration, Ms. Ott has mentioned that the City is reviewing options for an implementation plan, including how accessibility to Modern Male would be assured during the construction. They are looking at directional signage to be used during the construction. Ms. Kocak indicated she prefers option D to the other proposals. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road continued with his previous comments concerning his property, that what he has is an uncontaminated nucleus of what was once a 900-acre farm deeded by Thomas Jefferson to Revolutionary War soldiers. In regard to the current discussion on the floor, he is a minority of one. Previous to today, he was unaware of the water element feature in the plan. While reviewing the ARB/Council joint packet materials today, he read the document provided by William Souders. He found that to be very thoughtful and moving. Mr. Souder realized that some of the governing nature of this city has been a river, a stream, a waterfall, streams, pumps, and wells - a profound recollection and association. If he had known about this much earlier, this might have been the key to the entire structure on that corner, similar to the development that occurred around the structure of the "Dancing Hares." The work which has been done by the ARB attempted to capture some of these elemental aspects. While everyone present tonight may be aware of the water element background of Dublin, he wonders how many others coming into the development at a later time would realize what this is attempting to capture. He has a couple of questions: 1. Is the developer being held to any "greening" with this project? 2. He assumes that that this plaza has a place reserved for a piece of art. It may be that an art piece could complete this and give revelation to the project. He found it somewhat tragic when he read the letter by Mr. Souders which described some profound elements that would capture some of the most moving history of the city. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that she found Mr. Souders' information provided earlier tonight very interesting as well. Perhaps he could author a column in a local newspaper to talk about those elements and their relationship to this corner. It would further the education of the many residents of Dublin about the City's history. Mr. Phi!labaum indicated that the water feature recommendation can be dealt with via a condition to the rezoning. Council discussion: Mr. Reiner stated that Option D for the retaining wall appears to satisfactorily address the property owner's concern. Initially, he thought the cost should be borne by the tenant. However, after clarification that the wall would be located on City land, he is satisfied that the City should bear the cost. Mr. Gerber stated that he concurs with Option D. He emphasized that staff worked with the owners of Modern Male during all phases of the construction of this project. This is typical of the City's practice during development. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there are many Historic Dublin businesses that will be impacted for an extended period of time. She is aware that staff is developing an implementation plan, but it is important to engage all of the affected parties. When some storm sewer work was done in Historic Dublin a few years ago, weekly updates were provided to the businesses and residents. She would recommend that some technique be employed to accomplish this. Ms. Ott indicated that as soon as the implementation plan is developed, it will be forwarded to Council. Mr. Keenan stated that Option D appears to provide an attractive space for skateboarders. Has staff considered that risk? Is there anything that could be done with the top surface of those walls that could discourage that activity? Ms. Ott responded that the goal was to keep this area flat and not have vertical structures, but the issue will be addressed. 08-0347/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Dublin City Council February 19, 2008 Page 7 Mr. Keenan stated that there will be many people in and out of that building throughout the various phases of construction. How is the City addressing the business parking needs during that time? Will the construction workers be permitted to occupy the parking lot? Ms. Ott responded that staff is working with The Stonehenge Company to address that issue. The goal is not to have the Darby Street parking lot impacted, or to minimize it to the extent possible. Staff will also be looking at the agreement with Dublin Schools regarding the Indian Run Elementary parking lot. Mr. Keenan stated that it is important not to lose sight of the parking issues or the signage needed for Modern Male or any other business that is impacted. Mr. Keenan stated that the overview of the site plan indicated that the trash would be contained within the building. He understands the trash entry door resembles a small garage door. Does that door face to the north? It appears to face the patio for Tucci's. Mr. Phillabaum confirmed that is correct. Mr. Keenan inquired if it can be modified to face west. If it is absolutely essential that the doorway face the north, it must be disguised in such a manner that it does not appear to be a garage door on a track. Mo Dioun The Stonehenge Companv 147 N. High Street Gahanna stated that they have attempted to devise an offsite centralized trash collection facility for all the businesses in the area. If that does not occur, Stonehenge has made a commitment to the City for an intensive and sensitive trash collection program that will occur in times that are not intrusive to the surrounding businesses, including Modern Male. They do believe, however, that in the design of this building, architecturally, the door is in the optimum location. It is not the typical garage door and has an attractive design. If it were placed on the west side of the building, it would be visible from the public plaza and central gathering area. It does face Tucci's, but an alley runs between them. Another consideration is that Tucci's patio is used a portion of the year, while it is expected that the Bridge & High public plaza will be used year round. If needed, this door is located in the least intrusive location for the entire project. This particular issue has been studied in depth by staff Mr. Keenan stated that he would not be satisfied with locating the trash access door on the north side of that building, unless the adjacent business owner is aware of the plan, how and when the pick-up will operate, and most importantly, how the door will appear visually. There are some measures that could be taken to screen the operation. This component is very important. Mr. Gerber agreed. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed this issue. If food products are discarded in the dumpster, this could be very unpleasant to Tucci's patio patrons. Ms. Salay stated that if the door is insulated, there should be no odor trespass. Mr. Dioun responded that the specific trash collection program they have committed to would involve a trash collection area reduced by half. Further, the door will be an attractive design and will be sealed. They are aware of the degree of investment and the type of tenants in that building. The tenants of Building B will be even more sensitive to odor or any perceived unpleasantness of trash in that corner than the patrons of Tucci's, as the Building B tenants will be much closer. He assured Council this program will be handfed with deliberation and sensitivity. Mr. Keenan inquired if there is a way to disguise the door so that it cannot be seen - perhaps a landscape fence or trellis that could slide across the area and completely hide the door. That garage door, if used day in and day out, will quickly become dirty and marred. It is also important, as a condition, to secure buy-in from the adjacent business owner, just as was achieved with other business owners, such as Modern Male. Ms. Ott responded that she has spoken to the property owner to the north on multiple occasions, as well as the current business tenant. Ultimately, what will make this work is that both parties want to find a solution other than insisting it cannot be located there. The tenant to the north insists the door be relocated. One of the Planning & Commission conditions is that an attempt should be made to identify a location offsite to address the trash needs for this building. Staff has already initiated discussions with another business owner regarding their willingness to use some land for that purpose. However, it is premature to commit to that, as a process is involved that includes ARB approval. An entire site plan would be impacted by that decision. 08-0347/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Dublin City Council February 19, 2008 Page 8 Mr. Keenan asked if she would agree that it is essential that the City do their very best to disguise the doorway. Ms. Ott responded that City staff would be agreeable to working with Stonehenge to determine if there is an option to do so that remains architecturally sound. Perhaps there could be screening on the north side of the alley that would assist in that effort, The trade- off is that blocking the view of the north side of the building will also block the view of the public plaza for Tucci's. They are willing to discuss this further with that tenant, if the tenant is willing. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she agrees with Mr. Keenan regarding the need to make efforts to camouflage the garage door. However, she is not interested in additional expenditures for more walls. She would prefer to see an artificial fagade. She added that Ms. Kocak had an interest in finding a solution to her issues. That is not the case with the property owner to the north. His position has consistently been that this is not what he wants, and he will not discuss alternatives. The City's goal is to include him in discussions, but if that is not possible, the City must proceed. The City's preference is to utilize an offsite trash area for all of these businesses. Absent that resolution, the proposed plan is as submitted today. Is the City continuing to pursue an offsite trash area? Ms. Ott responded that Mr. Dioun is very open to exploring options that allow that space to be utilized for options other than trash. Mr. Dioun added that the buildings in the Bridge & High development will be very expensive. Every square foot is valuable, and they would prefer not to use any of it far trash collection. However, there are situations they cannot control. They believe they have designed a project in the best way to address the private and public needs. It was once suggested that all the trash in Building B be collected and carried through the plaza area to the other building. That is impractical and could put the public at risk. Ultimately, their wish is to create an offsite centralized location -- it would be a more economical solution for them. They are willing to participate financially in that effort, as long as it is equitable and fair to all the parties involved. Mr. Gerber stated that he believes Mr. Dioun will do whatever possible to achieve that. However, the tenant to the north was there prior to the City's proposed project. The City is now essentially proposing to locate a trash dumpster in front of his patio. Council must understand his concerns. Mr. Dioun stated that he respectfully disagrees. There are no trash dumpsters outside buildings. They have done their best to avoid this. They have taken very expensive square footage from the buildings and located the trash collection inside. It will be half the typical size and camouflaged with an architecturally attractive door. Further, they have committed to a more intense collection program than any other business is doing in the area. That is the maximum he can do. As staff has indicated, he has been very flexible and accommodating as different options were considered. This is the trash location site that City staff has supported from the very beginning. In the end, he is hopeful it will not be necessary. Mr. Gerber asked if Mr. Dioun is testifying that this enclosure will successfully entrap odors. Mr. Dioun responded that the term is relative and requested that he further clarify "entrap." Mr. Gerber inquired if his assurance is that someone sitting on the patio to the north would not be able to smell the garbage, and if that is what he is representing to Council. Mr. Dioun responded that is correct and he is confident of this. Mr. Reiner asked Mr. Dioun to clarify again why the door location could not be turned to the other side of the building. Would it present an access problem? Mr. Dioun responded that it would not. But placing it on the other side will impact the public plaza, in which the City is making a very significant investment. Mr. Gerber indicated concern about the risk of odor. Placed in that location, any slight risk of odor would be to the public gathering in that area. Mr. Reiner stated that it is apass-through area. The public would be moving through on their way to the public plaza. 08-0342/FDP RezoninglFinal Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Dublin City Council February 19, 2008 Page 9 Mr. Gerber stated that the Planning Commission was concerned about remnant food products collected in that iocation_ Although the intent is to have those collected offsite and store only paper products in this location, that arrangement has not been worked out. In the event it is not, he is concerned about food odor --whether it impacts the tenant to the north or the citizens in that walkway. Ms. Salay stated that aesthetically, a garage door could be expected to be seen from an alley, but not from the public plaza or at the entrance to the Modern Male business. She believes that both the garage doors are in the right location if this plan must be used. It will be essential that the door be insulated to prevent trespass of odors, but if the trash is emptied frequently, that should not be a problem. Mr. Keenan stated that of the examples of trash enclosure drawings, the bottom two are not acceptable to him. He does not understand why a slider with a trellis or other facade cannot be added to entirely hide this door. It may involve one more movement in collecting the trash. Ms. Ott responded that staff would review the options. It would need to be something that could be operated year-round. Mr. Gerber suggested that Council could impose that as a condition. Mr. Keenan inquired whether that would be a difficult item to add. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she is not certain about the feasibility of a trellis, but staff understands what Council would like to achieve. Mr. Keenan suggested a gate. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that a gate would make it more noticeable. Mr. Keenan stated that he does not know what the facade should consist of, but there must be some facade that would work. Mr. Phillabaum noted a slide depicting the top north elevation. The material for that portion of the building is siding. There is an opportunity to screen it by extending that material over the doorway to mask it. Mr. Lecklider stated that these slides are only representative examples. He believes the slide on the lower right is meant to show acontrast - an example of what would not be acceptable. He appreciates the concern about dirt and marring, but that could be addressed by the door color selected. Staff has heard Council's concerns, both about the visual aspect and the odor issue. Mr. Dioun has indicated that tenants will be sharing a wall with this space. They will certainly have concerns about odor. While Council does respect the existing businesses, there is the need to proceed in a cooperative spirit. Ms. Sa1ay stated that she is also in favor of the Option D retaining wall for the Modern Male building. Would it be possib{e to finish the space around Modern Male so that while the construction is in process, they would not need to be disturbed further? If the walkways on the north and west sides could be completed first, the Modern Male access would be complete. It could be made a "no disturb" zone after that. Mr. Dioun stated that they are committed to completing the project with minimal intrusion, and they will try to assure that for Modern Male. They have not yet looked at the logistics of the project and piecemealing a project can have cost implications. It will be necessary to ensure there would be no adverse cost implications from mobilizing certain contractors, de-mobilizing and then mobilizing them again to complete the remainder of the site. They will work collaboratively with City staff on this effort. There is a need to be practical, but they are committed to communicating alf the activities to the business owners and to minimizing the disruptions to the businesses. Ms. Salay stated that the City did this very well in conjunction with a previous stormwater project. She noted that Mr. Keenan is correct about the skateboarding draw of the retaining wall. That activity would be very noisy and not conducive to quiet enjoyment within the public plaza. Signage prohibiting the activity will be necessary. Making the wall not attractive to skateboarders may actually enhance the challenge. Ms. Salay asked about the purpose of the bollards located at the corners. She was confused by the information provided by Mr. Souders and the aerial shot 08-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development flan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bride Street Dublin City Council February 19, 2008 Page 10 Council packets. She is in favor of a physical barrier to the traffic, but would like to better understand how they would work. Mr. Phillabaum responded that the four abutments are at a seat wall height internal to the site. Where there are step conditions, they are needed as a break to provide a cheat wall and eliminate a trip hazard. There are three breaks at grade with a slight ramp condition. He is unsure if they could be reduced in size or if some could be eliminated. The landscape architect could better address that issue. Ms. Salay requested clarification of how they would work from the streetside. Tony Slanec Bird-Houk Collaborative Urban Design Associate referred to a slide that depicted the size in relation to the streetscape. There are 18 inches on the interior plaza side. Then, due to the grade drop between High and Bridge streets, the abutments increase in size to approximately three feet. They will be clad in limestone with a limestone cap. Mr. Reiner inquired if a motorist travelling up Bridge Street would have an unobstructed view of the fountains. Mr. Slanec indicated that is correct. Mr. Lecklider stated that with Concept D it would be important to incorporate the landscaping that is depicted in the concept to soften the view. Mrs. Boring summarized that the project has involved a long process. The challenges encountered with having more citizen involvement resulted in a better project. She is pleased with the improvements in the fountains and other areas. She is looking forward to the project being completed. In the depiction of the retaining walls, a different lamp post was used. Will the lamp posts throughout be thE; same? Ms. Ott responded that they will be the same as the ones f~reviously shown. The different lamp post was used in this case to represent scale only. Mrs. Boring stated that she also supports Option D for the retaining wall. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she agrees with Mrs, Boring about the quality of the project- This is a great example of aprivate-public partnership. She is pleased that the process has continued to involve the residents and businesses. She trusts they will also be there to celebrate when the ribbon is cut, as they will be the beneficiaries of this project. Revitalization of the Historic District was the whole focus of this project. She also supports Option D for the retaining wall. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested a motion from Council for approval of the rezoning. Mr. Lecklider asked when the water feature would be acted upon by Council. Mr. Phillabaum stated that it can be a condition to this approval or a separate motion. Mr, Lecklider confirmed that the water feature discussion would follow this vote. Vice Mayor Boring moved to approve Ordinance 07-OS with the four conditions outlined by staff in the presentation, Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested a motion regarding the retaining wall option. Vice Mayor Boring moved to approve Option D for the retaining wall for Modern Male. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner; yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. Wafer Feature: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that a joint meeting of Council and the Architectural Review Board took place tonight at 5:30. Following discussion of proposed water feature options for the Bridge and High project, ARB voted to recommend adoption of the Option C Water Feature. 08-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Dublin City Council February 19, 2008 Page 11 Mr. Slanec. Bird-Houk stated that Option C provides for layered limestone slabs extending out into the plaza area. This layering represents the rock of the Indian Run tributary. On the Bridge Street side, there will be a natural waterfall setting. On the High Street side, there will be a rock that cantilevers over a limestone setting as it pours over into a trough area and is re-circulated. Council and ARB members supported this concept because of the seating arrangement, which potentially uses limestone blocks harvested from the bridge construction in 1935. This also meanders around the plaza area, so that the public can sit and view the water feature and turn and view the future public art piece. Mr. Lecklider stated that initially, he favored Concept A, but was persuaded as a result of the joint meeting discussion to support Concept C. Comments were made regarding the use of vertically stacked stones. He supports the use of those in other areas, but not with these horizontal features. Also, he is not in agreement with the two conditions recommended by ARB. He does not favor the recommendation to extend the water wall around and north on High Street. He believes that would detract from the otherwise natural appearance of the water feature in the proposed concept. He likes the planters depicted on either end, but as Mr. Slanec indicated, due to the elevation those are potentially problematic from a design or engineering perspective. Regarding the northernmost water feature, which has a slab that protrudes over other horizontal rocks, a suggestion was made for a condition that there be some type of safety railing on the top. In his view, that feature or a similar feature would detract from the natural appearance of this water wall. Concern was expressed that this could be an attractive nuisance. He does not understand why this would be anymore attractive for climbers than the other side. Everyone anticipates this will be a patio used by the public but primarily by the restaurant for dining. He is hopeful that the patrons would keep their children off the wall. If there is concern, perhaps it would be possible to design something behind that wall that would discourage climbing. However, throughout this project, there are opportunities for climbing. He does not believe it is possible to guard against that. Mrs. Boring requested clarification of the suggestion for railing. Did the architect interpret the suggested railing to be right on top of the wal{, or behind, as it is at the zoo? Mr. Slanec responded that his interpretation would be that the railing would be behind to prevent engagement upon the wall. He added that items such as railing must be approved by the Architectural Review Board. Ms. Ott stated that one point to consider is that the distance involved between the water feature and that railing would result in the lower plaza being smaller. The wall would need to be moved further south. Stonehenge is to be provided with a certain square footage for patio space adjacent to the High Street building. Mr. Lecklidec stated that he is not opposed to the railing behind, if it is considered necessary. Mrs. Boring stated that she would agree with investigating the need and determine if there is an acceptable solution. Mr. Reiner stated that he is in agreement with Mr. Lecklider. Looking at the change in grade on the right-hand side, there are some issues that may not have been taken into consideration. Engineering work would be necessary with the change in grade. Et would be worthwhile to investigate the inclusion of railing, but if it is not an option without detracting from the project, so be it. He likes the planters at either end. There are other options, such as a pump within one of the planters with a plaque, which could also be incorporated into the landscape plan. Mr. Keenan noted for the public that a joint meeting to discuss the water feature preceded this Council meeting. Council and the Architecture Review Board met at 5:30 p.m. and discussed the water wall concepts in great depth. He likes the concept as it was designed. He believes the architects considered the ADA standards and safety issues, and he is comfortable with Option C. Ms. Salay thanked the ARB and staff for all their work with the adjoining businesses. This will be a great project and she is looking forward to it. 08-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and Tiigh Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Dublin City Council February 19, 2008 Page 12 Mrs. Boring requested clarification of what is being voted upon. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved acceptance of the water feature Option C. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes: Mr. Keenan, yes. Ms. Ott thanked Council, noting it has been athree-year effort to arrive at this point. Some of the staff who have contributed significantly to this effort have not been visible, including Aaron Stanford from Engineer'ng. He has been integral to their efforts, particularly in terms of the difficult grading of this site. She expressed thanks to Bird-Houk and The Stonehenge/Company for their extensive work on this project. Ordinance 08-OS mended) Amending Cha er 153 of the Dublin Zon' g Code to Establish Ext ror Lighting Requiremen . (Case No. 07-109ADM) Mr. La orthy stated that at the fi reading on February 4, umber of concerns were expr sed by Council. Staff ha ttempted to address thos ,and there has been som c nge to the language as r cted in the amended ord once. The revised ordina e deletes the previous restri ions on sign illumination d requires that only new developments with par g lots in excess of 250 s ces reduce lighting by 50 rcent. This reduction car accommodated through ombination of light level lustments or through the extin fishing of fixtures. In addi n, a property owner may . aintain full lighting levels ithin 150 feet of the main. trance for security purpo s. The revised ordinance o includes requirements compliance of nonconfor mg lighting when the modific ons exceed a specified p> entage -- 50 percent for ansion or 25 percent for the February 4th Counc eeting, additional inform ion was requested regard g current examples of bu 'esses that reduce lightin fter hours. One of the by~ye ings mentioned was the mmunity Recreation Cen .One of the conditions f~~pproval of that building by t tanning and Zoning Co fission was that there be r duced light levels at night. he lights are on a timer a the lighting is reduced, ot~fn some portions of ',he parking completely shut off, duri certain portions of the ni ~ The cost of that installati in 1995 was $1,500. To y, it would likely cost $2,0 for a lot of similar speci ations and the same num r of lights (48 pole lights) he Planning and Zoning C mission has imposed a si filar conditicn for approval a number of other proje addition, there are a nu er of businesses within th ity that reduce their ligh ' g during night-time hours their own volition, probab for economic reasons. A second revision the amended ordinances~ ales to sign illumination. reviously, language was i luded to require that sign tfumination be turned off a 0 pm or upon the close of bus ess. That language has b n eliminated completely ' deference to the sign illuminati requirements that alread exist in the zoning code. Pla ing recommends Council pproval of this ordinances amended. Ms. Salay inquired if bus' esses would be notified o~~t~iis Code change and wh er voluntary compliance reduce their lighting wo~d'be encouraged. When a urch was constructed in her ighborhood, the neighborswere concerned about th umber of lights and the a unt of light trespass result~g from the City's require nts. The church would have ferred to reduce the amo ~~ of lighting. IF businesse realized they had the option to r uce their lighting, they pr ably would do so. Mr. La worthy responded that st certainly would encoura voluntary compliance. Ms. slay stated that reducing e amount of electricity us would also align with the 's green initiatives. Sh oted that she had receive a phone call from someo well nown to this Council wh as very encouraging re ding these lighting guidet' es. He stated that Counci; is re to make this communit a great place for the resid is to live. It is important to ke that in mind, balancing t interests of business, bu Itimately Council represe sits residents. She thank Mr. Langworthy for Plan responsiven to the concerns of Coun ~ and the potential conce~ 08-0347/FDP community% ~ / Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 Wcst Bridge Street Dublin City Council February x:2008 Mayor Chinnici-Zuer er called the Monday, Febru 4, 2008 Regular Meeting o ublin City Council too er at 7:00 p.m. at the Dublin nicipal Building. Present were ayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice ayor Boring, Ms. Salay, Mr. cklider, Mr. Keenan a Mr. Reiner. Mr. Gerber was sent (excused). St members present were Ms. utigam, Mr. Smith, Mr. McD gel, Chief Epperson, Mr ammersmith, Ms. Crandall, . Langworthy, Ms. Ott, Mr. H , Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Phillabaum, Ms. Ruwette Ms. Husak. / PLEDGE OF ALLE ANCE Mr. Lecklider le a Pledge of Allegiance. APPRO'~ OF MINUTES • /Regular Meeting of January , 2008 ~M(~[ecklider moved approval of meeting minufes of Janua , 2008. s. Salay seconded the moti ,. Mr. Keenan noted a cone n to page 17, where it shout fate: "Mr. Keenan stated th once a bond is posted, a surety must make certain t project is completed accord' to the bid documents." Vote on the min s as corrected: Ms. Salay, ; Mr. Reiner, abstain; Mayor innici- Zuercher, ye , ice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. enan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, ye . COR PONDENCE T e was no correspondence re firing Council action. CITt2EN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer 7451 tin Road stated that a fam journalist reports on the cur t climate situation an as concluded it is too late to o anything. The atmospher ow has 385 parts of car dioxide per million, and wa xpected to have 445 by mi entury but that point is in reach now. It is anticipa d that heightened level tout ave significant impacts o e environment. Coastal re ' ns will gradually become fl ed. Therefore, the D dike system will be evalua , as well as heat and cold r stant food. Some s er impacts could also occur. irport runways may no Ion a tong enough, ecause warmer, thinner air make it more difficult for pla s to lift off. Cities may nee to construct public "coolin otters" to compensate fore emely hot days. The word "adaptaticn" comes up en dealing with this subject nstead of reversing the war ~ g, it will be necessary to dapt to it. What does this h to do with Dublin? It relate o working on the ding code to accommodate ilding which may want tom a use of thermal ors r heat. There is a persuasiv case that it is too (ate to do hing, and searciiinn r excuses will turn into ada{yt tion. Preliminary and Fi I Piat -Duke Parkwood (59 Parkwood Piace -Case No - 092PPlFP) Final Plat aul Blazer Parkway - (515 aul G. Blazer Memorial Par ay-Case No, 07 17FP) Mayor Chi ici-Zuercher stated that the plicant has requested that t oaring on the above is be postponed until the ne Council meeting on Februa 19. Mr. einer moved to postpone the earings on the above plats d the February 19 until meeting. Ms. Salay seconded them n. Vote on the motion: Mr. einer, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes• ice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, y ; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklid ,yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 07-08 Rezoning 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. 07-0992) Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. 08-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Dublin City Council February 4, 2008 Page 2 Mr. Phillabaum shared a Powerpoint presentation regarding the project. He stated that this is a request for review and approval of a rezoning fora 22,000 square foot mixed used development. This project is aprivate-public partnership between the City of Dublin and The Stonehenge Company. A development agreement approved by City Council on June 18, 2007 outlines the details of this partnership and the development of the project. The rezoning and preliminary development plan was approved with seven conditions by the Pianning Commission on December 6, 2007. On January 9, 2008, the Architectural Review Board approved the architecture and site modifications with conditions. The final development plan was approved with four conditions by the Planning Commission on January 17. The approval of the final development plan is not effective until the rezoning is approved by Council. Site: The site is located in the Historic District in the southeast portion of the City. It is a 0.7 acre site comprised of three parcels and is relatively flat with a slight drop in topography from northwest to southeast. ft is currently developed as a municipal parking lot. Directly to the northwest of the project is 24 Darby Street, which has been accommodated in the site plan. Further to the northwest is the recently opened Darby Street municipal parking lot and surrounding businesses, including Town Center I on the south side of Bridge Street. The proposed site plan contains two 2-story, mixed-use buildings totaling 22,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and office use parallel to Bridge and High Streets. It contains a formal green located in the interior of the site, framed by the existing building at 24 Darby and the two proposed buildings. A public plaza at the northwest corner of the site provides visual and physical access to the formal greenspace. Patio space is proposed along both buildings to serve both private tenants of the buildings and the general public. Parking for this development is provided in offsite municipal parking lots and with on street public parking. To the west, along Darby Street is a valet stand. The refuse for this project is to be contained within the buildings themselves, in the northwest portion of Building A (along Bridge Street) and the northwest portion of Building B (along High Street). For Building B, this would be accessed via the Wing Hill service court that is created by the closure of Wing HIII at High Street; for Building A, access is along Darby Street. Architecture: The architecture has been approved by ARB. The south elevation of Building B was modified, as indicated in the presentation shown tonight, to be more in keeping with the vernacular of the District. Materials proposed for the buildings are predominantly brick, stone, siding, wood or hardiplank. The previous Gothic, pointed window frames have been simplified to a design more consistent with the District. The entries on the High Street elevation are accessed via steps. An ADA-accessible pedestrian plaza will be available from the interior and the corner, The mass and scale of the buildings is consistent with the rest of the architecture in the District, as are the setbacks. The landscape plan is a more open setting. The landscaped areas rely less on lawn and lush plantings and more on hardscape materials in order to support the high-level pedestrian activity. In addition to the formal green that is lined by trees on the north and west, there are a number of plantings contained in raised planter walls, as well as along the foundations of the buildings. The applicant has addressed five of the seven conditions specified by the Planning Commission. Planning has evaluated the proposal based upon the criteria for review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan. Planning recommends approval of the rezoning at the second reading on February 19 with the four conditions as listed in the staff report. Mo Dioun The Stonehenge Comaanv, 447 N. High Street. Gahanna stated that after tremendous effort and careful review, his company, City staff, the Planning Commission, and the Architectural Review Board have produced the plan that is before Council tonight. They are ready to move forward with the plan pending Council's approval. They anticipate construction beginning in early spring. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if a mock-up of the stairs had been prepared. The development across the street is street level and does not require steps. She is curious 08-0347,/rDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and FIigh Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Dublin City Council February 4, 2008 Page 3 about the appearance of the stairs for the project. Mr. Dioun responded that they have not yet prepared a model of the buildings and their relationship to the site. They are confident that the steps will be tasteful and contribute to the "old" look of the buildings. There is a variance in elevation, increasing from the west to the east side of the site. The desire was to keep the plaza at the same elevation level and have access for all the buildings. This project is comprised of four-sided architecture. The desire is to encourage the in/out traffic from the inner plaza and for that gradually to become the gathering space. There is only one step from the plaza into the buildings. The function of the inner, formal plaza is to draw people into it as a gathering space. Most of the businesses will have frontage on both the front and back sides. Mr. Reiner inquired if the steps would be of limestone in keeping with the essence of Dublin. Mr. Dioun responded that if the budget allows, the steps will be of limestone. Mr. Reiner stated that the cost is not that excessive. Limestone stairs are now being pre- cut. Mr. Dioun stated that he cannot make a commitment at this time. They did use quite a bit of limestone in the Gahanna project. Their philosophy is to use natural materials as much as possible, If they do use limestone steps, they will need to be custom made to fit the project. Mr. Keenan stated that page L-6 of the plans indicates the use of limestone. Mr. Reiner responded that is true, but the text does not specify limestone. Mr. Dioun stated that the architect recommended the use of limestone, but the text does not commit them to that. They have discussed other materials, such as concrete, although the preference would be limestone. They will use the right materials to be consistent with the character. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in regard to the trash matter, her understanding was that Stonehenge would meet with the other restaurants in that area and discuss the possibility of having a single trash storage area. Mr. Dioun responded that staff did arrange that meeting, and they discussed having a centralized trash collection and disposal system That is not under his control, but if that does not occur, he will commit to working with the other businesses and the City in a collaborative manner to achieve that. They have committed to intense trash management in the event it is necessary to have trash pick-up at each building. At one time, there was discussion about managing all of the trash at one of the buildings on Bridge Street rather than on High Street. However, after discussion with the Planning Commission, they agreed that it would not be ideal for a restaurant on High Street to have trash being carried through a public plaza that will serve as a gathering space. In conclusion, if a collaborative effort with the City and other businesses does not produce a central trash management plan, they will put in place such a program for this development that will prevent any trash problems. Ms. Salay inquired the location of the valet building. Mr. Dioun indicated the location on the map. He noted that some consideration was given to housing some of the mechanical control systems for the public areas, such as the irrigation system, as part of the valet site. This site will not be limited to valet service only. Although it is a private valet station, the City will have access to the equipment. Ms. Salay asked who would maintain the plantings, such as the planter boxes and container plantings. Mr. Dioun stated that the development agreement provides for the City's Parks division to maintain all the public areas. They are responsible for the footprint vertically from the elevation level and the City is responsible for the public areas, based upon the development agreement. Mr. Reiner requested clarification of the public and the private areas, Who is responsible for the maintenance of the outside dining areas? Mr. Dioun responded that if this area is used exclusively by a private business, they will be responsible for clean-up each day. If open to the public and not restricted to a private user, it should be the City's responsibility. At this point, it is not known who the users are ng-o3azirvr Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and Nigh Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Dubiin City Council February 4, 2008 Page 4 and how the outdoor areas will be used. The best test is whether the area is open to the public or whether it is exclusively used by a private business. That is the criteria by which it will be determined. Mr. Reiner noted that the outdoor dining is a welcome addition to the community, and is a private dining space. There is also more public park space where people can gather. Will there be a differentiation of these spaces that is apparent to the public? Mr. Dioun responded that, curren8y, 3,000 square feet of patio space is provided for in the plan. They will collaborate with City staff about patio locations and design. The responsibility for private areas will be the developer's or the tenant, which would be defned in the tenant lease agreement. Mr. Reiner asked about the irrigation system -who will pay for it and who will pay the water bill to maintain the green space. Mr. Dioun responded that the private development will not contain any green space. Ms. Ott added that through the development agreement, the City and Stonehenge have an obligation to execute a maintenance agreement prior to issuance of the final occupancy permits for the buildings. This will be defined in that agreement in detail. It was not possible to define this until the final development plan was submitted. In regard to irrigation, those are City designed, and the City will be responsible for maintenance and associated utility bills. The City will work with Stonehenge to have separate metering facilities for City use for the irrigation for the water walls and the water needed to wash the plaza space, etc. Mr. Lecklider noted that he understands from the comments that the maintenance agreement is yet to be developed. He had not contemplated the possibility of City staff cleaning up the site on a daily basis. Ms. Ott responded this is similar to the arrangement at Town Center I, where the City is responsible for snow removal and for the general condition of the public areas. Mr. Lecklider stated that some of the plans provided show a dumpster location at Building A on the western side. Unless everyone can agree that the trash will be taken offsite, the trash will all go to the north end of Building B -correct? Ms. Ott responded that the trash will go to the north end of Building B and the west end of Building A. They each have a separate trash room in the design. Mr. Keenan asked if the dumpsters are actually within the building and accessed by an overhead door. Mr. Dioun responded that the dumpsters are actually in the buildings, and the doors are similar to a small garage door. Mr. Keenan asked for confrmation that the footprint and the vertical space upward is the responsibility of the developer. Ms. Ott responded that there is also a portion of the valet area, the details of which will be discussed further in the development of the maintenance agreement. It depends on how much of the public utility must be inside the valet space and how much control the City needs over that space. Mr. Keenan stated that what he does not understand, however, is in regard to the patio area and those areas used private-y. Where does the revenue go for that space rental? He assumes that if a portion of the patio is set aside, a business owner would be charged for the additional square footage made available to them. Who receives the income from that space rental? Ms. Ott responded that the City is not charging a fee specifically for the exclusive and non- exclusive patio space. However, Stonehenge is committed to helping finance public art on this site and is making an annual contribution to that in recognition of the benefit the public space brings to its buildings, Mr. Keenan asked how it will be determined who receives patio space and who does not. Is the City not charging for this space? Ms. Ott responded That as part of the final development plan, those areas have been identified and reviewed by ARB and P&Z. The development agreement provided for up to 3,000 square feet of patio space that could operate as a permitted use. Mr. Keenan asked if these areas would be separated or fenced off from the rest of the patio area. Ms. Ott responded that this is possible, depending upon the needs of the tenant. Mr. Keenan asked if there is an additional charge for this square footage. To him, there should be a separation of public space versus private space. He supports the patio os-o3azirnP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Dublin City Council February 4, 2008 Page 5 concept, but what will the City do if other businesses demand use of the patio space similar to that provided for one business? Ms. Ott responded that there is likely a different set of conditions under which that other request would come forward. The current scenario involves the landowner, and Stonehenge has offered to finance future improvements to this space. The annual contribution beginning in 2009 by Stonehenge will be $6,000 towards improvements to the space that don't solely benefit the development. Mr. Keenan believes there is a potential for problems with this arrangement. Mrs. Boring stated that there are public spaces existing in Dublin now that are allowed to be used by restaurants. Mr. Keenan responded that in this case, however, there is much more plaza space being provided. Mrs. Boring stated that, similar to drive-through businesses on a site, there is a limit to what can be made available on one site. In many cases, it is a matter of first come, first served. Mr, Keenan noted that there is no revenue consideration as part of this. Mr. Dioun commented that this entire project needs to be considered as a public/private transaction and needs to be viewed in the context of the price per square foot for the footprint, as well as the investment made in parking facilities and construction of those. They have done a similar project in Gahanna where public areas/patios are currently being used by the restaurants at $2 per square foot on an annualized basis. if all 3,000 square feet were used, it would generate $6,000. Ali of this must be considered comprehensively in the public/private partnership, which resulted from negotiations and certain trade-offs. At this time, they are not certain of the level of desire for private patio space. Not knowing the interest, it was difficult to put a number on this during negotiations. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road stated that he is still probing fen the embracing impact of this project. He mentioned before that if this is to be a kind of "signature" presentation of the City, he is not sure about its impact. On page 2 of the memo, under the final development plan. no. 2, he questions the rationale for the maximum of three colors permitted on signs. It relates to the philosophy about the matter of color and why not more than three. Secondly, in the memo, under recommendations of ARB, no. 1, the Board recommends that the builder coordinate with staff to determine if the addition of a gable to the east and west elevations of this facade is architecturally appropriate. There is a question here of what the impression is supposed to be about Dublin. Third, there is a letter from Jeff Darby, who signs himself as the historic preservation consultant. Mr. Darby indicates that he still has questions relating to simplicity and complexity in the buildings. He is concerned with the elaborations and extensions on aspects of the buildings, which did not exist in the original historic district. is there anywhere in Dublin a conversation or debate underway regarding what is architecturally appropriate and historic in Dublin? Where does a site begin to be historic? He believes it is already historic at the present time. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested Mr. tvlaurer discuss these items with staff prior to the next hearing Perhaps Mr. Maurer can consult with Mr. Darby, who is affiliated with Landmarks and is familiar with historic preservation. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the second reading/public hearing will be held on February 19 and public testimony is welcome at that time. Requirements) of th~i[)ubiin Zoning Ms. Sai introduced the ordinance. a applauds Mr. Langworth~rXor finally bringing this ame ment forward. Mr. McCash wring his entire service on uncil, had asked that the ' codify the lighting require ts. Mr. Langworthy stated th' ~s an amendment to the zo ' g code to address exterior ghting requirements. It will b anew section of the Code. urrently, much of this is re ated by the exterior lightin uidelines, which is not codi d and therefore merely a ~ " number of Plan ' g Commissioners have dis ssed this with staff in terms ~g_O34Z/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JANUARY 17, 2008 CTTX OF DUBLIN_ land Use and long Range Plospieg 5800 Sbier-Rings Rand Dubin, Ohio 43016-1136 Plsone: 614-410-4600 Fax: 614.410-4147 Web Site: www.dablia.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Bridge and high Streets Development 20 West Bridge Street 07-0992/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 llublin, represented by Mo M. Dioun, The Stonehenge Company. Planning Contact: Dan Phillabaum, AICP, Senior Planner. Contact Information: (G14} 410-46G2, dphillabaum@dublin.oh.us. MOTION: To approve this Einal Development Pian 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: I) 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 pern~itted; 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 TIF TION ~{ r ~ L an Phillabaum, A CP 08-034Z/FDP Senior Planner Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street .wuau.h ................r . .. ........ .. January 17, 200$ - Minutes Page 2 of 19 Fishman, yes; Saneholtz, yes; (Approved 5 - 0.) pan expiaine the rules and He annou ed the agenda order Groomes, ~; and Mr. Zimmerm~rf, yes. bilities of the Pla Ing and Zoning Cases 4, 3, 1, Pl ping Presentation, and [The minutes Elect the order of the fished agenda.] Com ~ nications Iistrative Report Claudia Husak called n the Commissioners ention that the revis ork Session. proced c outline had been ovided to potential a icants and a copy o le communications was attached to th dministrative Repor r. Zimmerman con ned that the Commis ' Hers had read it. TJ~ Co111I111s510n d1SCUS5' the procedure and agr d to proceed on a trai asis until the end of~u~ust 2008 and woul eview the procedures • that time. ~iGls. Husak said the o r item was based November, regar g the minor modifi information r~~arding an Administ ~ iv C'onunissici~ t~~ review. ~e decision made at ans in planned dev Approval was achy ~ent Work Sessiol ' 1 .ent districts. S} said to the Repo for the 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 for 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 January 9, 2008. 1-ie said that Plaruung 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 Sign and Graphics Plan be revised to specify that a maximum 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 perrrlitted. Mr. Phillabaum said that there had been no changes to the layout or arrarlgcment 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 U8-034Z/FDP Rezoning/Fina1 Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2UU8 -Minutes Page3of19 ornamentation has been simplified in order to keep it consistent with the rest of the character of Historic Dublin. Mr. Phiilabaum said a condition of the Conunission'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 1-Iigh 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 specif ed 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 hazdscape, are the water features in the southeast plaza, and that the ARB 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. Phillabaum said approval by the Commission of the preliminary plan included a condition that the squaze footages of the individual patios and potential balcony locations be designated on the plan. Ile indicated the balcony locations on the buildings and maximum envelope and patio locations on the plan. 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 preliminazy 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 Uarby Street, and in the northwest portion of Building B along I-Iigh 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 H to adjoining properties, 37 North High Street and 24 Dazby Street. He said Planning believes that the refuse area should be relocated either off-site or within an expanded refuse storage area within Building A. Mr. Phillabaum referenced a letter that had been provided to the Commission from Tie 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. 08-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2008 -Minutes Page 4 of 19 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, Uard Hunter Green, Rookwood Brov~m, 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 pernnitted, 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. f le said that second floor tenants in both buildings would be identified by one tenant directory sign. He noted that the Iocation 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 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 let#er 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 one 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. Ile 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 he done to better incorporate them into the plan by revising the wall and ramp locations. He noted that the view 08-0342/FDI' Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and lfigh Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Planning and 'Zoning Commission January 17, 2008 -Minutes Page 5 of 14 from the second floor of Building B would be of the flat rooftop of 24 Darby, and suggested that consideration be given to changing this roof to a pitched roof so the complex alI worked together visually. Mr. Day said on the west side of their building on Darby Street, there is a heated concrete accessible ramp. I-Ie 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 rezozung or some consideration made for additional signs. Mr. Zimmerman asked if this was the first time Mr. 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 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 vv~hat 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 I-souk to see what the implications were for madifying 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 just reviewing the building footprints. Jennifer Readier 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. 08-0347./FDI' Rezoning/FinaI Development Plan Bridge asld High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2008 -Minutes Page 6 of 19 Mr. Saneholtz asked if that meant that it was not an issue as to the impact upon neighbors. Ms. Readier 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. SanehoItz 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 that wall. Mr. Phillabaum presented conceptual slides of a potential modification to the east side of the 24 Darby property. 1~Ie 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 Dazby was being narrowed. Ms. Ott clarified that the City had granted 24 Darby Street an easement on the south and east side of its property that is 7.5 feet wide. She said the area where a portion of the sidewalk is currently located is owned by the City. She said the 1-fill 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 cast 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 18-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 would need to be coordinated with the development. Ile noted that two parking spots would be lost from the back of their building. He said that Ms. Hill was going to actually grant the City permission to make this whole wallc.way happen on the back half of the building and there will be some concessions on how that can be incorporated too. 08-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2008 -Minutes Page 7 of 19 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 T'ribel, Civil Engineer, reiterated the issues about the width between the existing building and the wall. lie 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. He 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. 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 be reconsidered apart from this application. lie 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 161 and Bridge Street, which includes street trees. He confirmed with the Commissioners that the location as shown and quantity was appropriate. Mr. 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 nn a comer lot, and would not have visibility from the intersection. He said there will be 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 08-0347/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 2U-21 West Bridge Street Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2008 - Minutes Page 8 of 19 incumbent upon that business to decide whether or not they want to make modifications to that building from the facade of the building. Mr. Saneholtz said his biggest concern was the wall feature and the extent of the wall. He said he would hate to see that building feel sepazated 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 override 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. Mr. Zimmerman read the condition: 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. 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. He said he knew of no good solution, but to strike Condition i 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 be 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.Limmerman 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 does 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. Mx. 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 I-Iigh 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. Ile 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 08-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2008 -Minutes Page 9 of 19 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 Groomes pointed out that that the trash would be on City property if it was outside the building and there would be the ability to police 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 dumpster facility available for the Historic District, and if all of Mr. Uioun'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 she 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 the neighboring businesses, he would be permitted interior trash storage in Building B. She asked if that could be worded to that affect. Ms. Readler 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. Readler 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 vn 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. Zimmerman 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. 7..immerman, yes. (Approved 5 - 0.) 08-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street PLANNING AND 'CONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 6, 2007 CITY OF UUBLIN_ Land Use and Long Ronge Plonning SH00 Shier-Rings Rood Dublin, Ohio 43016-1234 Phone: 614-41D-460D fax: 614410-0741 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 8. Bridge and High Streets llevelopment 20 West Bridge Street 07-0991/FDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Final llevelopment 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 Iiigli 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@dublin.oh.us MOTION #l : 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 conditior> 1) That exhibit B of the development text and the preliminary development plan be revised to inc}ude 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 Signs 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; 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 "Coning Commission for Final Development Plan review. *Sara Ott, representing the applicant, agreed to the above conditions. Page 1 of 2 08-0347,/FDI' Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street PLANNING AI\'D ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 6, 2007 8. Bridge and Nigh Streets Development 2U West Bridge Street 07-099Z/FDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan VOTE: 5 - 2. RESULT: This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan was approved. MOTION #2: "To table this Final Development Plan in order for the project to be reviewed and approved by Architectural Review Board before returning to the Planning and Zoning Commission, no later than January 17, 2008. *Sara Ott, representing the applicant, agreed. VOTE: 7 - 0. RI+:SUL'I': The Final Development plan was tabled STAFF CF;RTIFICA~'ION ~~ Abby S t I'la-iner Page 2 of 2 08-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Planning andloning Commission December 6, 2007 -Minutes Page 12 of 18 Motion and Vo Mr. Zimme an made a motion t pprove this Corrido evelopment Distric ~ pplication because t proposed building c dinates with the arch ctural design of the o °rall shopping center evelopment and meet re review criteria fort Con•idor Developme District with one m ~ficd condition: 1) The archite ral details for the door cooler and se e area match the or• u~al proposa ith the addition of widow's walk detail ong the top of the ~oposal Mr. ~eholtz seconded the tion. Mr. Ford afire to the above conditio The voce was as f ows: Mr. Walter, yes• r. Fishman, yes; Ms. morose Groomes, yes• r. McCash, no, after confirming that mull sin the windows re not being requir Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Sanehoitz, yes; an r. Zimmerman, yes. pproved 6 - l .} 8. Bridge and High Streets Development 20 West Bridge Street 07-0992/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 p--oject is a public private partnership between the City of Dublin and the Stonehenge Compatly. She said the concept plan for this development was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 9, 2007. 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 desigT~ of this site. She said two water features are proposed at the southeast corner 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 die sidewalks along Bridge and High Streets will be brick and will include street trees. Ms. Scott said that vehicular access to Wing HiII 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 comer of the site. Ms. Scott said the proposed elevations of the Bridge and High Street development indicate buildings, which are designed to appear like a series of smaller connected buildings. She said 08-0347,/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-Z 1 West Bridge Street Planning and Zoning Commission December 6, 2007 -Minutes Page 13 of 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 hardscape materials to support the high level of pedestrian activity. She said the center of the site wilt 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 High Streets. She said the sign details are similar to what is currently used in the Town Center I 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/pre(iminary 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 Repori_ She said in Planning's opinion this proposal complies with the applicable criteria set forth in the 'Coning 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 set forth in the Zoning Code and approval with two conditions is recotntnended. 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. Gundetman 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. Mr. Gundennan 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 agreed to in the last meeting. 08-0347,/FDP RczoninglFinal Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Planning and Zoning Commission Dece~riber 6, 2007 -Minutes Page 14 of 18 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. Ile 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 1,100 syuare 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 once 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 gather7ng 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 dumpstcrs internally. Mr. Barnum said he is concerned that smells will become an issue no matter how well the dumpster is enclosed. He asked if it is possible for 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 dumpstcrs 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 development, which will contain another restaurant, or bar. Warren Fislunan 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 Amoroso 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 f rst. 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. Fislunan said he feels that the patios are not going to be utilized due to their locatic 08-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Planning and Zoning Commission December 6, 2007 -Minutes Page I S 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 feel. 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. Walter said he is proposing the corner is opened up. Mr. Waller 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 tot it will cause the atmosphere to change, and the community feeling will be lost 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. Arnorose 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 can-ent 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 08-0342/FDP Rezonir~g/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street 1'taruung and Gnnmg C;ommrssion December 6, 2007 -Minutes Page 1 G of 18 gatherings than another location can be found. He said when this project started it vas 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. Amorosc Groomes said she would like to sec the building scaled back in order io see the vista. Mr. McCash said there is more open space in the proposed ~,~reen 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. Ile 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. I-Ie 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 about 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 there to prevent harm to pedestrians. Mr. McCash said i! is important to ensure that the signagc is going to be limited to 15 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. 08-0347/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Planning and Zoning Conunission December 6, 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. Gunderrrran 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 flow 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 may be need to be discussed. Ms. Amoroso Grooms said condition four must require a cohesive street trees treatment, which will be carried 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. Mr. Gerber said condition six requires ice guards for the metal roofing. Mr. Gerber said that condition seven should require that the silni package be brought back to the Commission. Ms. Ott agreed to the conditions below. Motion and Vote -Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Mr. Gerber made a motion, seconded by Mr. Zimmerman, 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 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; 08-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street Planning and Zoning Commission December 6, 2007 -Minutes Page I8 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. Amorose 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 .Plan 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 'Coning Commission no later than January 17, 2008. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Tabled 7 - 0.) 9. COIC Zo ng District eutral Olrio Innovat' n Center 07-101 M Admirristr rve Request Mr. Gerber oved to table this ninistrative Request nee it would be revs ed January 12. He regti ted that it be added t tl~e January 3 Work scion and that para ers for January 12 also discussed. Mr. Lan orthy suggested it b one as part of the Ac inistrative Report at . Gerber agreed. M .Saneholtz seconded le motion, and the to was as follows: r. alter, yes; Mr. Fis pan, yes; Mr. McCa. ,yes; Mr. Saneholtz es; Ms. Amorose G ~ omes, yes; Mr. Zinune n, yes; and Mr. Gerb ,yes. (Tabled 7 - 0. Admirristr rve Business The mee ' ig was adjourned at 1 :12 p.m. Mr. Ger er noted that this wa ouncilmember Ton cCash's last Com ' sion meeting. He than d Mr. McCash for h~ two terms on the C mission as Council ~ icon, and Dublin is a b er place for his servi • Mr. Gerber wished r. McCash tuck. H presented a plaque to Mr. cCash which read: Planning and Zonis Conunission -Jan ry 2006 through December 2007. Ms. Roger explained that it was or this service perio nd that one for the last service period had bee given to him already. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ ~ /~ Libb Farley Administrative Assistant and Ebony Mills Staff Assistant 08-0342/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Bridge and High Development 20-21 West Bridge Street ~_ ~~~ ~ ~, III I I ~ I I I I. I I I I ~~ PARMSv^ I'I, III I ~ I I x D,~Aar 3:+~:r II it 1.~-\ I ~ I I 7iCiMA i. IRL I I I I Er. &d.~ ' ~ ~/' '. ",~a{ ~ ~, I~ aR 2,-sa .:'D4 I I I g I -_ I ~ ~Er.BI ` I~.{d'N Bw^rl ~= 2~ _9u ' ~ i ', I ~ Prta. So' I ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 I t:A 2~~20~54: ~ I - I ~ j r 41 I R Pnnan'~1 ~ ~ I , ~ ~ ~ I I SC,.I v LN YCh7' ' ~ ?~I (See Sbnitory mirT _ '" _ _ _ _ . _. _~ ~_ ~ ..r_.""- _- I . - Myvesr/Iw I _ _ _ _ _ i ". ~! ~ EJ( MINC HILL Bnr Ro k ~M1 I } ~ u \ ~ _ _ _ _ O.R B80B FOl I OB 26.76, I r f -" - - -~ -,- i ~, - e ~ EX. Nt7147H S1REEr~ 1 ~ n'~ ~ i c k Jam COnalruCl/M f mr t lo' Ib' I1 / I ~,~~"~~ lil.- ~ . ~~ P ~( ,'rte ~ F ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ E.. BWp. $.. I [ e/il6'11 ~ j ~W 7e.vA ~, /c/ of ; I ~` 1• I,, I ~ ~-a l I ~ r.., ~ I ~ ~~ ~ ~.~:dB ~ti~ ~: ~~ ; s E I~ I~~~ ~~ ~l , ~ + ~~~ ~AClgflf ."P...,, ~~ p to ~ ~0,:/M:' .;IRL. ," 3II t I I (11 _. .~ :4 b 1 ~ L L•! ,;:,:S;GI,SW^nV:YKO \~ I I__. ~ I $-Y I Mr ~. -Prop, Sr'dewo/k -. w. ~., ___ :V ;n f ~ I~ ; ~: `Prop. OumPafw ~`~ t Ne In y` '44 1 ~ 'TI<mP. CarafNCflon £rnrl~ ~h ; I~ ~ ~ I o,i!' M~ ~ ~ I V _ - y y//JJJpp~~~ 9' I V ~ ._,.~.1,~9,6~ ~N k 9-"n R 9 f' . t~ I ~ ~~ yl r N ~--- 6 I ~ 1 `(.?~~- / 1.. " I r }G.'7.4L 11u~ ~ ~~_ }~~ r r2~ a - a ~ .l ~ La. eldq ~~ ~ I~ ~ rM ec_ 1 ~ ~ ~3 au :„cs65~trD9;msu ~' W I ~ f / ~ 11 ~1I n I -j ~ 196 ~ ~ - ~ ~~ R^'' ~L- . si ~' II ~ r ~2 ~ !off ~ .4Y~L~~~~~"~~~~~ ~ ~ I~ d3 ~d ..~1,Y it ~~~n~ ~ ~ ~ 'a-~ II ~ dq py~ 111xS\ F II I j, BuNdMq O' I ~~ fi. 8l :~ tr I • 1 I > ';'~ ~ ~,; I >1] ~ 1 i ~~ ~ ~ ~t ~ I, :I~a ' ~ -~i F. uN,~ I I ~ '° Fh•*< Ir/ I i 7 ~ ~/ ` a r~~ II' L ~~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ { ~- Ex. B/dy. I 3.r '~' Via( ,y I ~ ~ , ~ ~ I~ ~ V ~~ I n I '~4 I .a, tt#t>#E _ }" ~ I ~ ~c.AtxcuuPA,2rc,v. ~ I .. - . ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~~~ I ~ ° ~i ~ ~ I~ ;y I ~ ~ : i ~ ,.u .neoa72sD:7ess Y \ 6 h rs w ~ r r. '~' ~ I I I I ~ ~ ~~~:~ ~ '~I ~ r1 rl ;. I ~ I J (_ ~ _.. I. h ~° / I I ~I~ I W ~ _ ~ ~ _pl I .o~~ I;, I ~ I r I I cx a I ~ f ~t .~ (f.f- °;(I ~; uhf lllit ~{hp n I ~ ~ I I I ~.~I ,, I z ;~ w ~. a:,e ~- rkr J ~ (~',~ty; Ul; >i' I ~ `~ ~ ~ y h ~. ~Piap. Dumpsfar Arun " ~ } i I n I I I I I Y B F I if rl~.. I' {jl l~ I~I ~~-: ~I I I ~ ~J Pyr t q~ NugdMg n' n +l ~C r 7 SWwao ~7 I I ~ L 1 ~ ~s Ex, Orhe r02 e1 I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ LY 2007C2CSbtl222JJ I I I I ~ Rrw ( ti r, ~ ` I tta i„} ~. I ~ I I I II ~ ~" ~ II~ ~ k4' ~ rr t~I c~~ ~:. ~ 4;.~ I ~ w,r4 I I V -• I I - - -I~ 101 ~'~ ~ ~`... .t ~~M<,yu rb ... sK9 .,r, 8~~ "' U~~L I ~ ~ ~~I ~~/A; ~`- ~4, \ ~ - - - - - ' - rs r ~ ~ I```'`mo r ~r ~ P~~nSrr-~~ f _,r ~ 'f !1 Srdo rk ~ u, ! '.b-: ,:._ F r ,t,_1 d R d M ( P-~ Y op. f ore ~ tF rnnxbu~rnd) £y P.rnf. mfr Sao [andarnpe Pon yr'i'9 ' _ - ~ " ~ I - - - - - -- _ - ~~ Ex. xESr a snPESr _ ~I ~ ~ ar. E~sr eRloc~ sneEEr _ I ~~ 1 ~n /.~:~~-~.~ ~ ~ [r.SMbwap~+ __~~~\ 47231 ! ~ ^. 1 I ~4 (/ NorE~ Rrts weo not port of Ma dfe permit aoope o/ work. Itbrk b be Mduded w/fh Bu/lding P<rmils. Denoted fhur SITE DATA TABLE ExkfMg ZonMp; PUD Plmned Unit Dew.9apmenf Proposed zano-rg: Pionnae DrrrNar 7 Disfrkf and Pwce! Number; 173-CYNXl65 ?7J-WXJI9B 277-f10006f ?7J-OOUO01 (To be Comn/nedJ ISkIA firm Canmunity PoneC J9U99COr26'N Frfecri.s Oafe; Arorcn /6, 2009 flood Tare X Arec dafsrmMad to be aufsJdo 02 annual chance 6oodP/dh Pored Arco. 0.68/ Ae.(19, 977,40 SfJ Subaae i7` (Pvb/!c AreesJ 0956 Ac (19.03490 SFJ S~baeo B' (Bufldurgr "A; '(1' 0.251 Ac (f0,tl9630 S.F.J tr Yolnf .Steft n) B I/d' 0 A A: 0.098 Ac.(4.25261 SF.J AJd ' lsf F+o A, 12 6 16 1ur7 ~ ~ 10, 24 R28 N'n r n ya saner B Nd' 9 Arro B': 0.751 Aa.(6,57I.A9 SFJ Ad1 •xs !rf ROOT J, 7, 7I 6 /5 2nd Flno~ - 19. ?J, 27 h J1 NorfA Nigh Sfrror Ya/ot Srafian.- 000? Au(7200 SFJ Pavammf Areu~ 0370 Ac(76.79047 SF.J lofd rmparrous Aren~ Osl9 Ac.(26.96I.97 Sf.J Mfarlor Craen Spore 0.068 Ac.(2966.IJ SF.J Area Provldad Col Govero9e Fronded 9JF Permrffwr flies: Subarea °4' -See Iext Subn'od n` - Atl drat listed M SCehon 137.0.% Nirfw/c Businesr (oxcrpf Mole liernd under /nrf/lutrond, Cn~10 Cae. Bed R BreakrastJ wrd SpecrWfy / Nefghbahaad / Mlsce/laneous Faod Stores / Rerod Food Sfwes. s<ronokn. No property w ngld-of-way setbacks " requhed for ou/10lnps. Stab ' hnr~dral/s may encroach 24 mnx/nium Mlo pubic R/N (slJawa/kJ. Summery of Perklnyf~eces Provided 0//tile ® J9 Darby Sfreer (Parking [ofJ LEGEND (ra d loti5 sheets J ! 4J fk'I k PovN Wu/k • (N mybone PoffemJ -- &ICk Fuva Wo/k (RunnMg Band PoflemJ Asphal! Pavement COncrero Pavement Concrnfe Wn/k (A/tarnali% Bock Favor - BoskelwedW Poftem) Pavement PronMq/Overlay Prop.Sawcut and Pmrmonont Pavemenl Replc<emenr Conaofo Cobble PaAn F/agsrona AN Pouynmr Onagnt fn bo verifiee by 0 Sops 6ngineor prior to installotton. FI:IPn~iff~ I'/'. REGS7ERE0 ENGINEER No. DNiE APR 2 2 2008 ~;ll Y L~ UU~LIN i_t~NG RaN~~I: ( l~li~l!?vu ~ ~ 4 ~ ?~I F U W O W 45 ~~ I a d N O W = W F r C7 L7 noLL =~ LLOS ^QI U Q W ~ W3 N 4' fL Z g Z Y Ln 8