HomeMy WebLinkAbout59-03 Ordinance (Amd) RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
Ordinance No. 59-03 (Amended) Passed , 20
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE ZONING
CODE BY AMENDING THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN
SECTION 153.133 AND 153.134 AND ADOPTING SECTION
153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS. (CASE NO.
03-014ADM - LANDSCAPE CODE AMENDMENT AND
ADOPTING RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS).
WHEREAS, the City Council appointed the Dublin Appearance Code Committee June
17, 2003 in Resolution 24-02 to research the issues and current code requirements
relating to the appearance of residential neighborhoods and houses and to make
recommendations regarding same; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to from time to time to amend the code in order to protect
the health, safety and welfare of the City.
WHEREAS, the Appearance Code Committee conducted twelve meetings of research
into neighborhood appearance and established community character; and
WHEREAS, the Appearance Code Committee arrived at findings to protect and
preserve the established community character and existing inventory of homes, and to
promote positive neighborhood appearance in future neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Committee
recommendations and first reading Code changes referred by the City Council, and
recommends the adoption with amendments because they serve to implement City
Council objectives and the Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, planning and development operations and procedures should be updated as
necessary to implement the Community Plan and to assist the authorities responsible for
reviewing and approving development; and
i
WHEREAS, planning and development policies and evaluative criteria should be
confirmed by the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission to ensure they ~I
assist them in the review and approval process, and should be clearly documented to
facilitate public understanding and consistency in application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Dublin,
State of Ohio, ~_of the elected members concurring, as follows: i
I
I
Section 1. That Section 153.133 MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
be amended as follows: '
(D) Additional Site Landscaping Requirements. All new developments, regardless of
type, and all alterations or expansions to existing developments, shall provide site
landscaping in addition to the previously required perimeter landscaping. Site
landscaping shall consist primarily of new tree planting or the preservation of
existing trees or hedges within the development site.
(1) Preservation of wooded areas: It is encouraged that efforts be made to
preserve natural vegetation areas. Consideration shall be given to laying out
streets, lots, structures and parking areas to avoid the unnecessary
destruction of heavily wooded areas or outstanding tree specimens. It is
further encouraged that, whenever possible, heavily wooded areas be
designated as park reserves. (Refer to § 153.140 - 153.148 Tree
Preservation.)
i
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Page 2 of 9
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
59-03 (Amended)
Ordinance No. Passed . 20
(2) Site planting requirements.
(a) Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to provide
additional landscaping to enhance the appearance and
customer attraction of commercial and industrial areas, to
enhance the architectural character and aesthetics of the site
and residential neighborhoods, and to enhance the
beautification of the city. This section pertains to additional
landscaping located around the building and other portions of
the site. It does not include landscape material that has been
provided to fulfill the planting requirements for interior
landscaping, vehicular use area perimeters, property
perimeters, and street trees.
(b) For all new development the following landscape
requirements shall apply:
Use Requirements
Single Family Dwellings, per dwelling unit
On every lot with 90 (ninety) feet or greater
frontage, there shall be maintained a
minimum of 3 (three) front yard trees.
On every lot with less than 90 (ninety) feet
frontage, there shall be maintained a
minimum of 2 (two) yard trees.
Trees shall meet the same standards as for
the street trees of the subdivision and shall
be located within the minimum front
setback, no closer than seven feet to a side
property line.
Corner and through lots shall meet these
requirements on all street frontages.
Section 2. That Section 153.134 STREET TREE AND PUBLIC TREE
REQUIREMENTS be amended as follows:
The planting of street trees shall be required at the time a parcel is developed or
redeveloped, in all zoning districts, and in accordance with the following regulations.
(Ord. 66-93, passed 9-20-93) i
(A) Requirements for trees located on city-owned public property. The
following are requirements for the planting, pruning and removal of trees within city-
owned property. For the purposes of this section, city-owned property shall include all
public ways, streets, alleys, parks or other property owned by the Municipality.
(1) Requirements. It shall be required that all subdividers or
developers plant trees along public streets of their developments in such a manner, type,
quantity and location as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and as
defined by the following conditions, and that any undeveloped street or existing street i
with undeveloped frontage shall conform to these requirements at the time of the
development. Final tree locations maybe adjusted by the City as unusual conditions may
warrant.
(a) The tree to be planted shall be an approved street tree as listed in
Appendix E (Approved Street Trees for Dublin, Ohio).
(b) The minimum spacing between this and other trees shall be 40 feet
for large trees, 30 feet for medium trees and 20 feet for small trees. See definition below. ~I
(c) The maximum spacing between trees shall be 45 feet for large
trees, 35 feet for medium trees, and 25 feet for small trees.
I
I
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Page 3 of 9
Dayton Legal Blank, inc. Form No. 30043
59-03 (Amended)
Ordinance No. Passed 20
(d) The minimum distance between the tree and the edge of the street
shall be two and one-half feet for a large tree, two feet for a medium tree and one and
one-half feet for a small tree. In areas where a sidewalk exists or is proposed, the
minimum distance between the tree trunk and both the edge of the street and the
sidewalks shall be two feet for a large tree, two feet for a medium tree and one and one-
. half feet for a small tree.
(e) The tree location shall be at least 20 feet from street
intersections and ten feet from fire hydrants or utility poles.
(f) A small tree shall be used when planting under or within
ten lateral feet of overhead utility wires. A small or medium tree shall be used when
planting within ten to 201ateral feet of overhead utility wires.
(g) The developers shall be required to maintain the trees for
one year after the trees are planted and to replace any tree which fails to survive or does
not exhibit normal growth characteristics of health and vigor within such one-year
period. Aone-year guarantee period shall begin at each planting and shall recommence
as trees are replaced. Upon completion of a street tree planting, the landscape contractor
shall contact the Division of Planning and City Forester for a preliminary inspection.
The guarantee period shall begin after the approval of the Division of Planning and City
Forester. A final inspection shall be made at the end of the guarantee period. All trees
not exhibiting a healthy, vigorous growing condition, as determined by the city's
inspection, shall be promptly replaced at the expense of the developer.
(h) The trees should be of one and the same genus and species
planted continuously down each street as per street tree ordinance.
The minimum trunk caliper measured at six inches above the ground for all street trees
shall be no less than two and one-half inches.
Section 3. That Section 153.140 TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS,
(B) APPLICABILITY be amended in part to read as follows:
(1) This subchapter applies to trees which have a minimum six-inch
diameter breast height (DBH), hereinafter known as protected trees, on all public and
private properties, in all zoning districts. On lots containing no more than one detached
single-family dwelling, § 153.146, "Tree Replacements," shall apply only to those areas
of the single-family lot designated as a "No Build Zone/No Disturb Zone" and/or "Tree
Preservation Zone" and to trees required as front yard trees in § 153.133 Minimum
Landscape Requirements. All other sections of this subchapter shall be applicable to
single-family residential lots.
Section 4. That Section 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS
to regulate the appearance and construction of houses be adopted as follows:
§ 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS
(A) Residential Appearance. The following findings warrant the need for exterior
appearance standards for residential development.
(1) The Community Plan recommends promoting a high quality built ~I
environment.
(2) Providing for compliance with appearance regulations will assist in creating
quality development within residential neighborhoods.
(3) Limiting the garage appearance within the front elevation limits the negative
visual impact.
(4) A balance of natural and synthetic building materials allows for design
creativity and promotes quality development.
(5) Trim around windows completes the appearance on every elevation.
i
I
i
I
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Page 4 of 9
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
59-03 (Amended)
Ordinance No. Passed 20
(6) Placing windows, doors, porches, and other features on each elevation
enhances the visual environment and contributes to the overall architectural
diversity of a neighborhood.
(7) The lack of detailing, architectural features, and trim on elevations detracts
from a house and reduces the visual quality of a neighborhood.
(B) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide design standards that are
applicable to one, two, and three-family dwelling units. For purposes of this
section, a one, two, and three-family dwelling unit will be considered a "house."
These standards are designed to increase the quality of neighborhoods, to promote
creativity and positive architectural appearance within residential areas, to
encourage design flexibility and creativity, and to establish an interesting,
aesthetically pleasing residential environment. It is also the intent of this section to
promote durable, quality materials that will allow residential neighborhoods to
endure and mature for future generations in the City.
(1) Minimum Standards. These standards are minimum appearance standards
applicable to all houses in all districts, including Planned Development
Districts, except as may be specifically approved in the Planned Development
District ordinance.
(2) Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts.
Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts shall be
adopted by City Council. These objectives explain more general intents
regarding appearance in order to allow for creativity in meeting them through
the Planned Development District process. Planned Development District
proposals must demonstrate how the proposal addresses the Residential
Appearance Objectives and should replace these minimum standards.
(3) Scheduled Review for Update. Within twelve months of the effective date,
the Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the Residential Appearance
Standards and Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development
Districts for updating as necessary to continue to meet the needs of the City of
Dublin.
(C) Applicability.
(1) These standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a
25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration.
(a) A significant exterior alteration is a change in roofline, adding or
removing windows or doors, altering projections and recesses, or
changing the exterior building materials.
(b) These standards will apply to only the expansion area of the house or the
exterior alteration and will not require the entire house to come into
compliance with these regulations.
(2) Houses within special districts described below are exempt or must comply
with these standards as follows:
(a) Those houses located within a planned district that is approved after the
effective date of this ordinance shall comply with these residential
appearance standards, or with specific substitute residential appearance
standards contained in the adopting planned district ordinance. These
residential appearance standards shall apply unless specifically stated
substitute standards are approved in the planned district ordinance. In the
case of absent, or non-specific standards in the planned district
ordinance, the more restrictive standard will apply.
(b) Those houses located within a planned district that was approved prior to
the effective date of these residential appearance standards shall be
exempt from these residential appearance standards for a period of
twelve months after the effective date of this ordinance. After this
exemption period, those houses located within a previously approved
planned district shall comply with these standards to the degree that the
subjects of these standards were not specifically addressed in the
i
i
~I
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Page 5 of 9
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
59-03 (Amended)
Ordinance No. Passed 20
previously approved planned district ordinance. In the case of absent or
non-specific standards, the more restrictive standard will apply.
(c) Those houses located within the Architectural Review District or listed in
Section 153.170(A) and (B) are exempt. These residential units shall be
regulated by the Architectural Review Section of the Dublin Codified
Ordinance.
(3) Any building permit application for interior alterations to existing houses or
any application requesting only plumbing or electrical permits is exempt from
this ordinance.
(4) All houses for which building permit applications have been submitted at the
time of the effective date of this ordinance are exempt from the requirements
of this Code.
(D) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following definitions apply:
(1) Blank Elevation - An elevation that lacks openings and architectural features
such as windows, doors, chimneys, water tables, or other similar architectural
features.
(2) Chimney -For the purposes of these standards, ;a,
a structure projecting from the exterior wall of a ~¢~~AFu~,rti~
house and enclosing or appearing to enclose a
flue that carries off smoke. It may or may not
extend vertically to the eaves line or have a
foundation connection to ground.
(3) Chimnev, cantilevered - "Cantilevered" refers Cantilevered chimneys
to the characteristic that the chimney projects from the
exterior wall and does not have a foundation or
s r~r>,
extension to ground.
(4) Chimney, shed-type - "Shed-type" refers to the , n
characteristic that the chimney does not extend full
height vertically to the eaves line. A shed chimney }
typically includes a direct vent outlet in the chimney " "
Wall. Shed-type chimney
(5) Corbel - To build out one or more courses of brick or
stone from the face of a wall, traditionally to form a support for timbers.
(6) Cornice -Overhang of a pitched roof at the eaves line, usually consisting of a
fascia board, a soffit for a closed cornice, and appropriate moldings.
(7) Direct vent outlet -For the purposes
of these standards, an outlet through
an exterior wall associated with the air
supply and/or exhaust of a fire burner. ~
It may or may not occur in a projecting ~ .
box/chimney. °J• ~ Direct
(8) Dormer- A window set vertically in a vent
structure projecting through a sloping ^ ~ ~
roof; also: the roofed structure containing EA+~fS ~"f.~
4 ff
such a window. - " ,
(9) Eaves -The margin or lower part of a roof ~ _ . , -
projecting over the wall. ~ f'
(10) Elevation - A geometric projection of the
front, side, or rear outer surface of a Dormer Eaves ~
building onto a lp ane perpendicular to the horizontal; a vertical projection.
(11) Facade -The front of a building or any of its sides or rear faces.
(12) Facing - An ornamental layer, such as the outer wythe of a masonry wall.
(13) Fascia - A horizontal piece (such as a board) covering the joint between the
top of a wall and the projecting eaves; also called fascia board.
~I
li
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Page 6 of 9
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. _ Form No. 30043
59-03 (Amended)
Ordinance No. Passed , 20
(14) Frieze Board - A decorated band along the upper part of an
exterior wall. In house construction a horizontal
member connecting the top of the siding with the
soffit of the cornice.
(15) Gable - 1 a: the vertical triangular end of a building
from cornice or eaves to ridge b: the similar end of a ~ Gable
gambrel roof c: the end wall of a building. 2: a
triangular part or structure.
(16) Masonry -Natural ornatural-appearing stone or brick.
(17) Projection -Any component of a structure that juts out from the main
building.
(18) Soffit -The exposed undersurface of any overhead component of a building.
(19) Street-facin Garage door(s) -Garage door which is visible from the street and
is less than 60 degrees to the front lot line or street tangent line. A corner or
through lot has one such street front, which the entry or primary elevation of
the house faces.
(20) Trim -The finished woodwork or similar architectural element used to
enhance, border or protect the edges of openings or surfaces, such as windows
or doors.
(21) Vinyl Siding Accessories -Exterior design elements that serve to provide
more visual interest and complement the primary home design.
_ ~ - _
qua,: ~ = 1...- r;
~ V ~
- _i. i
`
_
Door Surround Mantel Decorative Gable Vents Dentil Windows and
Shutters Molding Corner Trims
(22) Water Table -Courses of brick or stone projecting beyond the face of the
exterior wall, typically from grade to first floor bearing or window sill, as a
design element and/or to guide water away from the face of the wall. Such
feature should be predominately at least twenty-four (24) inches high above ~
grade and located on at least the front elevation of the primary house forms, ~
including walls projecting street-ward.
I
(E) Residential Design Standards.
(1) Design Standards. In addition to all applicable zoning and development
standards, the following design standards shall apply to all new houses and
existing houses requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a
significant exterior alteration.
(a) Chimneys. All chimneys must extend full height, from ground and
vertically past the eaves line. Cantilevered chimneys are prohibited.
Shed-type chimneys are prohibited. Chimneys must be finished in
masonry or stucco. It need not match the background wall in material or
color.
(b) Finish Building Materials. Wood board, brick, stone, cultured stone,
fibrous cement siding, stucco, glass block and vinyl siding are the
permitted finish building materials. Asphalt dimensional shingles, slate,
tile, standing seam metal, wood shingles or shakes are the permitted roof ~i
materials. ~
1. When a change in materials occurs at corners, the change should
occur at the inside corner. If a material change does occur at the
outside corner, then the material on the street-facing facade must
extend at least two feet past the outer corner. If a house has a side
gable and a material change occurs on the outside corner, rather
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Page 7 of 9
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc _ Form No. 30043
59-03 (Amended)
Ordinance No. Passed . 20
than extending the materials around the corner, a quoin or minimum
3 %i inch wide corner board must be used down the length of both
faces of the corner.
2. The number of materials used as major facades, excluding
fenestration, shall not exceed three materials.
3. Foundations. Exposed foundations shall be finished in masonry.
The permitted construction shall have no more than two foundation-
facing materials.
(c) Four-Sided Architecture. All sides of a house shall display a level of
quality and architectural interest. The majority of a building's
architectural features and treatments shall not be restricted to a single
facade. Fronts of houses should be articulated through the use of bays,
insets, balconies, porches, or stoops related to entrances and windows.
For the purpose of four-sided architecture, houses on corner and through
lots have more than one street-facing elevation. Each elevation must
contain at least two design elements, and each street-facing elevation
must contain at least three design elements, in any combination. Provided
further all of the following tests are met;
1. There exists at least one design element in each equal one-half
vertical division of the subject elevation, and
2. At least one design element occurs between the first floor level and
nine (9) feet above the first floor level, and
3. If any upper wall area greater than twenty-four (24) feet wide and
nine (9) feet high (measured at nine [9] feet above the first floor
level) occurs, at least one design element must be located
predominately at least nine (9) feet above the first floor in that
elevation.
4. Design elements include:
a). A door of at least seventeen (17) square feet in area.
b). A window at least six (6) square feet in area. A set of adjacent ~
windows, such as a double or bay window, count as one
design element, however, horizontal bands of immediately
adjacent window units count as one design element for every
eight (8) feet of run.
c). A chimney. ~
d). An articulated decorative gable vent of at least four (4) square
feet in area.
e). A water table. Such feature should be predominately at least
twenty-four (24) inches high above grade and located on at
least the front elevation of the primary house forms, including
walls projecting street-ward.
f). A similar significant permanent architectural feature consistent
with the style of the house.
Garage doors, street-facing. Garages are usually the dominant feature of
most houses when seen from the street. Side-loaded and recessed garages
are encouraged. For the purpose of determining street-facing garage
doors, corner and through lots have one such street front, which the entry
or primary elevation of the house faces. Detached street-facing garages
located more than twenty-two (22) feet behind the front-most plane of the
house structure are exempt from the maximum percentage of elevation
standards. Detached street-facing garages twenty-two (22) feet or less
from the front-most plane of the house structure shall be calculated within
the elevation. Street-facing garage doors must meet the following
standards:
1. No single garage door opening shall exceed two car widths or
eighteen (18) feet.
i
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Page 8 of 9
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. _ Form No. 30043
59-03 (Amended)
Ordinance No. Passed 20
2. No combination of garage door openings may exceed three car
widths or a total of twenty-six (26) feet.
3. Garage doors shall be recessed or set forward of adjacent garage
doors at least 16 inches.
4. Garage door openings may not exceed nine (9) feet in height.
5. Garage door openings totaling two or less car widths shall not
constitute more than 35 percent of the linear distance of the front
elevation nor project more than twelve (12) feet from the adjacent
vertical wall plane. Open uncovered porches shall not be considered
a vertical wall plane.
6. Garage door openings totaling three car widths shall not constitute
more than 45 percent of the linear distance of the front elevation nor
project more than ten (10) feet from the adjacent vertical wall plane.
Open uncovered porches shall not be considered a vertical wall
plane.
7. Color. The initial installation or replacement of street-facing garage
doors must be of aloes-contrast color that is the same, or similar in
hue and tonal value, as the primary color of the house. Garage door
trim is to match garage doors or the primary trim color of the house
(e) Roof Pitch. The main architectural roof of a house must have a
minimum 6:12 pitch. Flat roofs may be permitted, but not as the main
architectural roof. Dormers, porches, and other similar secondary
architectural features may have roofs with a minimum 4:12 pitch. Deep
eaves and overhangs are encouraged.
(f) Vinyl Homes Any predominately vinyl-sided home must include
complementary accessories and detailing where vinyl sided elevations
occur, as follows:
1. A detailed main entryway by use of a minimum eight (8) inch wide
three-dimensional door-surround system, and ~
2. Minimum six (6) inch wide frieze or fascia boards, and
3. At least two of the following accessory types must be utilized per
home. The selected accessory type must occur on each vinyl-sided
elevation as indicated with an "X". Accessories may be utilized in
addition to the minimum.
MINIMUM ACCESSORIES Selected Accessory Type Must I~~,
FOR VINYL-SIDED HOMES Occur (At Least) When This
Exterior Wall Elevation is
Vin 1:
Select 2 Accessory Types: Front Side Rear
a). Shutter Pairs X X I
b). Mantels X X
c). Gin erbread X j
d). Masonry Water Table X
e). Gable Vent X X X '
I
a). Shutter pairs: Must occur at least on all the single and double-
wide windows of any front and side vinyl-sided elevations,
where wall area permits them. Shutters shall be full height and
at least one-half the width of the single or one-quarter the
width of the double window. Shutters being used to meet the
normal window trim requirements may count towards these
requirements.
b). Mantels: Must occur at least above all windows in front and
side vinyl-sided elevations.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Page 9 of 9
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
59-03 (Amended)
Ordinance No. Passed 20
c). Gingerbread: A set of gingerbread decorations such as
cornices, corbels, columns, or similar three-dimensional
elements must occur at least in the front vinyl-sided elevation,
provided they occur in a consistent arrangement and according
to style of the home.
d). A masonry water table: Must occur at least in the dominate
walls of the front vinyl-sided elevation and street-ward
projections there-from.
e). Gable Vents: Must be articulated decorative gable vent(s) of at
least 4 square feet in area and occur in at least the front, rear or
side vinyl-sided elevations.
(g) Windows. Shutters or trim will be required around all windows within
any elevation constructed of vinyl, stucco, wood, or fibrous cement
siding. Shutters shall be full height and at least one-half the width of the
single or one-quarter the width of the double window. Trim must be at
least 3.5 inches in width. Special brick detailing, such as soldier course
or rowlock, will used on the top and bottoms of windows within a brick
elevation. Windows within an elevation constructed of stone or cultured
stone will use lintels and sills to create a "trim" on the top and bottom of
the windows.
(2) Building Material Specifications. Unless otherwise specified, all permitted
building materials must be manufactured and built to industry standards and
must have a minimum 30-year life expectancy.
(a) Vinyl. All vinyl materials must have a minimum thickness of 44 mils,
and must be applied over minimum one-half inch thick oriented strand
board or plywood. The siding must have aloes-gloss finish. All vinyl
must be properly installed to prevent warping or separation.
(b) Asphalt dimensional shingles. Asphalt dimensional shingles must be a
25-year "true" dimensional shingle. Painted shadows are not permitted.
These shingles must have a minimum weight of 240 pounds per square
and an exposure that is no more than 5-5/8 inches in length.
(c) Garage doors, street-facing. Garage doors must be of a durable material
that does not sag, warp, deteriorate, or delaminate under normal use and
weather conditions. Materials such as particleboard or Masonite are
prohibited.
Section 5. Th/at this Ordinance shall take effect on the earliest date provided by law.
Passed this / day of/t/tpi'-G~, , 2004. ~
ayor -Presiding Officer
Attest:
I
Clerk of Council
Sponsor: Division of Planning
I
i
~I
~I
i
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 ~ p m o
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 l~
CITT OF DU
TO: Members of Dublin City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager~«~,,,~., S . C->1
DATE: March 8, 2004 ~ L~~~
INITIATED BY: Frank Ciarochi, Assistant City Manager & Director of Development
Steve Smith, Law Director
RE: Ordinance 59-03 (Amended)
(Case No. 03-014ADM -Landscape Code Amendment and
Adopting Residential Appearance Standards).
SUMMARY:
City Council adopted the Residential Appearance Standards November 3, 2003. Following
public comments, City Council expressed a concern about residential designs currently being
used that would not meet the dimensional limitations of the new standards. The concern
primarily focused on the limitations placed on garage doors exceeding a certain percentage of the
overall house elevation. Currently some house designs, particularly narrow houses on narrow
lots, exceed these limitations. Builders were requesting some way to allow such house designs to
continue to be allowed, citing planned districts already approved for such houses on small lots,
but not yet built. "Hardship" or "physical impossibility" findings were discussed as possible
grounds for a waiver. However, conclusions on clear criteria and appropriate legal vehicles to
accomplish the waiver were not reached. Direction was given to staff to review the issues and
concerns and come up with wording for later amendments to the ordinance.
Development and Legal staff have reviewed the concerns expressed, the dimensional
requirements of the Residential Appearance Standards, and the legal and practical implications
for alternative resolutions. The following points are pertinent:
1. Hardship and physical impossibility findings may not consistently offer solutions. A
house can always be built, even if it must be built with a smaller garage, a differently
oriented garage (only street-facing garages are restricted), or even without a garage.
2. The desire of City Council in adopting the new standards was to establish minimum
standards that would apply to all new houses as quickly as practical, but to provide an
allowance for projects underway. To that end, an exemption period of six months was
established for houses in existing planned districts; This allows builders a limited time
period to modify designs as necessary for future construction.
3. In the planned district approval process, new projects (or proposals to revise current
planned districts) can propose alternative appearance standards, including different
garage limitations. Therefore, narrow lots and narrow houses with relatively large
garages are not absolutely prohibited, and can be considered on their own merits.
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 ~ ~ m o
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490
CITT OF DU
TO: Members of Dublin City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager~~~, ~ (~~~,,,~-,~.~.,.~J
DATE: March 8, 2004 UU L~~
INITIATED BY: Frank Ciarochi, Assistant City Manager & Director of Development
Steve Smith, Law Director
RE: Ordinance 59-03 (Amended)
(Case No. 03-014ADM -Landscape Code Amendment and
Adopting Residential Appearance Standards).
SUMMARY:
City Council adopted the Residential Appearance Standards November 3, 2003. Following
public comments, City Council expressed a concern about residential designs currently being
used that would not meet the dimensional limitations of the new standards. The concern
primarily focused on the limitations placed on garage doors exceeding a certain percentage of the
overall house elevation. Currently some house designs, particularly narrow houses on narrow
lots, exceed these limitations. Builders were requesting some way to allow such house designs to
continue to be allowed, citing planned districts already approved for such houses on small lots,
but not yet built. "Hardship" or "physical impossibility" findings were discussed as possible
grounds for a waiver. However, conclusions on clear criteria and appropriate legal vehicles to
accomplish the waiver were not reached. Direction was given to staff to review the issues and
concerns and come up with wording for later amendments to the ordinance.
Development and Legal staff have reviewed the concerns expressed, the dimensional
requirements of the Residential Appearance Standards, and the legal and practical implications
for alternative resolutions. The following points are pertinent:
1. Hardship and physical impossibility findings may not consistently offer solutions. A
house can always be built, even if it must be built with a smaller garage, a differently
oriented garage (only street-facing garages are restricted), or even without a garage.
2. The desire of City Council in adopting the new standards was to establish minimum
standards that would apply to all new houses as quickly as practical, but to provide an
allowance for projects underway. To that end, an exemption period of six months was
established for houses in existing planned districts; This allows builders a limited time
period to modify designs as necessary for future construction.
3. In the planned district approval process, new projects (or proposals to revise current
planned districts) can propose alternative appearance standards, including different
garage limitations. Therefore, narrow lots and narrow houses with relatively large
garages are not absolutely prohibited, and can be considered on their own merits.
RECOMMENDATION:
Instead of a waiver process, the staff suggests that City Council extend the exemption period
from six to twelve months. The following amendment to the ordinance would incorporate these
changes.
Section 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS
(C) Applicability.....
(2) Houses within special districts described below are exempt or must comply with these
standards as follows:
(a) Those houses located within a planned district that is approved after the effective
date of this ordinance shall comply with these residential appearance standards,
or with specific substitute residential appearance standards contained in the
adopting planned district ordinance. These residential appearance standards shall
apply unless specifically stated substitute standards are approved in the planned
district ordinance. In the case of absent, or non-specific standards in the planned
district ordinance, the more restrictive standard will apply.
(b) Those houses located within a planned district that was approved prior to the
effective date of these residential appearance standards shall be exempt from
these residential appearance standards for a period of s~ twelve months after the
effective date of this ordinance. After this exemption period, those houses located
within a previously approved planned district shall comply with these standards
to the degree that the subjects of these standards were not specifically addressed
in the previously approved planned district ordinance. In the case of absent or
non-specific standards, the more restrictive standard will apply.
(c) Those houses located within the Architectural Review District or listed in Section
153.170(A) and (B) are exempt. These residential units shall be regulated by the
Architectural Review Section of the Dublin Codified Ordinance.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
Ordinance No. 59-03 Passed 2~
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE ZONING
CODE BY AMENDING THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN
SECTION 153.133 AND 153.134 AND ADOPTING SECTION
153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS. (CASE NO.
03-014ADM - LANDSCAPE CODE AMENDMENT AND
ADOPTING RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS).
WHEREAS, City Council appointed the Dublin Appearance Code Committee June 17,
2003 in Resolution 24-02 to research the issues and current code requirements relating to
the appearance of residential neighborhoods and houses and to make recommendations
regarding the same; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to amend the Code in order to protect the
health, safety and welfare of the City;
WHEREAS, the Appearance Code Committee conducted twelve meetings of research
into neighborhood appearance and established community character; and
WHEREAS, the Appearance Code Committee arrived at findings to protect and
preserve the established community character and existing inventory of homes, and to
promote positive neighborhood appearance in future neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Committee
recommendations and first reading Code changes referred by the City Council, and
recommends the adoption with amendments because they serve to implement City
Council objectives and the Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, planning and development operations and procedures should be updated as
necessary to implement the Community Plan and to assist the authorities responsible for
reviewing and approving development; and
WHEREAS, planning and development policies and evaluative criteria should be
confirmed by the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission to ensure they
assist t hem i n t he r eview a nd a pproval p rocess, a nd s hould b e c learly documented t o
facilitate public understanding and consistency in application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Dublin,
State of Ohio, _~__of the elected members concurring, as follows:
Section 1. That Section 153.133 MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
be amended as follows:
(D) Additional Site Landscaping Requirements. All new developments, regardless of
type, and all alterations or expansions to existing developments shall provide site
landscaping in addition to the previously required perimeter landscaping. Site
landscaping s hall consist p rimarily of n ew t ree planting o r t he p reservation o f
existing trees or hedges within the development site.
(1) Preservation of wooded areas. It is encouraged that efforts be made to
preserve natural vegetation areas. Consideration shall be given to laying
out streets, lots, structures and parking areas to avoid the unnecessary
destruction of heavily wooded areas or outstanding tree specimens. It is
further encouraged that, whenever possible, heavily wooded areas be
designated as park reserves. (Refer to § 153.140 - 153.148, Tree
Preservation.)
(2) Site planting requirements.
(a) Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to provide additional
landscaping t o e nhance t he a ppearance a nd c ustomer a ttraction o f
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
ora~,~an~e No. 59-03 As amended _ , 20 Page 2
commercial and industrial areas, to enhance the architectural
character and a esthetics of t he s ite a nd residential n eighborhoods,
and to enhance the beautification of the city. This section pertains to
additional landscaping located around the building and other
portions of the site. It does not include landscape material that has
been provided to fulfill the planting requirements for interior
landscaping, vehicular use area perimeters, property perimeters, and
street trees.
(b) For all new development the following landscape requirements shall
apply:
Use Requirements
Single Family Dwellings On every lot with 90 (ninety) feet or greater frontage, there
per dwelling unit shall be maintained a minimum of 3 (three) front yard
trees. On every lot with less than 90 (ninety) feet frontage,
there shall be maintained a minimum of 2 (two) yard trees.
Trees shall meet the same standards as for the street trees
of the subdivision and shall be located within the
minimum front setback, no closer than seven feet to a side
property line. Corner and through lots shall meet these
requirements on all street frontages.
Section 2. That Section 153.134 STREET TREE AND PUBLIC TREE
REQUIREMENTS be amended as follows:
The planting of street trees shall be required at the time a parcel is developed or
redeveloped in all zoning districts and in accordance with the following regulations.
(Ord. 66-93, passed 9-20-93)
(A) Requirements for trees located on City-owned public property. The
following are requirements for the planting, pruning and removal of trees within city-
owned property. For the purposes of this section, City-owned property shall include all
public ways, streets, alleys, parks or other property owned by the Municipality.
(1) Requirements. It shall be required that all subdividers or
developers plant trees along public streets of their developments in such a manner, type,
quantity and location as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and as
defined by the following conditions, and that any undeveloped street or existing street
with undeveloped frontage shall conform to these requirements at the time of the
development. Final tree locations may be adjusted by the City as unusual conditions may
warrant.
(a) The tree to be planted shall be an approved street tree as listed in
Appendix E (Approved Street Trees for Dublin, Ohio).
(b) The m inimum spacing b etween this and other trees shall be 40
feet for large trees, 30 feet for medium trees and 20 feet for small trees. See definition
below.
(c) The maximum s pacing between t rees s hall b e 4 5 f eet f or 1 arge
trees, 35 feet for medium trees, and 25 feet for small trees.
(d) The minimum distance between the tree and the edge of the street
shall be two and one-half feet for a large tree, two feet for a medium tree and one and
one-half feet for a small tree. In areas where a sidewalk exists or is proposed, the
minimum distance between the tree trunk and both the edge of the street and the
sidewalks shall be two feet for a large tree, two feet for a medium tree and one and one-
half feet for a small tree.
(e) The tree location shall be at least 20 feet from street
intersections and ten feet from fire hydrants or utility poles.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
ordtnan~e No. 59-03 As amended , 20 Page 3
(f) A small tree shall be used when planting under or within
ten lateral feet of overhead utility wires. A small or medium tree shall be used when
planting within ten to 201ateral feet of overhead utility wires.
(g) The developers shall be required to maintain the trees for
one year after the trees are planted and to replace any tree which fails to survive or does
not exhibit normal growth characteristics of health and vigor within such one-year
period. Aone-year guarantee period shall begin at each planting and shall recommence
as trees are replaced. Upon completion of a street tree planting, the landscape contractor
shall c ontact t he D ivision o f P lanning a nd C ity Forester f or a p reliminary i nspection.
The guarantee period shall begin after the approval of the Division of Planning and City
Forester. A final inspection shall be made at the end of the guarantee period. All trees
not exhibiting a healthy, vigorous growing condition, as determined by the city's
inspection, shall be promptly replaced at the expense of the developer.
(h) The trees should be of one and the same genus and species
planted continuously down each street as per street tree ordinance.
The minimum trunk caliper measured at six inches above the ground for all street trees
shall be no less than two and one-half inches.
Section 3. That S ection 153.140 TREE P RESERVATION R EQUIREMENTS,
(B) APPLICABILITY be amended in part to read as follows:
(1) This subchapter applies to trees which have a minimum six-inch
diameter breast height (DBH), hereinafter known as protected trees, on all public and
private properties, in all zoning districts. On lots containing no more than one detached
single-family dwelling, § 153.146, "Tree Replacements," shall apply only to those areas
of the single-family lot designated as a "No Build Zone/No Disturb Zone" and/or "Tree
Preservation Zone" and to trees required as front yard trees in § 153.133 Minimum
Landscape Requirements. All other sections of this subchapter shall be applicable to
single-family residential lots.
Section 4. That Section 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS
to regulate the appearance and construction of houses be adopted as follows:
§ 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS
(A) Residential Appearance. The following findings warrant the need for exterior
appearance standards for residential development.
(1) The Community Plan recommends promoting a high quality built
environment.
(2) Providing for compliance with appearance regulations will assist in creating
quality development within residential neighborhoods.
(3) Limiting the garage appearance within the front elevation limits the negative
visual impact.
(4) A balance of natural and synthetic building materials allows for design
creativity and promotes quality development.
(5) Trim around windows completes the appearance on every elevation.
(6) Placing windows, doors, porches, and other features on each elevation
enhances the visual environment and contributes to the overall architectural
~W diversity of a neighborhood.
(7) The 1 ack o f d etailing, a rchitectural f eatures, a nd t rim o n e levations d etracts
from a house and reduces the visual quality of a neighborhood.
(B) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide design standards that are
applicable to one, two, and three-family dwelling units. For purposes of this
section, a one, two, and three-family dwelling unit will be considered a "house."
These standards are designed to increase the quality of neighborhoods, to promote
creativity and positive architectural appearance within residential areas, to
encourage design flexibility and creativity, and to establish an interesting,
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
ora~nan~eNo. 59-03 ~,As amended . .2o Pa~e4
aesthetically pleasing residential environment. It is also the intent of this section to
promote durable, quality materials that will allow residential neighborhoods to
endure and mature for future generations in the City.
(1) Minimum Standards. These standards are minimum appearance standards
applicable to all houses in all districts, including Planned Development
Districts, except as maybe specifically approved in the Planned Development
District ordinance.
(2) Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts.
Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts shall
be adopted by City Council. These objectives explain more general intents
regarding appearance in order to allow for creativity in meeting them through
the Planned Development District process. Planned Development District
proposals must demonstrate how the proposal addresses the Residential
Appearance Objectives and should replace these minimum standards.
(3) Scheduled Review for Update. Within twelve months of the effective date,
the Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the Residential
Appearance Standards and Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned
Development Districts for updating as necessary to continue to meet the needs
of the City of Dublin.
(C) Applicability.
(1) These standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a
25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration.
(a) A significant exterior alteration is a change in roofline, adding or
removing windows or doors, altering projections and recesses, or
changing the exterior building materials.
(b) These standards will apply to only the expansion area of the house or the
exterior alteration and will not require the entire house to come into
compliance with these regulations.
(2) Houses within special districts described below are exempt or must comply
with these standards as follows:
(a) Those houses located within a planned district that is approved after the
effective date of this ordinance shall comply with these residential
appearance standards, or with specific substitute residential appearance
standards contained in the adopting planned district ordinance. These
residential appearance standards shall apply unless specifically stated
substitute standards are approved in the planned district ordinance. In the
case of absent, or non-specific standards in the planned district
ordinance, the more restrictive standard will apply.
(b) Those houses located within a planned district that was approved prior to
the effective date of these residential appearance standards shall be
exempt from these residential appearance standards for a period of six
months a fter t he e ffective d ate o f t his o rdinance. A fter t his e xemption
period, those houses located within a previously approved planned
district shall comply with these standards to the degree that the subjects
of these standards were not specifically addressed in the previously
approved planned district ordinance. In the case of absent or non-specific
standards, the more restrictive standard will apply. In applying these
standards the Director of Planning may determine that a strict application
is in effect impractical because of the physical constraints of the site as
approved in the adopted planned district. In such cases, the Director of
Planning may authorize waiving the standard.
(c) Those houses located within the Architectural Review District or listed
in Section 153.170(A) and (B) are exempt. These residential units shall
be regulated by the Architectural Review Section of the Dublin Codified
Ordinance.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
59-03 As amended Page 5
Ordinance No. Passed . 20
(3) Any building permit application for interior alterations to existing houses or
any application requesting only plumbing or electrical permits is exempt from
this ordinance.
(4) All houses for which building permit applications have been submitted at the
time of the effective date of this ordinance are exempt from the requirements
of this Code.
(D) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following definitions apply:
(1) Blank Elevation - An elevation that lacks openings and architectural features
such as windows, doors, chimneys, water tables, or other similar architectural
features.
(2) Chimney -For the purposes of these standards, a structure projecting from the
exterior wall of a house and enclosing or appearing to enclose a flue that
carries off smoke. It may or may not extend vertically to the eaves line or have
a foundation/connection to ground.
(3) Chimney, cantilevered - "Cantilevered" refers to the characteristic that the
chimney projects from the exterior wall and ~h,. #
does not have a foundation or extension to
ground.
(4) Chimney, shed-tyke - "Shed-type" refers to the
characteristic that the chimney does not extend
full height vertically to the eaves line. Cantilevered chimne s
(5) A shed chimney typically includes a direct vent outlet in
the chimney wall.
(6) Corbel - To build out one or more courses of brick or
stone from the face of a wall, traditionally to form a
support for timbers.
(7) Cornice -Overhang of a pitched roof at the eaves line,
usually consisting of a fascia board, a soffit for a closed Shed-type
cornice, and appropriate moldings.
(8) Direct vent outlet -For the purposes of
these standards, an outlet through an
exterior wall associated with the air
supply and/or exhaust of a fire burner. It
may or may not occur in a projecting
box/chimney. Direct
(9) Dormer- A window set vertically in a ~ vent
structure projecting through a sloping roof; also: the roofed
structure containing such a window.
(10) Eaves -The margin or lower part of a roof ~ _
projecting over the wall. i
(11) Elevation - A geometric projection of the front, e~.:~~.=` ~
side, or rear outer surface of a building onto a - i:.
lp ane perpendicular to the horizontal; a vertical Dormer Eaves
projection.
(I2) Facade -The front of a building or any of its sides or rear faces.
(13) Facing - An ornamental layer, such as the outer wythe of a masonry wall.
(14) Fascia - A horizontal piece (such as a board) covering the joint between the
a top of a wall and the projecting eaves; also called fascia board.
(15) Frieze Board - A decorated band along the upper part of an exterior wall. In
house construction a horizontal member connecting the top of the siding with
the soffit of the cornice.
(16) Gable - 1 a: the vertical triangular end of a building from
cornice or eaves to ridge b: the similar end of a
gambrel roof c: the end wall of a building. 2: a
triangular part or structure.
(17) Masonry -Natural or natural-appearing stone or brick.
Gable
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. _ _ Form No, 30043
59-03 As amended Page 6
Ordinance No. Passed . 20
- om onent of a structure that juts out from the main
n An c
do
18 Pro' ec p
Y
( ) J
building.
(19) Soffit -The exposed undersurface of any overhead component of a building.
reet
from the st
ible
- e door which is vis
20 Street-facing Gara~,e door(s) Garag
( )
. corner
nt line. A
an e
nt lot line or street t
ees to the fro g
and is less than 60 deg
or through lot has one such street front, which the entry or primary elevation
house faces.
of the
to
(21) Tnm -The finished woodwork or similar architectural element used
enhance, border or protect the edges of openings or surfaces, such as windows
or doors.
(22) Vinyl Siding Accessories -Exterior design elements that serve to provide
more visual interest and complement the primary home design.
«t
,
Windows and
ntel Decorative Gable Vents Dentil
nd Ma
Door Surrou
Shutters Molding Corner Trims
(23) Water Table -Courses of brick or stone projecting beyond the face of the
exterior wall, typically from grade to first floor bearing or window sill, as a
design element and/or to guide water away from the face of the wall. Such
feature should be predominately at least twenty-four (24) inches high above
grade and located on at least the front elevation of the primary house forms,
including walls projecting street-ward.
(E) Residential Design Standards.
(1) Design Standards. In addition to all applicable zoning and development
standards, the following design standards shall apply to all new houses and existing
houses requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant
exterior alteration.
(a) Chimneys. All chimneys must extend full height, from ground and
vertically past the eaves line. Cantilevered chimneys are prohibited. Shed-
type chimneys are prohibited. Chimneys must be finished in masonry or
stucco. It need not match the background wall in material or color.
(b) Finish Building Materials. Wood board, brick, stone, cultured stone,
fibrous cement siding, stucco, glass block and vinyl siding are the
permitted finish building materials. Asphalt dimensional shingles, slate,
tile, standing seam metal, wood shingles or shakes are the permitted roof
materials.
1. When a change in materials occurs at corners, the change should
occur at the inside corner. If a material change does occur at the
outside corner, then the material on the street-facing facade must
extend at least two feet past the outer corner. If a house has a side
gable and a material change occurs on the outside corner, rather
than extending the materials around the corner, a quoin or minimum
3'/2 inch wide corner board must be used down the length of both
faces of the corner.
2. The number of materials used as major facades, excluding
fenestration, shall not exceed three materials.
3. Foundations. Exposed foundations shall be finished in masonry.
The permitted construction shall have no more than two foundation-
facing materials.
(c) Four-Sided Architecture. All sides of a house shall display a level of
quality and architectural interest. The majority of a building's
architectural features and treatments shall not be restricted to a single
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
ordinance No. 59-03 As amended _ . 20 Pale 7
facade. Fronts of houses should be articulated through the use of bays,
insets, balconies, porches, or stoops related to entrances and windows.
For the purpose of four-sided architecture, houses on corner and
through lots have more than one street-facing elevation. Each elevation
must contain at least two design elements, and each street-facing
elevation must contain at least three design elements, in any
combination. Provided further all of the following tests are met;
1. There exists at least one design element in each equal one-half
vertical division of the subject elevation, and
2. At least one design element occurs between the first floor level and
nine (9) feet above the first floor level, and
3. If any upper wall area greater than twenty-four (24) feet wide and
nine (9) feet high (measured at nine [9] feet above the first floor
level) occurs, at least one design element must be located
predominately at least nine (9) feet above the first floor in that
elevation.
4. Design elements include:
a). A door of at least seventeen (17) square feet in area.
b). A window at least six (6) square feet in area. A set of adjacent
windows, such as a double or bay window, count as one
design element, however, horizontal bands of immediately
adjacent window units count as one design element for every
eight (8) feet of run.
c). A chimney.
d). An articulated decorative gable vent of at least four (4) square
feet in area.
e). A water table. Such feature should be predominately at least
twenty-four (24) inches high above grade and located on at
least the front elevation of the primary house forms, including
walls projecting street-ward.
f). A similar significant permanent architectural feature
consistent with the style of the house.
(d) Garage Doors, Street-facing. Garages are usually the dominant feature of
most houses when seen from the street. Side-loaded and recessed garages are
encouraged. For the purpose of determining street-facing garage doors, corner
and through lots have one such street front, which the entry or primary
elevation of the house faces. Detached street-facing garages located more than
twenty-two (22) feet behind the front-most plane of the house structure are
exempt from the maximum percentage of elevation standards. Detached
street-facing garages twenty-two (22) feet or less from the front-most plane of
the house structure shall be calculated within the elevation. Street-facing
garage doors must meet the following standards:
1. No single garage door opening shall exceed two car widths or
eighteen (18) feet.
2. No combination of garage door openings may exceed three car
widths or a total of twenty-six (26) feet.
3. Garage d oors s hall b e r ecessed o r se t forward of a djacent garage
doors at least 16 inches.
4. Garage door openings may not exceed nine (9) feet in height.
5. Garage door openings totaling two or less car widths shall not
constitute more than 35 percent of the linear distance of the front
elevation nor project more than twelve (12) feet from the adjacent
vertical wall plane. Open uncovered porches shall not be considered
a vertical wall plane.
6. Garage door openings totaling three car widths shall not constitute
more than 45 percent of the linear distance of the front e levation
nor project more than ten (10) feet from the adjacent vertical wall
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
- -
- - - -
~,-dlnan~e No. 59-03 As amended _ , 20 Page 8
plane. O pen a recovered p orches s hall n of b e c onsidered a v ertical
wall plane.
7. Color. The initial installation or replacement of street-facing garage
doors must be of glow-contrast color that is the same, or similar in
hue and tonal value, as the primary color of the house. Garage door
trim color of the house
trim is to match ara e doors or the rimar
P Y
g g
(e) Roof Pitch. The main architectural roof of a house must have a
• 2 itch. Flat roofs ma be ermitted but not as the main
minimum 6.1 p ,
p Y
architectural roof. Dormers, porches, and other similar secondary
architectural features may have roofs with a minimum 4:12 pitch. Deep
eaves and overhangs are encouraged.
(f) Vinyl Homes Any predominately vinyl-sided home must include
complementary accessories and detailing where vinyl sided elevations
occur, as follows:
1. A detailed main entryway by use of a minimum eight (8) inch wide
three-dimensional door-surround system, and
2. Minimum six (6) inch wide frieze or fascia boards, and
3. At least two of the following accessory types must be utilized per
home. The selected accessory type must occur on each vinyl-sided
elevation as indicated with an "X". Accessories may be utilized in
addition to the minimum.
MINIMUM ACCESSORIES Selected Accessory Type Must
FOR VINYL-SIDED Occur (At Least) When The
HOMES Exterior Wall Elevation is Vinyl
Select 2 Accessory Types: Front Side Rear
a). Shutter Pairs X X
b). Mantels X X
c). Gingerbread X
d). Masonry Water Table X
e). Gable Vent X X X
a). Shutter Pairs: Must occur at least on all the single and double-
wide windows of any front and side vinyl-sided elevations,
where wall area permits them. Shutters shall be full height and
at least one-half the width of the single or one-quarter the
width of the double window. Shutters being used to meet the
normal window trim requirements may count towards these
requirements.
b). Mantels: Must occur at least above all windows in front and
side vinyl-sided elevations.
c). Gingerbread: A set of gingerbread decorations such as
cornices, corbels, columns, or similar three-dimensional
elements must occur at least in the front vinyl-sided elevation,
provided they occur in a consistent arrangement and according
to style of the home.
d). Masonry Water Table: Must occur at least in the dominate
walls of the front vinyl-sided elevation and street-ward
projections there-from.
e). Gable Vents: Must be articulated decorative gable vent(s) of at
least 4 square feet in area and occur in at least the front, rear or
side vinyl-sided elevations.
(g) Windows. Shutters or trim will be required around all windows within
any elevation constructed of vinyl, stucco, wood, or fibrous cement
siding. Shutters shall be full height and at least one-half the width of the
single or one-quarter the width of the double window. Trim must be at
least 3.5 inches in width. Special brick detailing, such as soldier course
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
ord~nan~e No. 59-03 As amended . 20 page 9
or rowlock, will used on the top and bottoms of windows within a brick
elevation. Windows within an elevation constructed of stone or cultured
stone will use lintels and sills to create a "trim" on the top and bottom of
the windows.
(2) Building Material Specifications. Unless otherwise specified, all permitted
building materials must be manufactured and built to industry standards and
must have a minimum 30-year life expectancy.
(a) Vinyl. All vinyl materials must have a minimum thickness of 44 mils,
and m ust b e a pplied o ver m inimum o ne-half i nch t hick o riented s trand
board o r p lywood. T he siding m ust h ave a 1 ow-gloss f finish. A 11 v inyl
must be properly installed to prevent warping or separation.
(b) Asphalt d imensional s hingles. A sphalt d imensional s hingles m ust b e a
25-year "true" dimensional shingle. Painted shadows are not permitted.
These shingles must have a minimum weight of 240 pounds per square
and an exposure that is no more than 5-5/8 inches in length.
(c) Garage doors, street-facing. Garage doors must be of a durable material
that does not sag, warp, deteriorate, or de-laminate under normal use and
weather conditions. Materials such as particleboard or masonite are
prohibited.
Section 5. That this Ordinance shall take effect on the earliest date provided by law.
Passed this ~r~ day of _ ~/~.m~~Y, , 2003.
r.
ayor - residing Officer
Attest:
Clerk of Council
Sponsor: Division of Planning
I hereby certify that copies of this
Ordinance/Resolution were posted in the
City of Dublin in accordance with Section
731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code.
De Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio ~
Division of Planning
5800 Shier-Rings Road • Dublin, Ohio 43016
CITY OE DUBLIN Phone: 614-410-4600 • Fax: 614-761-6566 M e m 0
TO: Members of Dublin City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manage
DATE: Nov 3, 2003
INITIATED BY: Gary P. Gunderman, Assistant Planni rector
Brandol M. Harvey AIA AICP, Senior Planner
RE: Second Reading Appearance Code Amend ents
Ordinance 58-03 (Administrative Request 03-OSOADM)
Ordinance 59-03 (Administrative Request 03-014ADM)
SUMMARY:
These are a pair of ordinances resulting from the Appearance Code Committee
recommendations.
• Ordinance 58-03 modifies the Community Plan.
• Ordinance 59-03 amends the Development Code requirements for street and front yard
trees and creates, for the first time, "Residential Appearance Standards".
The Appearance Code Committee was appointed in July 2002 and made its recommendations
to City Council in May 2003. The City Council conducted substantial review of the
Committee's recommended ordinances and identified select areas for possible amendment.
Discussions resulted in some changes as part of the First Reading. Topics without City
Council consensus were forwarded to Commission for further consideration along with the
First Reading ordinances. These topics involved only the Residential Appearance Standards
section of Ordinance 59-03. Commission recommendations are as follows:
• Adoption of Ordinance 58-03 updating the Community Plan as presented in the First
Reading.
• Adoption of Ordinance 59-03 Sections 1-3 (street tree and front yard tree requirements)
without change. Several areas of Section 4 (Residential Appearance Standards) are
recommended for amendment to address the topics referred by City Council and other
refinements identified by the Commission. Commission recommendations include 2
additional Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations that relate to and support
the overall goal to ensure a high level of residential appearance.
• The attached "Summary of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations"
explains the Commission's recommendations in detail.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Adoption of Ordinance 58-03, COMMUNITY PLAN MODIFICATIONS, on second
reading.
Adoption of Ordinance 59-03, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS, with
amendments to Residential Appearance Standards, as recommended by the Commission.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
AUGUST 28, 2003
._c:rri~ of uual.fn
<p±~ision of Planning
10 Shier-Rings Road
D ,Ohio 43016-1236
Phone/(00: 614-410600
fax: 614-761-6566
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
1. Administrative Request 03-014ADM -Code Amendment -Residential
Appearance Standards
Request: Review and- approval of a revision to Section 153.190 residential
appearance standards for one-, two-, and three-unit structures.
Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald
Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner.
MOTION: To approve this administrative request for a Code Amendment -Residential
Appearance Standards.
VOTE: 5-0.
RESULT: This code amendment for Residential Appearance Standards will be
forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
n~
Bazbaza M. Clarke
Planning Director
STAFF REPORT
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
August 28, 2003
..CI'['1 OF UCBLII~
3i~-ision of Planning
ar~.~,10 Shier-Rings Road
D ,Ohio 43016-1236
phonejfiDD:614-410-4600
Fax: 614-161-6566
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
1. Administrative Request 03-014ADM -Code Amendment -Residential Appearance
Standards
Request: Review and approval of a revision to Section 153.190 residential appearance
standazds for one-, two-, and three-unit structures.
Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald
Pazkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Brandol M. Hazvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner.
BACKGROUND:
Since June 5, 2003 the Commission has reviewed the entire package of recommendations from
the "Appearance Code Committee" as referred to the Commission from the City Council, and
taken actions as follow:
Modifications to Community Plan (Administrative Request 03-050 ADM):
• Community Character Policies Issues and Strate>;ies
o Reviewed, discussed, and recommended approval to City Council
Amendments to Development Code (Administrative Request 03-014ADM):
• Improving street tree requirements and requirin>? front vard trees
o Reviewed, discussed, and recommended approval to City Council
• Adoption of Residential Appearance Standards
o Entire Section ].53.190 Reviewed and discussed.
o Identified and discussed specific topics for detailed discussions. Reviewed,
discussed and recommended changes to Ordinance 60-03 and created
recommendations for additional related studies and publications.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Revisions to Ordinance 60-03, Section 4, Creation of Residential Appearance Standards in
Development Code, Section 153-190:
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 2
The following provides the entire Residential Appearance Standards incorporating
Commission's recommendations. Changes are i~t large red italics, with deletions struck-
through and additions underlined. Confirmation of these changes is requested for the
August 28, 2003 Commission meeting.
Ordinance 60-03
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE ZONING
CODE BY AMENDING THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN
SECTION 153.133 AND 153.134 AND ADOPTING SECTION
153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS. (CASE
NO. 03-014ADM -LANDSCAPE CODE AMENDMENT AND
ADOPTING RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS).
Section 4. That Section 153.190 (Residential Appearance Standards) to regulate the
appearance and construction of houses be adopted as follows:
§ 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS
(A) Residential Appearance. The following findings warrant the need for exterior appearance
standards for residential development.
(1) The Community Plan recommends promoting a high quality built environment.
(2) Providing for compliance with appearance regulations will assist in creating quality
development within residential neighborhoods.
(3) Limiting the garage appearance within the front elevation limits the negative visual
impact.
(4) A balance of natural and synthetic building materials allows for design creativity and
promotes quality development.
(5) Trim around windows completes the appearance on every elevation.
(6) Placing windows, doors, porches, and other features on each elevation enhances the
visual environment and contributes to the overall architectural diversity of a
neighborhood.
(7) The lack of detailing, architectural features, and trim on elevations detracts from a
house and reduces the visual quality of a neighborhood.
(B) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide design standards that are applicable to
one, two, and three-family dwelling units. For purposes of this section, a one, two, and
three-family dwelling unit will be considered a "house." These standards are designed to
increase the quality of neighborhoods, to promote creativity and positive architectural
appearance within residential areas, to encourage design flexibility and creativity, and to
establish an interesting, aesthetically pleasing residential environment. It is also the intent
of this section to promote durable, quality materials that will allow residential
neighborhoods to endure and mature for future generations in the City of Dublin.
(I) Minifnunz Standards These standards are ~niniznum appearance
standards applicable to all houses in all dzstricts, zttcludr.nQ Planned
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 3
Development Districts, except as may be specifically approved in the
Planned Development District ordinance.
(2) Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts.
Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts
shall be adopted by City Council These objectives explain more general
intents regarding appearance in order to allow for creativity in meeting
them through the Planned Development District process. Planned
Development District proposals must demonstrate how the proposal
addresses the Residential Appearance Objectives and should replace
these minimum standards.
(3) Scheduled Review for Update Within twelve months of adoption, the
Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the Residential
Appearance Standards and Resideitial Appearance Objectives for
Planned Development Districts for updating as necessary to coiztinue to
meet the needs of the City of Dublin.
' (C) Applicability.
(1) These standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a 25
percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration.
(a) A significant exterior alteration is a change in roofline, adding or removing
windows or doors, altering projections and recesses, or changing the exterior
building materials.
(b) These standards will apply to only the expansion area of the house or the exterior
alteration and will not require the entire house to come into compliance with
these regulations.
(2) Houses within special districts described below are exempt or must comply with these
standards as follows:
(a) Those houses located within a planned district approved after the adoption of this
ordinance shall comply with these residential appearance standards, or with
specific substitute residential appearance standards contained in the adopting
planned district ordinance. These residential appearance standards shall apply
unless specifically stated substitute standards are approved in the planned district
ordinance. In the case of absent, or non-specific standards in the planned district
ordinance, the more restrictive standard will apply.
(b) Those houses located within a planned district approved prior to the adoption of
these residential appearance standards shall be exempt from these residential
appearance standards for a period of six months after the adoption of this
ordinance. After this exemption period, those houses located within a previously
approved planned district shall comply with these standards to the degree that the
subjects of these standards were not specifically addressed in the previously
approved planned district ordinance. In the case of absent or non-specific
standards, the more restrictive standard will apply.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 4
(c) Those houses located within the Architectural Review District or listed in Section
153.170(A) and (B) are exempt. These residential units shall be regulated by the
Architectural Review Section of the Dublin Codified Ordinance.
(3) Any building permit application for interior alterations to existing houses or any
application requesting only plumbing or electrical permits is exempt from this
ordinance.
(4) All houses for which building permit applications have been submitted at the time of
adoption of this ordinance are exempt from the requirements of this Code.
(D) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following definitions apply:
(1) Addition - An extension or increase in floor area, roof area, or height of a building or
structure.
(2) Alteration - A change or rearrangement in the structural parts, the means of egress or
an enlargement (addition) of a building or structure, or the material change of
appearance of a structure or the movement of a~ structure from one location or position
to another.
(3) Blank Elevation - An elevation that lacks openings and architectural features such as
windows, doors, chimneys, water tables, or other similar architectural features.
(4) Box Cul De Sac -Atypical setback treatment on a cul-de-sac where the building lines
for the lots fronting on the bulb, or rounded pavement at the terminus, are placed in
straight lines and create right angles to form a partial square or rectangle around the
bulb.
(4) Chimney -For the purposes of these standards, a structure prolectinQ
from the exterior wall of a house and enclosing or appeann~ to
enclose a ue that carries o smoke. It ma or ma not extend
. ,
vertically to the eaves line or have _ a
foundation/coiuzectio~z to ground. _
(5) Chimney, cantilevered "Cantilevered"
refers to tlZe characteristic that the
chimney projects from the exterior wall -
antilevered chimneys,
and does not have a foundatwn or
extension to ground.
(6) Chimney, shed-type - "Shed-type" refers to the
characteristic that the chimney does not exte~zd
full height vertically to the eaves line. A shed : ~ .
CZZL/1llley typically LnChldeS a direct Vellt Outlet to hed-t a chimne
the chimney wall.
(7) Corbel - To build out one or more courses of brick or stone from the face of a wall,
traditionally to form a support for timbers.
(8) Cornice -Overhang of a pitched roof at the eave line, usually consisting of a fascia
board, a soffit for a closed cornice, and appropriate moldings.
(9) Cornice return -That portion of the cornice that returns on the gable end of a house.
(10) Cul De Sac - A short, local street having only one end open for motor traffic, the other
end terminated by vehicular turnaround.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 5
(II) Direct vezzt outlet - For the
purposes of these standards, aiz
outlet tlzrouglz aiz ezterioz- wall
associated with the air supply -
and/or exhaust of a f ire burizer. Direct vent
It may or may not occur izz a , ~ outlet
projecting box/chimzzey.
(12) Dormer- A window set vertically in a structure projecting through a sloping roof; also:
the roofed structure containing such a window.
(13) Eaves -The margin or lower part of a roof projecting over the wall.
(14) Elevation - A geometric projection of the front, side, or rear outer
surface of a building onto a Ip ane perpendicular to the horizontal; a
vertical projection. , ,r~~ E"~
15 E ebrow - A geometric roadway , -
( )
configuration, typically found at street angles ~ _ _
45 degrees or greater, and typically used to • ~ ~ j
~ q`
provide increased lot frontage. ~
16 Fa ade The front of a building or any of its Dormer Eaves
sides or rear faces.
(17) Facin - An ornamental layer, such as the outer wythe of a masonry wall.
(18) Fascia - A horizontal piece (such as a board) covering the joint between the top of a
wall and the projecting eaves; also called fascia board.
(19) Fenestration -The design, proportioning, sizing, arrangement, and positioning of
windows, doors, and other exterior openings of a building.
(20) Frieze Board - A decorated band along the upper part of an exterior wall. In house
construction a horizontal member connecting the top of the siding with the soffit of the
cornice.
(21) Gable - 1 a: the vertical triangular end of a building
from cornice or eaves to ridge b: the similar end of a
gambrel roof c: the end wall of a building. 2: a
triangular part or structure
(22) Masonry -Natural or cultured stone, brick, or other - -
approved similar building units or materials or a Gable
combination of the same, bonded together with mortar
to form a wall, pier, buttress, or similar mass.
(23) Mini-Green - A landscaped island located in an eyebrow or cu]-de-sac.
(24) Projection -Any component of a structure that juts out from the main building.
(25) Soffit -The exposed undersurface of any overhead component of a building.
(26) Street-facing Garage door(s) -Garage door which is visible from the street and is less ,
than 60 degrees to the front lot line or street tangent line. A corner or through lot has
one such street front, which the entry or primary elevation of the house faces.
(27) Trim -The finished woodwork or similar architectural element used to enhance,
border or protect the edges of openings or surfaces, such as windows or doors.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 6
(28) Vin ly Siding Accessories -Exterior design elements that serve to provide more visual
interest and complement the primary home design.
_ - !1
~ _
~ = ~7?~ ~a
~
E
/
~
' Door Surround Mantel Decorative Gable Vents Dentil Windows and
Shutters Molding Corner Trims
(29) Water Table -Courses of brick or stone projecting beyond the face of the exterior wall,
typically from grade to first floor bearing or window sill, as a design element and/or to
guide water away from the face of the wall. Such feature should be predominately at
least twenty-four (24) inches high above grade and located on at least the front
elevation of the primary house forms, including walls projecting street-ward.
(E) Residential Design Standards.
(1) Design Standards. In addition to all applicable zoning and development standards, the
following design standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses
requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior
alteration.
(a) Chimneys.
. All chimneys must extend full height, from
ground and vertically past the eaves line. Cantilevered chimneys
are prohibited Slzed chimneys are prohibited.
I. If the primary elevation in which it is located is stozze, cultured
stone, brick or stucco, the clziznzzeys zzzust be f iiiished to stozZe,
c_zcltured stone, brick or stucco It need not match the prz~nary
elevatio?z in material or color.
2. I~ the pzimary elevatiozz in which it is located is zzot stone,
cccltuz-ed stone, brick or stucco, and the clzinuzey zs not stozze,
cultured stone, brick or stucco, the chinurey must match the
primary elevatiozz iiz material a~zd color.
(b) Finish Building~Materials. Wood board, brick, stone, cultured stone, fibrous
cement siding, stucco, glass block and vinyl siding are the permitted finish
building materials. Asphalt dimensional shingles, slate, tile, standing seam
metal, wood shingles or shakes are the permitted roof materials.
1. When a change in materials occurs at corners, the change should occur at
the inside corner. If a material change does occur at the outside corner, then
the material on the street-facing facade must extend at least two feet past the
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 7
outer corner. If a house has a side gable and a material change occurs on
the outside corner, rather than extending the materials around the corner, a
quoin or minimum 3-'/z inch wide corner board must be used down the
length of both faces of the corner.
2. The number of materials used as major facades, excluding fenestration,
shall not exceed three materials.
x (c) Foundations. Foundations ~
> >
shall be finished
with a faci~zg that provides natural or natural-appearing texture
aztd color that does not resemble plain concrete or plain concrete
block, or by extezzdiztg the permitted exterior finish sidiizg tnaterial
on the wall above to within I2 inches of fitished grade. Wlzen
exterior walls are stone, brick or stucco, foundations shall be stone,
brick or stucco, in any combination, provided the entire house has
no more thazz two foundatio~z face materials.
(d) Four-Sided Architecture. All sides of a house shall display a level of quality and
architectural interest. The majority of a building's architectural features and
treatments shall not be restricted to a single facade. Fronts of houses should be
articulated through the use of bays, insets, balconies, porches, or stoops related to
entrances and windows. For the purpose of four-sided architecture, houses on
corner and through lots have more than one street-facing elevation. Each
elevation must contain at least two design elements, and each street-facing
elevation must contain at least three design elements, in any combination,
provided;
M 1. There exists at least one design element in each equal one-half vertical
division of the subject elevation, and
2. At least one design element occurs between the first floor level and nine (9)
feet above the first floor level, and
3. If any upper wall area greater than 24 feet wide and 9 feet high (measured at
9 feet above the first floor level) occurs, at least one design element must be
located predominately at least 9 feet above the first floor in that elevation.
4. Design elements include:
a). A door of at least seventeen (17) square feet in area.
b). A window at least six (6) square feet in area. A set of adjacent
windows, such as a double or bay window, count as one design
element, however, horizontal bands of immediately adjacent window
units count as one design element for every eight (8) feet of run.
c). A chimney
~?a~s~s-}•
d). An articulated decorative gable vent of at least 4 square feet
in area.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 8
e). A water table. Such feature should be predominately at least
twenty-four (24) inches high above grade and located on at
least the front elevation of the primary house forms,
including walls projecting street-ward.
f). A similar significant permanent architectural feature
consistent with the style of the house.
(e) Garage doors street-facing. Garages are usually the dominant feature of most
houses when seen from the street. Side-loaded and recessed garages are
encouraged. For the purpose of determining street-facing garage doors, corner
and through lots have one such street front, which the entry or primary elevation
of the house faces. Detached street-facing garages located more than 22 feet
behind the front plane of the house are exempt from the maximum percentage of
elevation standards. Detached street-facing garages 22 feet or less from the front
plane of the house shall be calculated within the elevation. Street-facing garage
doors must meet the following standards:
1. No single garage door shall exceed two car widths or eighteen (18) feet.
2. Np combination of garage doors may exceed three car widths or a total of
twenty-six (26) feet.
3. Garage doors shall be recessed or set forward of adjacent doors at least 16
inches.
4. Garage door openings nay not exceed nine (9) feet in height.
5. Garage doors totaling two or less car widths shall not constitute more than
35 percent of the linear distance of the front elevation nor project more than
twelve (12) feet from the adjacent vertical wall plane. Open uncovered
porches shall not be considered a vertical wall plane.
•6. Garage doors totaling three car widths shall not constitute more than 45
percent of the linear distance of the front elevation nor project more than ten
(10) feet from the adjacent vertical wall plane. Open uncovered porches
shall not be considered a vertical wall plane.
7. Color. The initial installation or replacement of street-facing garage doors
must be of aloes-contrast color that is the same, or similar in hue and tonal
value, as the primary color of the house. Garage door trim is to match
garage doors or the primary trim color of the house
(f) Roof Pitch. The main architectural roof of a house must have a minimum 6:12
pitch. Flat roofs may be permitted, but not as the main architectural roof.
Dormers, porches, and other similar secondary architectural features may have
roofs with a minimum 4:12 pitch. Deep eaves and overhangs are encouraged.
(g) Vinyl Homes Any predominately vinyl-sided home must include complementary
accessories and detailing where vinyl sided elevations occur, as follows:
1. A detailed main entryway by use of a minimum 8 inch wide three-
dimensional door-surround system, and
2. Minimum 6 inch wide frieze or fascia boards, and
3. Comply with at least two of the following:
a). Shutter pairs on all the single and double -wide windows of the front,
t~~[~ and side elevations, where wall area permits them. Shutters shall
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 9
be full height and at least one-half the width of the single or one-
quarter the width of the double window.
b). Mantels above all windows if in front ai2d side elevations.
c). Sets of cornices, corbels, columns, gingerbread decorations, or similar
three-dimensional elements if in the front elevation, provided they
occur in a consistent arrangement according to style of the home.
, d). A brick, stone or masonry water table in the front elevation and street-
ward projections there-from.
e). Articulated decorative gable vent(s) of at least 4 square feet in area if
in the front, rear or side elevations.
(e) Windows. Shutters or trim will be required around all windows within any
elevation constructed of vinyl, stucco, wood, or fibrous cement siding. Shutters
shall be full height and at least one-half the width of the single or one-quarter the
width of the double window. Trim must be at least 3.5 inches in width. Special
brick detailing, such as soldier course or rowlock, will be encouraged on the top
and bottoms of windows within a brick elevation. Windows within an elevation
constructed of stone or cultured stone will be encouraged to use lintels and sills
to create a "trim" on the top and bottom of the windows.
(2) Building Material Specifications. Unless otherwise specified, all permitted building
materials must be manufactured and built to industry standard and must have a~
minimum 30-year life expectancy.
(d) Vinyl. All vinyl materials must have a minimum thickness of 44 mils, and must
be applied over oriented strand board or plywood. The siding must have alow-
gloss finish. All vinyl must be properly installed to prevent warping or
separation.
(e) Asphalt dimensional shingles. Asphalt dimensional shingles must be a 25-year
"true" dimensional shingle. Painted shadows are not permitted. These shingles
must have a minimum weight of 240 pounds per square and an exposure that is
no more than 5-S/8 inches in length.
(f) Garage doors, street-facing. Garage doors must be of a durable material that
does not sag, warp, deteriorate, or delaminate under normal use and weather
conditions. Materials such as particleboard or Masonite are prohibited.
Section 5. That this Ordinance shall take effect on the earliest date provided by law.
Passed this day of , 2003.
Mayor -Presiding Officer
Attest:
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 10
Clerk of Council
Sponsor: Division of Planning
Recommendations for additional related studies and publications:
The Commission also recommended two actions that supplement the above revisions to the
Development Code. The first is to better address residential appearance objectives when
evaluating Planned Development Districts proposals and the second responds to the topsoil
management topic referred to the Commission by the City Council.
• "Residential Appearance Objectives For Planned Development Districts"
The Purpose section of the Residential Appearance Standards was recommended to be
modified to call for the adoption of a supplemental document(s):
"(B) (2) Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts.
Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts
shall be adopted by City Council. These objectives explain more general intents
regarding appearance in order to allow for creativity in meeting them through the
Planned Development District process. Planned Development District proposals
must demonstrate how the proposal addresses the Residential Appearance
Standards and should replace these minimum standards."
This recommendation will result in a publication to communicate the more general
objectives that will be used to evaluate and negotiate solutions for proposed Planned
Development Districts when residential uses are proposed. Commission approved this
approach and discussions included several of the urban or neighborhood design items
that could be researched for inclusion in the publication. With City Council's approval,
the very rough example language provided in the August 14 staff report will be refined
and additional objectives researched. A final document is expected to be ready for
Commission and City Council consideration quickly after direction to proceed further.
The Commission also called for a review and update, as appropriate, within twelve
months of adoption of such a document to ensure it remains as effective as possible.
• "Topsoil Management"
Commission concluded the question of topsoil management, referred by the City
Council, is too complex for the purposes of residential appearance regulations and
recommended to City Council that they consider a separate study, perhaps by the
Natural Resources Advisory Commission.
STAFF RCCOMMCNDATION:
The Commission should formally confirm the recommended revisions to Ordinance 60-03 and
supplemental recommendations as acted on August l4, and contained above, and forward to City
Council.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 28, 2003 .
Page 2
1. Administrative Code Amendment 03-014ADM -Residential Appearance Standards
Mr. Gerber said the Commission had requested that this Code amendment come back as an
ordinance for review and approval. There were no questions or comments. He made a motion
for approval. Mr. Ritchie seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Zimmerman,
yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Ritchie, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 5-
0.) Mr. Gerber thanked Brandol Harvey for all his assistance. Mr. Harvey thanked the
Commissioners for their dedication to the subject.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
AUGUST 14, 2003
._crr~ c~N~ uf:af,rn
'sion of Planning
0 Shier-Rings Road
Dr Ohio 43016-1236
Phone/f
D D:614-410-4600
Fax: 614-761.6566
Web Site: www.dubl'm.oh.us
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this
meeting:
1. Administrative Request 03-014ADM - Code Amendment -Landscape Code and
Residential Appearance Standards
Request: Review and approval of a revision to the landscape requirements in section
153.133 (requiring front yard trees for single family lots) and 153.134 (size and spacing
of street trees); and adopting section 153.190 residential appearance standards. for one,
two, and three unit structures.
Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald
Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. '
Staff Contact: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner.
MOTION: To table this Code amendment pending submission of the final draft.
VOTE: 6-0.
RESULT: This Code amendment was tabled.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
~i. ` ~ 1,
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
STAFF REPORT
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
August 28, 2003
..CITY OF UCBLI~
sion of Planning
0 Shier-Rings Raad
Dc Ohio 43016-1236
?hone/FDD:614-410-4600
Fax: 614-161-6566
Web Site: www.dubGn.oh.us
1. Administrative Request 03-014ADM -Code Amendment -Residential Appearance
Standards
Request: Review and approval of a revision to Section 153.190 residential appearance
standards for one-, two-, and three-unit structures.
Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald
Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner.
BACKGROUND:
Since June 5, 2003 the Commission has reviewed the entire package of recommendations from
the "Appearance Code Committee" as referred to the Commission from the City Council, and
taken actions as follow:
Modifications to Community Plan (Administrative Request 03-050 ADM):
• Community Character Policies Issues and Strategies
o Reviewed, discussed, and recommended approval to City Council
Amendments to Development Code (Administrative Request 03-014ADM):
• ImQrovin~ street tree requirements and requiring front yard trees
o Reviewed, discussed, and recommended approval to City Council
• Adoption of Residential Appearance Standards
o Entire Section 153.190 Reviewed and discussed.
o Identified anti discussed specific topics for detailed discussions. Reviewed,
discussed and recommended changes to Ordinance 60-03 and created
recommendations for additional related studies and publications.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Revisions to Ordinance 60-03, Section 4, Creation of Residential Appearance Standards in
Development Code, Section 153-190:
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 2
The following provides the entire Residential Appearance Standards incorporating
Commission's recommendations. Changes are iit large red italics, with deletions struck-
through and additions underlined. Confirmation of these changes is requested for the
August 28, 2003 Commission meeting.
Ordinance 60-03
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE ZONING
CODE BY AMENDING THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN
SECTION 153.133 AND 153.134 AND ADOPTING SECTION
153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS. (CASE
NO. 03-014ADM -LANDSCAPE CODE AMENDMENT AND
ADOPTING RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS).
Section 4. That Section 153.190 (Residential Appearance Standards) to regulate the
appearance and construction of houses be adopted as follows:
§ 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS
(A) Residential Appearance. The following findings warrant the need for exterior appearance
standards for residential development.
(1) The Community Plan recommends promoting a high quality built environment.
(2) Providing for compliance with appearance regulations will assist in creating quality
development within residential neighborhoods.
(3) Limiting the garage appearance within the front elevation limits the negative visual
impact.
(4) A balance of natural and synthetic building materials allows for design creativity and
promotes quality development.
(5) Trim around windows completes the appearance on every elevation.
~r (6) Placing windows, doors, porches, and other features on each elevation enhances the
visual environment and contributes to the overall architectural diversity of a
neighborhood.
(7) The lack of detailing, architectural features, and trim on elevations detracts from a
house and reduces the visual quality of a neighborhood.
(B) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide design standards that are applicable to
one, two, and three-family dwelling units. For purposes of this section, a one, two, and
three-family dwelling unit will be considered a "house." These standards are designed to
increase the quality of neighborhoods, to promote creativity and positive architectural
appearance within residential areas, to encourage design flexibility and creativity, and to
establish an interesting, aesthetically pleasing residential environment. It is also the intent
_ of this section to promote durable, quality materials that will allow residential
neighborhoods to endure and mature for future generations in the City of Dublin.
(I) Minifnum Standards These standards are minimum appearance
standards applicable to all houses in all dcstricts, crtcludi~z~ Planned
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 3
Development Districts, except as fnay be specifically approved in the
Planned Development District ordinance.
(2) Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts.
Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts
shall be adopted by City Council. These objectives explain more general
intents regarding appearance iiz order to allow for creativity in meeting
them through the Planned Development District process. Planned
Development District proposals must demonstrate how the proposal
addresses tlae Residential Appearance Objectives and should replace
these minimum standards.
(3) Scheduled Review for Update. Within twelve months of adoption, the
Planning and Zonin¢ Commission shall review the Residential
Appearance Standards and Residential Appearance Objectives for
Planned Development Districts for updating as necessary to continue to
meet the needs of the City of Dublin.
(C) Applicability.
(1) These standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a 25
percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration.
(a) A significant exterior alteration is a change in roofline, adding or removing
windows or doors, altering projections and recesses, or changing the exterior
building materials.
(b) These standards will apply to only the expansion area of the house or the exterior
alteration and will not require the entire house to come into compliance with
these regulations.
` (2) Houses within special districts described below are exempt or must comply with these
standards as follows:
{a) Those houses located within a planned district approved after the adoption of this
ordinance shall comply with these residential appearance standards, or with
specific substitute residential appearance standards contained in the adopting
planned district ordinance. These residential appearance standards shall apply
unless specifically stated substitute standards are approved in the planned district
ordinance. In the case of absent, or non-specific standards in the planned district
ordinance, the more restrictive standard will apply.
(b) Those houses located within a planned district approved prior to the adoption of
these residential appearance standards shall be exempt from these residential
appearance standards for a period of six months after the adoption of this
ordinance. After this exemption period, those houses located within a previously
approved planned district shall comply with these standards to the degree that the
subjects of these standards were not specifically addressed in the previously
approved planned district ordinance. In the case of absent or non-specific
standards, the more restrictive standard will apply.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 4
(c) Those houses located within the Architectural Review District or listed in Section
153.170(A) and (B) are exempt. These residential units shall be regulated by the
Architectural Review Section of the Dublin Codified Ordinance.
(3) Any building permit application for interior alterations to existing houses or any
application requesting only plumbing or electrical permits is exempt from this
ordinance.
(4) All. houses for which building permit applications have been submitted at the time of
adoption of this ordinance are exempt from the requirements of this Code.
(D) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following definitions apply:
(1) Addition - An extension or increase in floor area, roof area, or height of a building or
structure.
(2) Alteration - A change or rearrangement in the structural parts, the means of egress or
an enlargement (addition) of a building or structure, or the material change of
appearance of a structure or the movement of a structure from one location or position
to another.
(3) Blank Elevation - An elevation that lacks openings and architectural features such as
windows, doors, chimneys, water tables, or other similar architectural features.
(4) Box Cul De Sac -Atypical setback treatment on a cul-de-sac where the building lines
for the lots fronting on the bulb, or rounded pavement at the terminus, are placed in
straight lines and create right angles to form a partial square or rectangle around the
bulb.
(4) Chimney For the purposes of these standards, a structure proiectin~
from the exterior wall of a house and enclostn~ or appearcn~ to
enclose a ue that carries o smoke. It ma or ma not extend
-
vertically to the eaves line or have a
foundation/connection to ground.
(5) Chimney, cantilevered "Cantilevered"
refers to the characteristic that the
chimney proiects from the exterior wall
antilevered chimneys,
and does ~iot have a foundation or
extension to ground.
(6) Chimney, shed-type - "Shed-type" refers to the
characteristic that the chim~zey does not extend _
,full height vertically to the eaves line. A shed ° ' . .F
c_laimrzey typically includes a direct ve~it outlet ul hed-t ~ e chimne
the chimney wall.
(7) Corbel - To build out one or more courses of brick or stone from the face of a wall,
traditionally to form a support for timbers.
(8) Cornice -Overhang of a pitched roof at the eave line, usually consisting of a fascia
board, a soffit for a closed cornice, and appropriate moldings.
(9) Cornice return -That portion of the cornice that returns on the gable end of a house.
(10) Cul De Sac - A short, local street having only one end open for motor traffic, the other
end terminated by vehicular turnaround.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 5
(II)Direct vent outlet - For the
purposes of these standards, an
outlet tlzrouglz an exterior wall
associated with the air supply _ -
and/or ezlzaust of a fire burner'. Direct vent
It znay or may not occur in a _ _ outlet
projecting box/chimney.
(]2) Dormer- A window set vertically in a structure projecting through a sloping roof; also:
the roofed structure containing such a window.
(l3) Eaves -The margin or lower part of a roof projecting over the wall.
(14) Elevation - A geometric projection of the front, side, or rear outer
surface of a building onto a lp ane perpendicular to the horizontal; a
vertical projection. - E~YCs
(I S) E ey
brow - A geometric roadway _ , f f.~ - ;
configuration, typically found at street angles _ ,
45 degrees or greater, and typically used to • ,t`
provide increased lot frontage. - 4
16 Fa ade The front of a building or any of its Dormer Eaves
( ) -
sides or rear faces.
(17) Facing - An ornamental layer, such as the outer wythe of a masonry wall.
(18) Fascia - A horizontal piece (such as a board) covering the joint between the top of a
wall and the projecting eaves; also called fascia board.
(19) Fenestration -The design, proportioning, sizing, arrangement, and positioning of
windows, doors, and other exterior openings of a building.
(20) Frieze Board - A decorated band along the upper part of an exterior wall. In house
construction a horizontal member connecting the top of the siding with the soffit of the
cornice.
(21) Gable - 1 a: the vertical triangular end of a building
from cornice or eaves to ridge b: the similar end of a
- gambrel roof c: the end wall of a building. 2: a
triangular part or structure
(22) Masonry -Natural or cultured stone, brick, or other
approved similar building units or materials or a Gable
combination of the same, bonded together with mortar
to form a wall, pier, buttress, or similar mass.
(23) Mini-Green - A landscaped island located in an eyebrow or cul-de-sac.
(24) Projection -Any component of a structure that juts out from the main building.
(25) Soffit -The exposed undersurface of any overhead component of a building.
(26) Street-facing Garage door(s) -Garage door which is visible from the street and is less
than 60 degrees to the front lot line or street tangent line. A corner or through lot has
one such street front, which the entry or primary elevation of the house faces.
(27) Trim -The finished woodwork or similar architectural element used to enhance,
border or protect the edges of openings or surfaces, such as windows or doors.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 6
(28) Vin,
ly Siding Accessories -Exterior design elements that serve to provide more visual
interest and complement the primary home design.
W
r~ ~ ~ ~ ~3~;
Door Surround Mantel Decorative Gable Vents Dentil Windows and
Shutters Molding Corner Trims
(29) Water Table -Courses of brick or stone projecting beyond the face of the exterior wall,
typically from grade to first floor bearing or window sill, as a design element and/or to
guide water away from the face of the wall. Such feature should be predominately at
least twenty-four (24) inches high above grade and located on at least the front
elevation of the primary house forms, including walls projecting street-ward.
(E) Residential Design Standards.
(1) Design Standards. In addition to all applicable zoning and development standards, the
following design standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses
requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior
alteration.
(a) Chimneys.
. All chimneys must extend full height, frozn
ground and vertically past the eaves line. Cantilevered chimneys
are prohibited. Shed chimneys are prohibited.
I. I
f the primary elevatiozz in which it is located is stone, cultured
stone, brick or stucco, the chimneys mrest be f izzished in stone,
cultured stone, brick or stucco. It izeed not match the primary
elevation in material or color.
2. If the primary elevation iiz which it is located is not stone,
cultured stone, brick or stucco, and the clzinz~zey is not stone,
cultured stone, brick or stucco, the chimney must match the
primary elevation in material and color.
(b) Finish Building Materials. Wood board, brick, stone, cultured stone, fibrous
cement siding, stucco, glass block and vinyl siding are the permitted finish
building materials. Asphalt dimensional shingles, slate, tile, standing seam
metal, wood shingles or shakes are the permitted roof materials.
1. When a change in materials occurs at corners, the change should occur at
the inside corner. If a material change does occur at the outside corner, then
the material on the street-facing facade must extend at least two feet past the
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 7
outer corner. If a house has a side gable and a material change occurs on
the outside corner, rather than extending the materials around the corner, a
quoin or minimum 3-'/2 inch wide corner board must be used down the
length of both faces of the corner.
2. The number of materials used as major facades, excluding fenestration,
shall not exceed three materials.
(c) Foundations. Foundations ~
shall be finished
with a facing that provides natural or natural-appear~rz~ texture
and color that does not resemble .plain concrete or plain concrete
block, or by extertdirz~ the permitted exterior f finish siding material
on the wall above to within I2 inches of finished grade. When
exterior walls are stone, brick or stucco, foundations shall be stone,
brick or stucco, in any combination, provided the entire house has
no more than two foundation face materials.
(d) Four-Sided Architecture. All sides of a house shall display a level of quality and
architectural interest. The majority of a building's architectural features and
treatments shall not be restricted to a single facade. Fronts of houses should be
articulated through the use of bays, insets, balconies, porches, or stoops related to
entrances and windows. For the purpose of four-sided architecture, houses on
corner and through lots have more than one street-facing elevation. Each
elevation must contain at least two design elements, and each street-facing
elevation must contain at least three design elements, in any combination,
provided;
1. There exists at least one design element in each equal one-half vertical
division of the subject elevation, and
£ 2. At least one design element occurs between the first floor level and nine (9)
feet above the first floor level, and
3. If any upper wall area greater than 24 feet wide and 9 feet high (measured at
9 feet above the first floor level) occurs, at least one design element must be
located predominately at least 9 feet above the first floor in that elevation.
4. Design elements include:
a). A door of at least seventeen (17) square feet in area.
b). A window at least six (6) square feet in area. A set of adjacent
windows, such as a double or bay window, count as one design
element, however, horizontal bands of immediately adjacent window
units count as one design element for every eight (8) feet of run.
c). A chimney
d). An articulated decorative gable vent of at least 4 square feet
in area.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 8
e). A water table. Such feature should be predominately at least
twenty-four (24) inches high above grade and located on at
least the front elevation of the primary house forms,
including walls projecting street-ward.
f). A similar significant permanent architectural feature
consistent with the style of the house.
(e) Garage doors, street-facing. Garages are usually the dominant feature of most
houses when seen from the street. Side-loaded and recessed garages are
encouraged. For the purpose of determining street-facing garage doors, corner
and through lots have one such street front, which the entry or primary elevation
of the house faces. Detached street-facing garages located more than 22 feet
behind the front plane of the house are exempt from the maximum percentage of
elevation standards. Detached street-facing garages 22 feet or less from the front
plane of the house shall be calculated within the elevation. Street-facing garage
doors must meet the following standards:
1. No single garage door shall exceed two car widths or eighteen (18) feet.
2. No combination of garage doors may exceed three car widths or a total of
twenty-six (26) feet.
3. Garage doors shall be recessed or set forward of adjacent doors at least 16
inches.
4. Garage door openings may not exceed ~zine (9) feet in height.
5. Garage doors totaling two or less car widths shall not constitute more than
35 percent of the linear distance of the front elevation nor project more than
twelve (12) feet from the adjacent vertical wall plane. Open uncovered
porches shall not be considered a vertical wall plane.
6. Garage doors totaling three car widths shall not constitute more than 45
percent of the linear distance of the front elevation nor project more than ten
(l0) feet from the adjacent vertical wall plane. Open uncovered porches
shall not be considered a vertical wall plane.
7. Color. The initial installation or replacement of street-facing garage doors
must be of aloes-contrast color that is the same, or similar in hue and tonal
value, as the primary color of the house. Garage door trim is to match
garage doors or the primary trim color of the house
(f) Roof Pitch. The main architectural roof of a house must have a minimum 6:12
pitch. Flat roofs may be permitted, but not as the main architectural roof.
Dormers, porches, and other similar secondary architectural features may have
roofs with a minimum 4: ] 2 pitch. Deep eaves and overhangs are encouraged.
(g) Vinyl Homes Any predominately vinyl-sided home must include complementary
accessories and detailing where vinyl sided elevations occur, as follows:
1. A detailed main entryway by use of a minimum 8 inch wide three-
dimensional door-surround system, and
2. Minimum 6 inch wide frieze or fascia boards, and
3. Comply with at least two of the following:
a). Shutter pairs on all the single and double -wide windows of the front,
and side elevations, where wall area permits them. Shutters shall
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 9
be full height and at least one-half the width of the single or one-
quarter the width of the double window.
b). Mantels above all windows if in front aitd side elevations.
c). Sets of cornices, corbels, columns, gingerbread decorations, or similar
three-dimensional elements if in the front elevation, provided they
occur in a consistent arrangement according to style of the home.
d). A brick, stone or masonry water table in the front elevation and street-
ward projections there-from.
e). Articulated decorative gable vent(s) of at least 4 square feet in area if
in the front, rear or side elevations.
(e) Windows. Shutters or trim will be required around all windows within any
elevation constructed of vinyl, stucco, wood, or fibrous cement siding. Shutters
shall be full height and at least one-half the width of the single or one-quarter the
width of the double window. Trim must be at least 3.5 inches in width. Special
brick detailing, such as soldier course or rowlock, will be encouraged on the top
and bottoms of windows within a brick elevation. Windows within an elevation
constructed of stone or cultured stone will be encouraged to use lintels and sills
to create a "trim" on the top and bottom of the windows.
(2) Building Material Specifications. Unless otherwise specified, all permitted building
materials must be manufactured and built to industry standard and must have a
minimum 30-year life expectancy.
(d) Vinyl. All vinyl materials must have a minimum thickness of 4-4 mils, and must
be applied over oriented strand board or plywood. The siding must have alow-
gloss finish. All vinyl must be properly installed to prevent warping or
separation.
(e) Asphalt dimensional shingles. Asphalt dimensional shingles must be a 25-year
"true" dimensional shingle. Painted shadows are not permitted. These shingles
must have a minimum weight of 240 pounds per square and an exposure that is
no more than 5-518 inches in length.
(f) Garage doors, street-facing. Garage doors must be of a durable material that
does not sag, warp, deteriorate, or delaminate under normal use and weather
conditions. Materials such as particleboard or Masonite are prohibited.
Section 5. That this Ordinance shall take effect on the earliest date provided by law.
Passed this day of , 2003.
Mayor -Presiding Officer
Attest:
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 10
Clerk of Council
Sponsor: Division of Planning
Recommendations for additional related studies and publications:
The Commission also recommended two actions that supplement the above revisions to the
Development Code. The first is to better address residential appearance objectives when
evaluating Planned Development Districts proposals and the second responds to the topsoil
management topic referred to the Commission by the City Council.
• "Residential Appearance Objectives For Planned Development Districts"
The Purpose section of the Residential Appearance Standards was recommended to be
modified to call for the adoption of a supplemental document(s):
"(B) (2) Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts.
Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts
shall be adopted by City Council. These objectives explain more general intents
regarding appearance in order to allow for creativity in meeting them through the
Planned Development District process. Planned Development District proposals
must demonstrate how the proposal addresses the Residential Appearance
Standards and should replace these minimum standards."
This recommendation will result in a publication to communicate the more general
objectives that will be used to evaluate and negotiate solutions for proposed Planned
Development Districts when residential uses are proposed. Commission approved this
approach and discussions included several of the urban or neighborhood design items
that could be researched for inclusion in the publication. With City Council's approval,
the very rough example language provided in the August 14 staff report will be refined
and additional objectives researched. A final document is expected to be ready for
Commission and City Council consideration quickly after direction to proceed further.
The Commission also called for a review and update, as appropriate, within twelve
months of adoption of such a document to ensure it remains as effective as possible.
• "Topsoil Management"
Commission concluded the question of topsoil management, referred by the City
Council, is too complex for the purposes of residential appearance regulations and
recommended to City Council that they consider a separate study, perhaps by the
Natural Resources Advisory Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Commission should formally confirm the recommended revisions to Ordinance 60-03 and
supplemental recommendations as acted on August 14, and contained above, and forward to City
Council.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 14, 2003
Page 3
1. Administrative Case 03-014ADM - Code Amendment - Residential Appearance
Standards
Mr. Gerber said much discussion was previously heard about chimneys. This Appearance Code
is the first step to establish new minimum standards in Dublin, serving as a baseline. The future
planned districts will maintain the expected level of discretion.
Brandol Harvey said, unless there is different direction, the staff hoped to start discussion and
take some actions tonight. He said these standards are minimum, and they will apply unless a
future planned district states otherwise. Planned development districts give an opportunity for a
broader range of topics and for negotiation. New minimum standards are proposed for
codification. Mr. Harvey said there are really two categories: those items that will be included
in the ordinance as minimum standards and those that relate to planned development districts and
residential appearance objectives. The latter will be a separate document allowing the
Commission to elaborate on things that it cannot in the Development Code.
Mr. Harvey noted the Commission was committed to periodic review of these new standards
after adoption. He suggested review after 12 months. The Commissioners agreed.
Mr. Harvey said there had been confusion on chimney terminology. A chimney projects from an
exterior wall. It may be a traditional chimney, or some other form. One type of chimney is
cantilevered without a foundation. It may not go to the roof. There is a "shed" that does not go
to the roof, with or without a foundation. He said "direct vent" should apply only to the outlet
itself, not athree-dimensional architectural feature.
Ms. Boring asked for clarification on direct vent outlet versus the "shed" direct vent chimney.
Mr. Harvey said if the concern is that there is no foundation, this is a cantilevering issue. If the
concern is about not having full height, then the issue is a "shed" type chimney. If the concern is
about the piece metal itself, the issue is the direct vent outlet. There are many combinations.
Mr. Harvey provided data about recently built neighborhoods in Dublin. Regarding chimneys,
the most common type was the traditional chimney, running from the ground up past the roof.
He noted several subdivisions prohibit non-traditional chimneys forms. The cantilevered shed-
type chimney on the side elevation occurred only eight percent. of the time, and 24 percent on the
rear elevation. Where the shed type is permitted, about a third of the houses use that style.
Sixteen percent had the cantilevered chimneys that extended past the roof.
To address the several issues, he suggested using the words: "All chimneys must extend full
height from ground and vertically past the eave line. Cantilevered chimneys are prohibited.
Shed chimneys are prohibited." He said "...requiring extension to the eave line and prohibiting
shed chimneys" would be changes to the previous draft. This would prohibit the shed-type
chimney and require chimney foundations.
The Commissioners concurred on prohibiting the shed-type and with the staff recommendations
with respect to chimneys.
Mr. Gerber said this was the best staff report he had ever read, just fantastic. He said that Mr.
Harvey should be congratulated and rewarded some way for it.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 14, 2003
Page 4
Mr. Harvey remarked about the permitted material for chimneys. The chimney can always be
stone, brick or stucco. If the wall is stone, brick, or stucco, the chimney must also be either
stone, brick or stucco. If the wall is not stone, brick, or stucco and the chimney is not stone,
brick, or stucco, the chimney must match the wall in material and color. The Commissioners
agreed with the staff recommendation regarding chimney material.
Mr. Harvey said page 6 of the staff report referenced more general draft objectives that could be
placed in the planned district objectives for residential appearance.
Ms. Boring asked if the statement "Cantilever shed-type type chimneys should be strongly
discouraged" was added because a planned district can ignore the previous. Mr. Harvey said if
the Commission and Council agreed, a planned district could supersede the minimum standards.
Mr. Harvey said the draft last required cladding foundations with brick, natural stone, imitation
stone, split block, etc. One Council member took exception to allowing split-face block. Mr.
Harvey said rather than listing specific pre-approved materials, the Committee chose to eliminate
the look of concrete block or a plain concrete foundation. Split-face block comes in a number of
different styles that do not look like concrete, but some styles that do. The change would allow
any facing that did not look like plain concrete. Also, if it was a sided house, the siding could
extend down. He said another new item would require if the wall itself is stone, brick, or stucco,
that the foundation must also be stone, brick, or stucco.
Ms. Boring said this had really been fine-tuned and she agreed with Mr. Gerber. She asked if
these are new requirements or just a refinement of the Committee's work. Mr. Harvey said this
would be considered a refinement. The first change is a clarification.
Mr. Gerber said he was in concurrence with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Ritchie said, page 7, bullet 1, the language: "The foundation shall be finished with a facing
that provides natural or natural appearing texture and color but does not resemble plain concrete
or plain concrete block" should be tightened to be less subjective.
Mr. Ritchie referred page 7, last bullet: "Stone, brick and stucco exterior walls must be stone,
brick, or stucco foundations or any combinations." He said this would permit any combination,
even 10 feet of stone, then 10 feet of brick, and then stucco. Mr. Harvey agreed. Mr. Sprague
suggested a more restrictive clause, limiting it to one material. Mr. Ritchie suggested two.
Mr. Sprague asked if the end wraps would they go down to the foundation, or the ground. Mr.
Harvey said either would be acceptable. It would be a continuation of the material on the front.
Mr. Harvey asked if the Commissioners believed the foundation should be limited to no more
than two materials, among brick, stone, or stucco. The Commissioners concurred.
Mr. Harvey said the Committee did not discuss topsoil management, but it was raised by a
Council member. Staff recommends pursuing it as a separate subject. Mr. Gerber thought the
issue of topsoil management should be referred to the Natural Resources Advisory Commission.
Other Commissioners concurred.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 14, 2003
Page 5
Mr. Gunderman suggested that the Code Revision Taskforce might deal with this in the
subdivision regulations. Mr. Gerber and Mr. Messineo said it will be City Council's decision.
Mr. Harvey said four-sided architecture, the design elements, and balancing those design
elements (doors, windows, etc.) are related issues. The Committee considered affordability and
practicality, allowing for creativity and simplicity in administration. Mr. Harvey said "four-
sided" architecture attempts to prevent blank walls. This requires design elements to be
dispersed around every elevation according to three tests. "Balance" is more subjective. The
proposed draft requires dispersing three design elements for elevations facing a street, and two
for private-facing elevations. The Commissioners concurred with this more minimal approach.
Mr. Harvey said garage door heights were not included in the previous recommendations. He
said a typical garage door is 8 feet high, and possibly 9 feet. A 9-foot high garage door does not
significantly impact the elevation, but taller doors become very dominant. Staff recommends
that street-facing garage door opening heights be limited to 9 feet. A rear- or side-facing garage
could have a higher opening. The Commissioners agreed with this recommendation.
Mr. Sprague said on corner or other double frontage lots, the Committee chose only to regulate
the primary "front" entrance, not the side street. The Commissioners agreed.
Mr. Harvey said discussion on vinyl-sided homes and accessories focused on window mantels
and shutters. This draft requires two decorative items for the front elevation if it is vinyl. The
list includes mantels, shutters, gingerbread type decorations, water table, and gabled vents.
However, shutters would be required on front, side, and rear, as would gable vents. He presented
slides on these elements. Mr. Harvey said this recommendation uses this list, but mantels need
to be repeated on the sides (but not rears). When shutters are a selected option, they are required
only on the front and side, but not the rear. He said this draft would eliminate shutters on the
rear, now require mantels on the side, and in all cases, every window must be trimmed some way
- in either a 3'/cinch trim or shutters. Those two combinations could address the rear windows.
The Commissioners agreed with this recommendation.
Mr. Harvey illustrated three-tab and dimensional shingles as required under the current draft. He
said the cost range was broad. The three-tab type is much lighter in weight. The comparative
cost per 100 square feet is $35 for three-tab versus dimensional shingles at $71 on average.
He noted several Dublin planned districts prohibit three-tab shingles and require dimensional
ones. Where choice is up to the homeowner, there is a split. He said staff recommended
retaining the three-dimensional shingle requirement. The Commissioners agreed with this.
Mr. Harvey said the Committee concluded that the neighborhood appearance affected each
individual home's appearance. The Community Plan has a number of appearance objectives,
both in the Community Character and Land Use sections. Rural character, retention of high
quality focal points, and gathering places, etc. are mentioned. Several area plans had more
specific architectural suggestions -compatibility with existing architecture, natural features, etc.
He said the development code had minimum design requirements, such as setbacks.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 14, 2003
Page 6
Mr. Harvey said the current Code requires a residential driveway to be between ten to 16 feet
wide at the right-of--way line. The driveway also cannot be wider than the garage entrance. He
said this includes a maximum width of 26 feet, and then only for athree-car garage.
The Commission had already recommended approval of the Landscape Code changes,
curvilinear streets, increased private tree landscaping, and landscaping of varying cul de sac
shapes. He said this is goal-oriented rather than specifics-oriented. Mr. Harvey said staff is
making a suggestion that it be a major part of the residential appearance objectives that would be
packaged to come back to the Commission and City Council in the near future.
Mr. Harvey said the Commission had agreed with the rest of the recommendations.
Mr. Gerber reiterated his praise for Mr. Harvey's presentation. He said this completes the
Commission review. He asked if this document should be forwarded to City Council with these
recommendations, or revised before they vote on it. Mr. Harvey said staff had noted the
Commission's suggested changes, and the Committee draft can be rewritten and returned.
The Commissioners agreed that they would like to see the revised draft before it goes to Council.
Mr. Banchefsky said an action needed to be taken.
Mr. Harvey thanked the Commission for their energy and dedication to this complicated project.
Mr. Gerber made a motion to table this administrative request pending submission of the final
draft, and Mr. Zimmerman seconded. The recorded vote was: Mr. Ritchie, yes; Ms. Boring, yes;
Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Tabled 6-0.)
Mr. Messineo said page 16 of the report, the staff recommendation included having Council
direct staff to pursue the residential appearance objectives for planned district. Mr. Gerber said
that, and topsoil management would be part of what Mr. Harvey would be rewriting.
Mr. Harvey said all the illustrations relevant to the final recommendations will be in the
definition section sent to City Council.
Mr. Gerber called a short recess. The meeting reconvened at 7:32 p.m.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
July 17, 2003
'"y'~rision of Pknning
00 Shier-Rings Raad
[ i, Ohio 43016-1236
Phone/FD0:614-410-4600
Fax: 614-761-65b6
Web Site: www.dubGn.oh.as
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
3. Administrative Request 03-014ADM -Code Amendment _ Residential Appearance
Standards
Request: Review and approval of a revision to the landscape requirements in Sections
153.133 (requiring front yard trees for single family lots) and 153.134 (size and
frequency of street trees); and adopting Section 153.190, residential appearance standards
for one, two, and three unit structures.
Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald
Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner.
RESULT: After lengthy discussion the Commission identified nine topics in need of further
detailed discussion. The topics included chimneys, split-face block, topsoil and landscaping
foundations, balancing pattern and four sided architecture, mantel and shutter system windows,
shingles, garage door height, periodic review of the Code, and parking lot issues, other visual
elements of interest, street medians, islands, driveway width, additional urban design elements.
The Commission began to discuss these topics in more detail and decided that each topic would
be addressed in a logical, grouped discussion at a later date.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
r
~L .-~L..~
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -July 17, 2003
Page 9
3. Administrative Request 03-014ADM -Code Amendment -Residential Appearance
Standards
Request: Review and approval of an addition to the Development Code to create
residential appearance standards for one, two, and three-family dwelling structures, in
section 153.90.
Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald
Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner.
NOTE:
The Commissioners received a handout June 5 which included all three parts of the Appearance
Code Committee recommendations and minutes from the Committee meetings. That very large
package may be set aside, if desired. The Commission has discussed and taken action on the first
two parts (Community Plan Modifications and Landscaping Code amendments). For
convenience, the following report extracts the third and final part (Residential Appearance
Standards), incorporates related topics referred to the Commission by the City Council, and
includes background information and staff comments to help determine which of those topics
need to receive more detailed discussions. The Commission is asked to identify, at the July 17
meeting, its own topics and which referred topics. need detailed discussions. Detailed discussions
will begin Aug 14.
BACKGROUND:
The Appearance Code Committee was appointed by City Council in July 2002 to investigate and
make recommendations on residential appearances of the City. Its recommendations were made
in May 2003 and have been reviewed by City Council. City Council forwarded the
recommendations to Commission after some specific changes were made and with a list of topics
for further consideration by the Commission. In summary, the Appearance Code Committee
recommended three sets of Development Code amendments. The first improves street tree
standards. The second requires front yard trees for single-family lots. These were acted on July
10. The third, Residential Appearance Standards, is the subject of this report.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -July 17, 2003
Page 10
CONSIDERATIONS:
PLEASE NOTE:
City Council referrals from their work session are shown in shaded text
boxes similar to this one. Referrals were general topics where there were
comments or questions but no consensus for changes. These were referred to
the Planning and Zoning Commission to .give consideration for possible
changes.
For convenience in separating theproposed ordinance wording from
"Considerations" wording, background information and staff comments on
thereferred -items -are located in the shaded text boxes. These text boxes are`
located at the appropriate subjects in the ordinance text.
§ 153.190
RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS
(A) Residential Appearance. The following findings warrant the need for exterior appearance
standards for residential development.
(1) The Community Plan recommends promoting a high quality built environment.
(2) Providing for compliance with appearance regulations will assist in creating quality
development within residential neighborhoods.
(3) Limiting the garage appearance within the front elevation limits the negative visual
impact.
(4) A balance of natural and synthetic building materials allows for design creativity and
promotes quality development.
(5) Trim around windows completes the appearance on every elevation.
(6) Placing windows, doors, porches, and other features on each elevation enhances the
visual environment and contributes to the overall architectural diversity of a
neighborhood.
(7) The lack of detailing, architectural features, and trim on elevations detracts from a
house and reduces the visual quality of a neighborhood.
(B) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide design standards that are applicable to
one, two, and three-family dwelling units. For purposes of this section, a one, two, and
three-family dwelling unit will be considered a "house." These standards are designed to
increase the quality of neighborhoods, to promote creativity and positive architectural
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -July 17, 2003
Pagel 1
appearance within residential areas, to encourage design flexibility and creativity, and to
establish an interesting, aesthetically pleasing residential environment. It is also the intent
of this section to promote durable, quality materials that will allow residential
neighborhoods to endure and mature for future generations in the City of Dublin.
(C) Applicability.
(1) These standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a 25
percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration.
(a) A significant exterior alteration is a change in roofline, adding or removing
windows or doors, altering projections and recesses, or changing the exterior
building materials.
(b) These standards will apply to only the expansion area of the house or the exterior
alteration and will not require the entire house to come into compliance with
these regulations.
(2) Houses within special districts described below are exempt or must comply with these
standards as follows:
(a) Those houses located within a planned district approved after the adoption of this
ordinance shall comply with these residential appearance standards, or with
specific substitute residential appearance standards contained in the adopting
planned district ordinance. These residential appearance standards shall apply
unless specifically stated substitute standards are approved in the planned district
ordinance. In the case. of absent, or non-specific standards in the planned district
ordinance, the more restrictive standard will apply.
(b) Those houses located within a planned district approved prior to the adoption of
these residential appearance standards shall be exempt from these residential
appearance standards for a period of six months after the adoption of this
ordinance. After this exemption period, those houses located within a previously
approved planned district shall comply with these standards to the degree that the
subjects of these standards were not specifically addressed in the previously
approved planned district ordinance. In the case of absent or non-specific
standards, the more restrictive standard will apply.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -July 17, 2003
Pagel l
appearance within residential areas, to encourage design flexibility and creativity, and to
establish an interesting, aesthetically pleasing residential environment. It is also the intent
of this section to promote durable, quality materials that will allow residential
neighborhoods to endure and mature for future generations in the City of Dublin.
(C) Applicability.
(1) These standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a 25
percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration.
(a) A significant exterior alteration is a change in roofline, adding or removing
windows or doors, altering projections and recesses, or changing the exterior
building materials.
(b) These standards will apply to only the expansion area of the house or the exterior
alteration and will not require the entire house to come into compliance with
these regulations.
(2) Houses within special districts described below are exempt or must comply with these
standards as follows:
(a) Those houses located within a planned district approved after the adoption of this
ordinance shall comply with these residential appearance standards, or with
specific substitute residential appearance standards contained in the adopting
planned district ordinance. These residential appearance standards shall apply
unless specifically stated substitute standards are approved in the planned district
ordinance. In the case of absent, or non-specific standards in the planned district
ordinance, the more restrictive standard will apply.
(b) Those houses located within a planned district approved prior to the adoption of
these residential appearance standards shall be exempt from these residential
appearance standards for a period of six months after the adoption of this
ordinance. After this exemption period, those houses located within a previously
approved planned district shall comply with these standards to the degree that the
subjects of these standards were not specifically addressed in the previously
' approved planned district ordinance. In the case of absent or non-specific
standards, the more restrictive standard will apply.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -July l 7, 2003
Page 12
City Council commented that consideration should be given to completely exempting
existing Planned Districts that have an Architectural Review Committee.
CONSIDERATIONS:
• 68 PDs with residential uses have been approved for 11,838 residential units,
• 9,797 have been constructed and
• 2,041,have yet to be permitted.
• The ..proposed Residential :Appearance Standards would apply to all new home
construction and remodeling with a 25 percent .:expansion of the livable area or a
significant exterior alteration..
• It is difficult to determine if the various types of `committees mentioned in
restrictive covenents are truly "Architectural Review Committees." Regardless, since:
they are put inplace by restrictive covenents, their~~actioas and criteria are not
controlled or enforcable by the City.
• Some ordinances for Planned Districts do include design standards for `various
aspects of ardiitectural appearance. Where they do exist, there is little consistency in
scope, terminology or purpose. Often the adopted standards only state "meetCity
Development Code."
• The intent of the proposed Residential Appearance Standards was to compare
whatever appearance standards may be contained in an adopted ordinance to those in
the Residential Appearance Standards. The more demanding would prevail.
• For example, if the adopted Planned .District ordinance limits "exterior wall.
materials to "brick or stone," only those two materials could be used even
.though the Residential Appearance Standards would allow "wwood board,
brck,.stone,,cultured stone, fibrous cemeat siding, stucco, glass block and vinyl
:siding." :Conversely, if the Planned District ordinance did not say whether or not
m. foundations must be :faced, the Residential Appearance Standards would be
applied, requiring foundations to be faced.
(c) Those houses located within the Architectural Review District or listed in Section
153.170(A) and (B) are exempt. These residential units shall be regulated by the
Architectural Review Section of the Dublin Codified Ordinance.
(3) Any building permit application for interior alterations to existing houses or any
application requesting only plumbing or electrical permits is exempt from this
ordinance.
(4) All houses for which building permit applications have been submitted at the time of
adoption of this ordinance are exempt from the requirements of this Code.
(D) Definitions: For the purposes of this Section, the following definitions apply:
(l) Addition - An extension or increase in floor area, roof area, or height of a building or
structure.
(2) Alteration - A change or rearrangement in the structural parts, the means of egrr;ss or
an enlargement (addition) of a building or structure, or the material change ~+~f
appearance of a structure or the movement of a structure from one location or positiar?
to another.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -July 17, 2003
Page l3
(3) Blank Elevation - An elevation that lacks openings and architectural features such as
windows, doors, chimneys, water tables, or other similar architectural features.
(4) Box Cul-De-Sac -Atypical setback treatment on a cul-de-sac where the building lines
for the lots fronting on the bulb, or rounded pavement at the terminus, are placed in
straight lines and create right angles to form a partial square or rectangle around the
bulb..
(5) Corbel - To build out one or more courses of brick or stone from the
face of a wall, traditionally to form a support for timbers.
(6) Cornice -Overhang of a pitched roof at the eave line, usually consisting
of a fascia board, a soffit for a closed cornice, and appropriate moldings.
(7) Cornice return -That portion of the cornice that returns on the gable end
of a house.
(8) Cul De Sac - A short, local street having only one end open for motor Cornice
traffic, the other end terminated by vehicular turnaround.
(9) Dormer - A window set vertically in a Evers
structure projecting through a sloping roof; - ~ =~=r . _ ,
also: the roofed structure containing such a _ ~ .w
sit _ - - . - ,
window. N' ~
(10) Eaves -The margin or lower part of a roof F~ ~
projecting over the wall. Dormer Eaves
(11) Elevation - A geometric projection of the front, side, or rear outer surface of a building
onto a plane perpendicular to the horizontal; a vertical projection.
(12) ~ebrow - A geometric roadway configuration, typically found at street angles 45
degrees or greater, and typically used to provide increased lot frontage.
(13) Facade -The front of a building or any of its sides or rear faces.
(14) Fa ins - An ornamental layer, such as the outer wythe of a~masonry wall.
(15) Fascia - A horizontal piece (such as a board) covering the joint between the top of a
wall and the projecting eaves; also called fascia board.
(16) Fenestration -The design, proportioning, sizing, arrangement, and positioning of
windows, doors, and other exterior openings of a building.
(17) Frieze Board - A decorated band along the upper part of an exterior wall. In house
construction a horizontal member connecting the top of the siding with the soffit of the
cornice.
(18) Gable - 1 a: the vertical triangular end of a building from
cornice or eaves to ridge b: the similar end of a gambrel roof
c: the end wall of a building. 2: a triangular part or structure
9) Masonry -Natural or cultured stone, brick, or other approved ; '
similar building units or materials or a combination of the - ~
same, bonded together with mortar to form a wall, pier, Gable
buttress, or similar mass.
(20) Mini-Green - A landscaped island located in an eyebrow or cul-de-sac.
(21) Projection -Any component of a structure that juts out from the main building.
(22) Soffit -The exposed undersurface of any overhead component of a building.
(23) Street-facing Garage door(s) -Garage door which is visible from the street and is less
than 60 degrees to the front lot line or street tangent line. A corner or through lot has
one such street front, which the entry or primary elevation of the house faces.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -July l7, 2003
Page l4
(24) Trim -The finished woodwork or similar architectural element used to enhance,
border or protect the edges of openings or surfaces, such as windows or doors.
(25) Vinyl Siding Accessories -Exterior design elements that serve to provide more visual
interest and complement the primary home design. The following and similar design
elements are appropriate:
~ ~
. ff
v ~ ~.__.w _ ~ i t'
#4;
~ ~ 4_;~ _ ~_G 1,1 ! - l
i -
Door Surround Mantel Decorative Gable Vents Dentil Windows and
Shutters Molding Corner Trims
(26) Water Table -Courses of brick or stone projecting beyond the face of the exterior
wall, typically from grade to first floor bearing or window sill, as a design element
and/or to guide water away from the face of the wall. Such feature should be
predominately at least twenty-four (24) inches high above grade and located on at least
the front elevation of the primary house forms, including walls projecting street-ward.
(E) Residential Design Standards
(1) Design Standards. In addition to all applicable zoning and development standards,
the following design standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses
requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior
alteration.
(a) Chimneys. All chimneys must have a foundation to ground. Direct vent
chimneys are permitted only on a rear elevation not facing a street and the
projected framework must be painted or clad to match the exterior elevation.
City Council commented that consideration should be given to requiring chimneys
(other than direct vent type) to be brick, stone or stucco.
CONSIDERATIONS:
• This is a fairly subjective issue.
• From a visual appearance standpoint, the more dissimilar the chimney is from
the background material, the more it will contrast and stand out as an individual
design element.
• An alternative is to reguire the chimney to be matching brick, stone, or stucco if
that is the wall material. It is less certain that brick, stone, or stucco chimneys
would typically result in an improved appearance for wood or vinyl-sided homes.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -July l7, 2003
Page 15
(b) Finish Building Materials. Wood board, brick, stone, cultured stone, fibrous
cement siding, stucco, glass block and vinyl siding are the permitted finish
building materials. Asphalt dimensional shingles, slate, tile, standing seam
metal, wood shingles or shakes are the permitted roof materials.
1. When a change in materials occurs at corners, the change should occur at
the inside corner. If a material change does occur at the outside corner, then
the material on the street-facing facade must extend at least two feet past the
outer corner. If a house has a side gable and a material change occurs on
the outside corner, rather than extending the materials around the corner, a
quoin or minimum 3-1/z inch wide corner board must be used down the
length of both faces of the corner.
2. The number of materials used as major facades, excluding fenestration,
shall not exceed three materials.
(c) Foundations. Foundations must be clad with facing material to include, but not
be limited to brick, natural stone, imitation stone, or split block, or by extending
the exterior covering to within twelve (12) inches of the finished grade at the
base of the wall.
City Council commented that consideration should be given to:
• .Eliminating split block as an option for foundation faces.
• Creating a topsoil management requirement which, among other objectives, would
help to reduce vegetation loss due to insufficient topsoil at the foundation line and
associated. changes in finished grade at he foundation line.
CONSIDERATIONS:
• Regarding split face block..
¦ The .term refers to entire blocks that are structural and have a "decorative" face on
the exterior. Although available in a variety of sizes (in some styles), they are
typically the same size as concrete blocks (least expensive) and have a similar grid-
like mortar pattern. This may result in an appearance similar to bare concrete block
unless .the decorative face is substantially modeled, the mortar pattern is changed, or
the mortar color matches.
¦ Split-face block has not been used often in Dublin as a residential foundation
material and the impressions to date may be skewed due to limited experience.
¦ There is a variety of styles available. See following page of some illustrations.
¦ An alternative is to attach a simple performance statement prohibiting a face that is
similar to concrete block.
•
i n" Ka as.~ s~ v ;r`y- .?a^r '~,,s 'P'" y,~i~i~`C..~ra R
~kry'Yr e "'?.1"j r i. r.~j r F - ~~~s ~'°4" S.~^ C ~ ~tr~t 3r s 'til+-ti R . ~
~o,~.:< -x ~'41'~..~~.~ ~ :`~`.a,~.;.rar ...,iw~v~-'i3 .`4.'" a8 -.wa-*?-. ..~e ~ ~ ~m 1.
s;
y ~ P; c
s°, y ~t r ~
` ` ` ~ ~
y~
,
_ r•
° °k~.~..:.
_ ~ r. ' ~ ~ ~ r..
~ ~ `
~ ~
A
_ !
' ~ ~ ~ ' Y.e~ 0.i .-.f Y J . ,
~r~,.... ~ it
Let^ - J
. r - 6
_
4 i
T
4 .c^;.~.~w r
p .y ~ r
-Y
b
'8. x
a
'
3
_ ~ _
_ a
D
Y b
Luuun r?anuu?g ai?u ~,uu?ng wuuu?s~?uu
Staff Report -July l 7, 2003
Pa e l7
• Regarding Topsoil Management.
¦ This topic has been raised as a possible policy before in the context of
environmental concerns to protect and preserve Dublin's topsoil, a limited
resource.
¦ The current City Code requires grading to drain away from the building and
requires lawn or vegetative cover but does not specify how much topsoil is
required.
¦ This is a deceptively complex topic that should include consideration of several
issues beyond that of architectural appearance. Such issues could include but are
not limited to::
• water-proofing foundations
• erosion controls
• grading permits
• removing, stockpiling, and restoring topsoil from subdivision
developments
• specifying different classes of topsoil
• tree preservation and tree protection during construction
• code enforcement
• soil amendments for street tree plantings
¦ We may want to suggest that City Council pursue this separately and more
comprehensively than the Residential Appearance Standards would warrant.
(d) Four-Sided Architecture. All sides of a house shall display a level of quality and
architectural interest. The majority of a building's architectural features and
treatments shall not be restricted to a single facade. Fronts of houses should be
articulated through the use of bays, insets, balconies, porches, or stoops related to
entrances and windows. For the purpose of four-sided architecture, houses on
corner and through lots have more than one street-facing elevation. Each
elevation must contain at least two design elements, and each street-facing
elevation must contain at least three design elements, in any combination,
provided;
1. There exists at least one design element in each equal one-half vertical
division of the subject elevation, and
2. At least one design element occurs between the first floor level and nine (9)
feet above the first floor level, and
3. If any upper wall area greater than 24 feet wide and 9 feet high (measured at
9 feet above the first floor level) occurs, at least one design element must be
located predominately at least 9 feet above the first floor in that elevation.
4. Design elements include:
a). A door of at least seventeen (17) square feet in area.
b). A window at least six (6) square feet in area. A set of adjacent
windows, such as a double or bay window, count as one design
element, however, horizontal bands of immediately adjacent window
units count as one design element for every eight (8) feet of run.
c). A chimney (a chimney may count towards each floor level it passes).
d). An articulated decorative gable vent of at least 4 square feet in area.
e). A water table. Such feature should be predominately at least twenty-
four (24) inches high above grade and located on at least the front
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -July l 7, 2003
Page 18
elevation of the primary house forms, including walls projecting street-
ward.
f). A similar significant permanent architectural feature consistent with
the style of the house.
City Council commented that consideration should be given to requiring design
elements. in astreet-facing side elevation to be in a "balanced" pattern, or to require
additional setbacks and/or landscaping.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The interpretation of "balanced" can _be very subjective. To appreciate the
subjectivity, the following is the Oxford Dictionary definition of "symmetry":
symmetry
/"sImItrI/ noun (plural -ies) l correct proportion of parts. 2 beauty resulting from
this. 3 structure allowing object to be divided into parts of equal shape and size. 4
possession of such structure. 5 repetition of exactly similar parts facing each other
or a centre. symmetric adjective. symmetrical /-"met-/ adjective. symmetrically
/-"met-/ adverb.
symmetrical
balanced, even, proportional, regular.
• A simple interpretation would be to require design elements such as windows on the
.second floor to be the same size and located directly above windows on the first floor.
However, the ability to' place windows in particular.-;patterns is diminished as the size of
the house is diminished. If the `number of windows are increased or the options for
;locations are more limited on the exterior, the options .for furniture placement in the
interior are decreased.
• Additional setbacks or landscaping would have to be fairly substantial to negate any
negative visual impacts of the elevation, particularly for two or three storey houses.
(e) Garage doors street-facing. Garages are usually the dominant feature of most
houses when seen from the street. Side-loaded and recessed garages are
encouraged. For the purpose of determining street-facing garage doors, corner
and through lots have one such street front, which the entry or primary elevation
of the house faces. Detached street-facing garages located more than 22 feet
behind the front plane of the house are exempt from the maximum percentage of
elevation standards. Detached street-facing garages 22 feet or less from the front
plane of the house shall be calculated within the elevation. Street-facing garage
doors must meet the following standards:
l . No single garage door shall exceed two car widths or eighteen (18) feet.
2. No combination of garage doors may exceed three car widths or a total of
twenty-six (26) feet.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -July l 7, 2003
Page l9
3. Garage doors shall be recessed or set forward of adjacent doors at least 16
inches.
4. Garage doors totaling two or less car widths shall not constitute more than
35 percent of the linear distance of the front elevation nor project more than
twelve (12) feet from the adjacent vertical wall plane. Open uncovered
porches shall not be considered a vertical wall plane.
5. Garage doors totaling three car widths shall not constitute more than 45
percent of the linear distance of the front elevation nor project more than ten
(10) feet from the adjacent vertical wall plane. Open uncovered porches
shall not be considered a vertical wall plane.
6. Color. The initial installation or replacement of street-facing garage doors
must be of aloes-contrast color that is the same, or similar in hue and tonal
value, as the primary color of the house. Garage door trim is to match
garage doors or the primary trim color of the house
(f) Roof Pitch. The main architectural roof of a house must have a minimum 6:12
pitch. Flat roofs may be permitted, but not as the main architectural roof.
Dormers, porches, and other similar secondary architectural features may have
roofs with a minimum 4:12 pitch. Deep eaves and overhangs are encouraged.
(g) Vinyl Homes Any predominately vinyl-sided home must include complementary
accessories and detailing where vinyl sided elevations occur, as follows:
1. A detailed main entryway by use of a minimum 8 inch wide 3-dimensional
door-surround system, and
2. Minimum 6 inch wide frieze or fascia boards, and
3. Comply with at least two of the following:
a). Shutter pairs on all the single and double -wide windows of the front,
rear, and side elevations, where wall area permits them. Shutters shall
be full height and at least one-half the width of the single or one-
quarter the width of the double window.
b). Mantels above all windows if in front elevations.
c). Sets of cornices, corbels, columns, gingerbread decorations, or similar
three-dimensional elements if in the front elevation, provided they
occur in a consistent arrangement according to style of the home.
d). A brick, stone or masonry water table in the front elevation and street-
ward projections there-from.
e). Articulated decorative gable vent(s) of at least 4 square feet in area if
in the front, rear or side elevations.
City Council commented that consideration should he given to:
• Requiring window mantels on sides and rear as ~~~ell as front elevations.
CONSIDERATIONS:
• It would be a fairly insignificant change to add the requirement for mantels in the
side and rear elevations when mantels are being used to meet the minimal
requirements.
• The rear elevation would be less visible to the majority of neighbors and general
public than the sides and could be exempt. However, although the rear elevations
are seen by fewer people, they are seen very frequently by the neighboring
property owners.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -July l 7, 2003
Page 20
(h) Windows. Shutters or trim will be required around all windows within any
elevation constructed of vinyl, stucco, wood, or fibrous cement siding. Shutters
shall be full height and at least one-half the width of the single or one-quarter the
width of the double window. Trim must be at least 3.5 inches in width. Special
brick detailing, such as soldier course or rowlock, will be encouraged on the top
and bottoms of windows within a brick elevation. Windows within an elevation
` constructed of stone or cultured stone will be encouraged to use lintels and sills
to create a "trim" on the top and bottom of the windows.
.City Council commented that consideration should be given to requiring mullions (real or fake)
on front, side and ,rear elevation vvindows.....maybe in iieu of shutters in rear elevations.
CONSIDERATIONS:
• Mullions are ..the pieces of a window that separate panes of glass. They can be real or (more
typically) fake. The fake mullions often break or are removed by the homeowner.
Windows with real mullions cost-more than .windows with no mullions or fake mullions.
Determining what windows require mullions and which don't would be subjective. For example,
circular or semi-circular windows may or may not be more attractive with mullions.
The requirement for shutters is intended to "dress-up" facades that may otherwise be
monotonous and xo create an element of design that unifies neighborhoods while allowing diversity.
The rear elevations are seen' by fewer. people, but are seen very frequently by the neighboring
property owners.
• Improving views all adjacent property owners was one of the .reasons to have an appearance
code
(2) Building Material Specifications. Unless otherwise specified, all permitted
building materials must be manufactured and built to industry standard and must have a
minimum 30-year life expectancy.
(i) Vinyl. All vinyl materials must have a minimum thickness of 44 mils, and must
be applied over oriented strand board or plywood. The siding must have alow-
gloss finish. All vinyl must be properly installed to prevent warping or
separation.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -July 17, 2003
Page 21
City Council commented that consideration should be given to:
• Requiring more than a 44 mil minimum thickness for vinyl siding.
• Require minimum'h " OSB or plywood as underlayment. (There is no current
Bldg Code requirement.)
CONSIDERATIONS:
• The primary reason to have a minimum vinyl thickness and strong underlayment is to
reduce the possibility of warping and separation over time. The more rigid the
underlayment, the more flat the wall and the less expansion and contraction occurs.
• There is no Building`Code standard for vinyl hickness nor underlayment thickness.
• In practice, the underlayment is typically lh inch. This is considered adequate.
• Currently, sometimes only insulation board is used as underlayment. That would now be
prohibited.
• The Building ,.Official has 'suggested a i/z .inch minimum underlayment thickness be
placed in the Appearance Standards until it can be incorporated into a new Residential
Building Code expected to be adopted withidthe next year.
• An exact cost-benefit ratio of increasing .vinyl thickness is impossible to .calculate. On
the average, materials costs fora 2,500 square foot vinyl-sided home are as follows;
• 40 mil $2,700
44 mil $3,600
• 50 mil $4,800
• Other thickness of vinyl include 42, 46 and 48 mil. Costs are relatively proportionate to
thickness.
(j) Asphalt dimensional shingles. Asphalt dimensional shingles must be a 25-year
"true" dimensional shingle. Painted shadows are not permitted. These shingles
must have a minimum weight of 240 pounds per square and an exposure that is
no more than 5-5/8 inches in length.
(k) Garage doors, street-facing. Garage doors must be of a durable material that
does not sag, warp, deteriorate, or delaminate under normal use and weather
conditions. Materials such as particle board or Masonite are prohibited.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -July l 7, 2003
Page 22
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Commission identify a list of topics on which you desire more detailed
discussion. These topics could include:
• Selection of some or all of those topics referred by City Council.
• Any topics within the proposed ordinance for discussions of intent or purpose.
• Any selection of the proposed ordinance for line-by-line discussion for clarity.
• Any topic Commission feels was overlooked but should be addressed.
Staff also recommends one or two of the highest priority topics be selected for discussion at the
first hour of the August 14 meeting. At that time staff can also present a proposed approach for
the remaining topics.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes -July 17, 20v3
Page 4
3. Administrative Request 03-014ADM -Code Amendment -Residential Appearance
Standards
Brandol Harvey said this begins the discussion of the residential appearance standards
themselves, as forwarded by Appearance Code Committee. He noted there are several areas for
additional Planning Commission consideration. Mr. Harvey noted there are also changes to the
Landscape Code and the Community Plan pending.
He said the standards apply to one-, two-, and three-dwelling unit structures. It will include new
construction, existing houses that are expanded by 25 percent of the livable area, and existing
houses that have a significant exterior alteration (change in roof line, new recess or projection,
change in doors/windows). Only the changes would have to meet the new ordinance. Any areas
of the existing structure that are not being changed would be grand-fathered. This applies to all
residential districts, including planned districts. The Committee recommended asix-month
grace period for houses in existing Planned Districts. That allows house designs now in process
to proceed six months after the adoption of this ordinance, a building permit requested would be
exempt from the new requirements. Mr. Harvey said after six months, houses in existing
Planned Districts would have to comply with these standards, or the applicable planned district
requirements, whichever is more demanding.
Mr. Harvey said City Council asked Planning Commission to consider whether it would be
appropriate to exempt all existing planned districts having architecture review committees. New
planned districts would comply with these standards, or propose specific alternate standards.
Mr. Sprague asked about an architecture review committee within a PUD. If a proposed home
improvement is disapproved, is there an avenue of appeal or additional review. Mr. Harvey said
it would depend on how the planned district ordinance is set up. If the ordinance approved by
City Council specifically cites "review committee approval required" they would go by the
architectural review board's findings. Otherwise it is a restrictive covenant and not enforced by
the City.
Mr. Banchefsky said they would not delegate to the private entity very often, but it was possible.
If they are turned down by the private architectural review committee, there is not any recourse
with the City. That type of appeal would go to court.
Mr. Harvey said there would be a checklist incorporated with any new planned district rezoning
application. It would show item-by-item whether the Code standards, or some alternate in the
text, is proposed to apply in that new planned district.
All of the properties controlled by the Dublin Architecture Review Board (ARB) would be
exempt. Interior alterations, that have nothing to do with exterior, are exempt. Any building
permit filed before the adoption of the ordinance would fall under the current standards.
Included with the ordinance is a set of definitions and illustrations.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes -July 17, 2Gu3
Page 5
Mr. Harvey said chimneys are the first residential design standard. All chimneys would have a
foundation to ground. Direct vent chimneys would be allowed only on the rear elevation. He
said City Council asked the Commission to consider whether all chimneys should be brick,
stone, or stucco. The chimney as used here is a technical term for the firebox or flue that
protrudes from the exterior wall, and that was not fully understood for most of this discussion.
Mr. Harvey said the residential finished exterior building materials are wood, brick, stone,
fibrous cement siding such as Hardi plank, stucco, glass block, and vinyl siding. When a
material changes at the outside corner, the material should wrap around the corner at least two
feet. Should the corner include a side gable, then they are allowed to have a trim instead of a two
feet extension, that only goes up part of the way on the gable. He showed slides of several
examples. The maximum number of facade materials, excluding the roof material, is three.
He said foundations must have a finished surface. Acceptable materials include brick, stone,
split block, and anything other than an un-faced material. Smooth concrete block would not be
allowed. The finish must be extended to at least 12 inches of grade. He said City Council asked
the Planning Commission to consider eliminating split block as an option.
Mr. Harvey said topsoil management was referred for added Commission consideration. He said
discussion started with topsoil against the foundation, then there were questions about whether a
topsoil management program for subdivisions would be beneficial. It would include stripping
the topsoil at the beginning, storing it, and putting the topsoil back at the final grading.
Mr. Harvey said four-sided architecture is along-standing City concern. The intent was to
eliminate blank facades. The Committee decided that each house elevation must contain at least
two design elements, and facing the street, there must be at least three design elements in some
pattern. At least one design element has to occur in each half, and at least one design element
has to occur on the first floor. There should not be any large blank wall area above the nine-foot
level. If a house is on a corner lot, any street-facing sides need to have three elements.
The design elements would include a 17-square foot door, six-square foot window, water table,
or four-square foot decorative gable vent. An eight-foot tall series of windows is also one design
element. A chimney is a design element and any floor that a chimney passes counts as a design
element. Some other prominent architectural features could also be counted. False shutters,
instead of a window, would be a design element as long as they are six square feet in area.
He said the issue of symmetry and balance was referred to the Commission. They questioned if
street-facing facades should have a balanced treatment, more landscaping, etc.
Garage doors and garage placement constitutes a dominant visual element. The Committee
decided that only street facing front elevation garage doors need to be controlled. If a corner
house has aside-loaded garage facing the second street it would not fall into these regulations.
One- and two-car garage doors could not represent more than 35 percent of the linear elevation,
and they cannot project more than 12 feet from the main body, or adjacent part, of the house.
The Committee decided to allow three-car garages to be up to 45 percent of the elevation. They
cannot project more than ten feet from the house. He said City Council added a requirement that
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes - Juiy 17, 2003
Page 6
the garage door color needs to compliment the primary house color, at least initially. Subsequent
color changes will not be controlled. City Council also wanted to look at the weather durability
of garage doors and prohibiting particleboard because it is subject to water damage.
Ms. Boring asked about four-caz garages. Mr. Harvey said they would not be permitted on a
street facing elevation. He said the maximum door opening would 18 feet and a total of 26 feet
for combined doors. The typical gazage door is 16 feet. Gazage door openings must be set back
from one another at least 16 inches to break up the facade.
He said roof materials would include slate, metal standing seam, tile, asphalt dimensional
shingle, wood shingle, or shake. The roof pitch for the main house must be at least 6:12 and for
secondary roofs, like dormer windows, they could be as low as 4:12.
The proposed minimum thickness vinyl siding is 44 mils. It should be applied over oriented
strand boazd or plywood, not installation board. Proper installation and a low gloss finish are
required. The goal is to prevent separation and warping. City Council suggested that '/Z-inch
under-layment be the minimum, and this has been referred to the Commission.
For elevations that are predominately vinyl clad, the front elevation must have detailed main
entry and a minimum six-inch wide frieze or fascia board. It must also include two options; such
as shutter pairs on all the single and doublewide windows. Small recess areas too small for
shutters and bay windows would be exempted. The shutters should be sized to appear to be
operable, in scale with the window. City Council asked that the Commission consider not
requiring shutters on the reaz elevation. He said other options aze mantels on all front windows
or a stone or brick watertable. City Council asked that the Commission consider requiring
mantels on all elevations. He said where vinyl clad elevations occur, they must have the
entryway, fascia boazds and two of the five optional selections.
He said windows, proportioned shutters or 3'/2-inch trim will be required on non-masonry walls.
Brick detailing would be encouraged, such as soldier courses or rowlock.
Council requested the Commission to consider requiring glazing strips in all windows.
The Committee forwarded the package of recommendations: street layouts, street trees and
private trees, vinyl standards, gazage placement, garage doors, four-sided azchitecture, minimum
durability building materials, etc. Together, these provide for effective results.
Mr. Harvey said 95 percent of the zoned residential acreage is in a planned district. In existing
planned districts, 83 percent have been built, accounting for about 10,000 houses. He said
roughly 2,000 aze approved, but not yet built in planned districts. He expects that planned
districts will continue to be used for future development.
There are no architectural review committees in the proposed ordinance.
There aze 96 adopted planned residential districts. Only 12 of them responded to a survey
indicating that they have some type of design review committee. These usually are part of the
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes -July 17, 203
Page 7
restrictive covenants, and the City has no enforcement capabilities.
Ms. Boring wanted to discuss the City Council recommendations. Mr. Gerber agreed.
Mr. Harvey said the Committee wanted these standards to apply within planned districts. They
establish minimum standards for broad application, but they do not represent the most desirable.
Ms. Boring asked if the committee recommended that they not exempt planned districts with
architectural review committees. Mr. Harvey agreed.
Ms. Boring said when City Council members did not agree on an issue, it was referred to the
Commission for more study. Mr. Harvey said Council raised a number of issues, but there was
no consensus on how to resolve them.
Mr. Gerber said the intent was that the more demanding standards prevail in all cases. Ms.
Boring said she is not in favor of exempting any planned districts that have an ARC.
Mr. Sprague asked if there is a six-month window for existing homes to apply for a permit. Mr.
Harvey said that would apply to existing homes if they were expanding or lots that are unbuilt.
Building permits requested in the first six months would be exempt.
Mr. Sprague said due to recent storm damage, some people are replacing and/or upgrading siding
and roofs. The change from aluminum siding to vinyl could change the whole look of the house.
It the livable area is expanded, they would have to upgrade according to the standards. Mr.
Harvey said applications made within the first six months they would be totally exempt. After
that, if flat asphalt shingles are changed to standing seam metal, or stucco is change to vinyl, the
Code would be in effect. There was additional discussion on changing roof materials.
Mr. Gerber said in the future, the residential appearance standards would be compared to the
appearance standards in the adopted ordinance, and the more demanding would prevail.
Mr. Messineo said the PUD's architectural review committees would not override the standards.
x Ms. Boring agreed that was the correct approach. Mr. Gerber said the box on the prepared
materials indicates that this was a concern of Council.
Mr. Gerber asked the Commissioners to identify their issues for discussion. Mr. Ritchie was to
make decisions on the list of Council concerns and to raise his own issues. Mr. Gerber said it
was important to start with Council's recommendations or comments to complete all of the tasks
on their to-do list. Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Ritchie and Ms. Boring agreed.
Mr. Harvey said a number of items are related to each other. The may not want to defer
decisions on some Council items, select issues for longer future discussions, and suggest their
own topics for additional discussion. Mr. Gerber agreed.
Mr. Harvey said Council referred the design issue of chimneys. The Commission should
determine if chimneys will need to be constructed of brick, stone, or stucco, regardless of the
surrounding wall materials. He showed examples. He said if the chimney extends all the way to
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes -July 17, 2003
Page 8
ground, it would have a positive appearance.
Ms. Boring said there have been times a PUD required all brick chimneys and asked if it will still
be possible to include this as a requirement. Mr. Harvey said yes, and in the future the staff will
use a checklist of what is proposed in a Planned District as compared to the Code appearance
requirements. Whether something will be a requirement in a Planned District will be determined
by the Commission and City Council.
Mr. Harvey said another referral was the possible elimination of split-face block for facing
foundations. He showed examples of split-face block and other foundation materials. He said
artificial or natural stone on the foundation exterior would be typically desired. Brick is an
attractive alternative. The ordinance as drafted would permit natural or artificial stone, brick,
stucco, and split-face block. Prohibiting split block will require rewording the ordinance.
Ms. Boring said requiring foundation planting might make this a mute point. Mr. Harvey said
the Committee considered but did not recommend landscaping to screen foundations.
Mr. Harvey said "symmetry" and "balance" as design issues may be very difficult to define and
to regulate. He showed several slides to demonstrate this. Balance and symmetry are very
similar to harmony, but without a rigid formula in the Code, these may be impossible to regulate.
The architectural standards for the City of Hudson, Ohio require doors and windows on the
public faces of a house to be arranged so that they are regulated by a system of "invisible parallel
and perpendicular lines." He demonstrated that system and said a review board determines it.
He said the intent from the Committee was to eliminate blank walls.
Ms. Boring said with the changes to the Landscape Code, three front yard trees will be required,
and it may not matter if the house itself is balanced. She thinks homebuyers should determine
where their windows will be placed in a new home.
Mr. Messineo responded that a false window could be used as an architectural element on the
exterior. On a smaller house, however there might be one window in the middle of a wall.
Ms. Boring said these examples are of typical suburban houses, but some houses are not based
on symmetrical or balanced designs. This might eliminate some possibilities. Mr. Harvey said
often in larger, more complex house designs, it becomes harder to say if they are balanced or not.
He said this is a different issue from four-sided architecture. Mr. Gerber thought four-sided
architecture was a more important issue than balance.
Ms. Boring and Mr. Sprague were concerned about the potential costs associated with these
changes, especially on small houses. Mr. Harvey said balance deals with vertical and horizontal
alignment. There was agreement to defer discussion of this topic.
Mr. Harvey said another referred issue from City Council was whether to require window
mantels on side, rear, and front elevations of vinyl homes. A window mantel is one of the
options available to meet the required elements, but only in the front elevation. He reviewed the
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes -July 17, 2003
Page 11
The Commission agreed that chimneys should extend visually all the way down to the ground.
Mr. Harvey said the Committee recommended allowing a direct vent only on the rear elevation,
and it would also have to be extended to ground. Mr. Harvey explained that a "chimney" does
not exist unless there is a projection from the wall. If it is a firebox inside the room, and not
protruding, with a vent like a clothes drier, there is no chimney.
Mr. Messineo said a masonry chimney will raise the bar. Mr. Zimmerman agreed. Ms. Boring
was concerned about the cumulative costs of raising the bar. This will set base standards.
Mr. Harvey said the Committee generally agreed that it did not want to require all homes to have
masonry. If it were a vinyl home, vinyl would be allowed. Mr. Gerber said brick, stone or
stucco enhances the appearance. Mr. Zimmerman agreed. Mr. Messineo said the vinyl siding
was compromise material.
Charlie Driscoll said he thought a masonry chimney, instead of vinyl, would add $3,000 to
$4,000 to the cost of the house. He said all buyers want more options than they can afford, and
they have to become selective. A direct-vent fireplace, without a brick chimney, can cut costs.
Ms. Clarke said they might be able to provide additional information on what the choice is now.
There was a period of time that almost every vinyl house had a full height cantilevered vinyl
chimney. She thought with the advances in the direct vent fireplaces, most full-height vinyl
chimneys had been replaced by direct vent fireplaces. Ms. Boring tried to clarify the sentiments
of other Commissionersas to their not wanting to allow for direct vent chimneys.* There was
more discussion on this. Mr. Harvey concluded that if the chimney goes from the ground to the
roof, it is permitted on any elevation, if it does not, it is permitted only on the rear elevation. It
will also need a foundation.
Mr. Gerber said the Commission agreed to extend chimneys from the ground to the roof and
direct vents would be in the rear only.
Mr. Messineo said he would prefer stucco, brick or masonry materials on chimneys. Mr.
Sprague, Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Gerber agreed.
Mr. Gerber asked if wood and vinyl might be acceptable although brick, stone, and stucco would
be encouraged. Mr. Gunderman said most "encouragement" ordinances have a board or
commission that arbitrates and decides such matters. Mr. Harvey agreed and said a term like
"encourage" helps City Council and the Commission in its review of a planned district.
Mr. Gerber, in trying to summarize the discussion to this point, said that they are
recommending* that chimneys must have a foundation to the ground, direct vent chimneys are
permitted only on a rear elevation not facing a street and the projected framework must be
painted or clad to match the exterior elevation, and chimneys must be matching brick, stone or
stucco if that is the wall material. Ms. Boring stated that was not the direction she was hearing
from the rest of the Commission.*
Mr. Harvey said that in no case would a vinyl chimney be allowed. The Commission agreed.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes -July 17, 2003
Page 12
Ms. Clarke said there are only a few real brick houses built every year. Brick is predominately a
trim material, most commonly on the front. Side and rear walls are almost always something
other than brick or stone; such as stucco, wood, vinyl, Hardi-plank.
* As amended by Commission vote on August 17, 2003.
Mr. Gerber said all chimneys must have a foundation from the ground up to the crest, and they
must be of brick, stone, or stucco.
Mr. Harvey said he wanted to clarify the Commission's direction. He stated that a "direct vent
chimney" that only goes up to the first level ceiling height, would no longer be allowed
anywhere, not even on the rear elevation. The Commissioners agreed and said a chimney must
go from foundation to crest.
Mr. Gerber said this was confusing him. Mr. Harvey clarified that they are discussing the
projection from the wall, which is a chimney.
Mr. Messineo said they are eliminating a "shed" protrusion from the side of the house. The
Commissioners agreed this would not be permitted on the rear of the house either. Mr. Gerber
did not think the goal was to eliminate direct vents. He noted they were perhaps discussing more
than one subject.*
Dave Marshall suggested that diagrams for all of the terminology would be helpful for the next
discussion. Mr. Gerber agreed.* He explained how direct vent and other fireplaces operate.
Mr. Messineo said he thought the intent of the Commission was to eliminate the shed hanging
off the back or side of the house. There was more discussion on this.
Mr. Gerber adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m.
Respectively submitted,
Flora Rogers
Clerical Specialist II
Planning Division
*As amended by Commission vote on August 14, 2003.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
JULY 10, 2003
Division of Planning
5800 Shier-Rings Road
'Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236
Phone/TDD:614-410-4600
Fax: 614-761-6566
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
1. Administrative Request 03-014ADM -Code Amendment -Landscape Code
Request: Review and approval of a revision to the landscape requirements in section
153.133 (requiring front yard trees for single family lots) and 153.134 (size and spacing
of street trees).
Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald
Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner.
MOTION: To approve this addition to the Landscape Code because the Appearance Code
Committee found streetscape trees to be very important in neighborhood appearance, and this
will set a minimal landscape standard, decrease the impact of the house design, and bring
Dublin's landscaping standards into closer comparison with other cities' standards.
VOTE: 7-0.
RESULT: This administrative request was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with
a positive recommendation.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Win' ry~.n ~ h
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes -July 17, 2003
Page 9
draft requirements for detailing vinyl-clad houses. Mr. Sprague and Ms. Boring preferred no
mantel. There was agreement to postpone the discussion of combined mantel/shutter systems.
Mr. Harvey said another Council referral is the possibility of requiring mullions or glazing strips
for the appearance of separated windowpanes. This might be instead of shutters. He showed
some examples. None of the Commissioners wanted to require mullions.
Mr. Harvey said another referral by City Council was vinyl siding thickness. The current
N= recommendation is a 44-mil thickness with a '/2 inch under-layment. He noted several planned
district subdivisions required 44 mils or even 50 mils by design standards in the ordinance or by
~ deed restriction. Regarding materials cost on a 2,500-square foot home, 40-mil vinyl siding
would cost $2,700, 44-mil cost $3,600, and 50-mil would cost $4,800.
He did not know what proportion of new houses locally are partially or totally vinyl sided. He
said the most common complaint is warping of the siding, and is most commonly associated with
60's and 70's construction with thinner vinyl, perhaps only 30 or 32 mils. The vinyl industry has
improved the products to be more stable, retain color, etc. Mr. Harvey said the Committee
believed that 44-mil vinyl is stable enough, with proper installation.
Several Commissioners agreed with the findings of the Committee on vinyl thickness.
Mr. Gerber said there are six discussion items. One is to exempt planned districts that have an
architectural review committee. There was consensus not to exempt planned districts.
Mr. Gerber said next is to require chimneys, other than direct vent fireplaces, to be brick, stucco
or stone. Mr. Ritchie thought this needed discussion.
Mr. Gerber said the next item is .eliminating split block on foundations and then topsoil
management. Ms. Boring said topsoil management is a complex topic and should be discussed
later. Mr. Messineo said the topsoil is a common construction practice elsewhere, and he was
surprised that it is not required for construction here.
Mr. Gerber said the issues of balance, four-sided design, and window mantels need direction.
Mr. Ritchie wanted to add requiring depth of roof overhangs/eaves to the discussion of four-
sided architecture. He also wanted to discuss driveway widths. Ms. Boring thought this would
be more complicated because it related to the parking requirements and was somewhat off-topic.
Mr. Ritchie wanted to introduce urban design elements to improve visual interest in
neighborhoods, such as jogs in streets, medians, islands and rotating homes on lots. Ms. Boring
suggested this should be a parking lot issue for later discussion. Mr. Harvey said it could be
incorporated as a recommendation in the overall development code.
Ms. Boring is very concerned by four-sided architecture and wanted to understand the
Committee's process on this.
Ms. Boring asked how courtyard garages are handled. Mr. Harvey said if the entry does not face
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
ivleeting Minutes -July 17, 2003
Page 10
the street, they are not subject to any special requirements. He said under the definition, there is
a maximum 60 degrees to the front lot line that determines if it is "street facing" or "court entry."
Ms. Boring asked how many houses in Dublin currently have plain shingles vs. dimensional
shingles and the cost involved. Mr. Gerber said this is a topic to be added to the list of
discussion items. Mr. Harvey said he could provide cost information at a later meeting.
Mr. Zimmerman asked if there was a limit on garage door height. Mr. Harvey said he would
have to research it, it was intended to be addressed. Mr. Gerber said they would put it on the list.
Mr. Zimmerman asked if foundations are required for bay windows, etc. Mr. Harvey said no,
but for other types of projections from the main body of the house, it was fairly common. Only
chimneys need a foundation under these regulations.
Mr. Gerber said he wanted to add periodic review of the code, perhaps every two or four years.
Standards and markets change, and he wanted to stay proactive. Also, another topic was the rear
of houses and whether they need to add features there. This can be discussed with balancing
patterns and four-sided designs.
Mr. Gerber reiterated the nine discussion topics: chimneys, split-face block, managing top soil,
balancing patterns/four-sided architecture, window mantels, parking lot considerations/ features,
shingles, garage door heights, and periodic review of the Code. Mr. Harvey noted that roof
overhangs would be included in four-sided architecture and balancing. Mr. Gerber agreed.
Mr. Gerber said the Council comment was to consider requiring chimneys to be brick, stone, or
stucco. Mr. Messineo said the Committee had recommended that chimneys be masonry, brick,.
stucco, or stone. He thought they had eliminated the direct vent fireplaces.
Mr. Harvey recalled that direct vent fireplaces could only be permitted on the rear elevation,
provided the material matches the rest of the exterior wall. At first the Committee considered
masonry being a requirement for direct vents as well. However, after discussion, the Committee
decided that these should be matching vinyl, on a vinyl house. Ms. Boring said it looks more
distracting when it does not match.
Mr. Harvey said the Committee was concerned about the cost impacts of their recommendations
on an individual home. A masonry chimney needs a structural foundation, but a frame chimney
does not have that weight to require support. It becomes then a visual question.
Mr. Messineo asked if a masonry, brick, stone or stucco chimney is considered an architectural
feature. Mr. Harvey said it is considered a design element, and so is a vinyl chimney. If it
extends to the second floor, it would count as two design elements.
Mr. Zimmerman said on a true masonry fireplace the narrower part of the chimney is the flue
liner. He believes it is more attractive to have a chimney of traditional materials, and to require a
foundation that will match it. Ms. Boring asked for cost figures for this.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - 3uly 10, 2003
Page 3
2. Administrative Request 03-014ADM -Code Amendment -Landscape Code
Request: Review and approval of a revision to the landscape requirements in section
153.133 (requiring front yazd trees for single family lots) and 153.134 (size and
frequency of street trees).
Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald
Pazkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner.
NOTE:
The Commissioners received a handout June 5 on this subject which included minutes from the
Appearance Code Committee meetings and the referral document from the City Council which
included the Committee's recommendations, City Council's changes prior to the first reading,
and topics for additional Commission discussion. The items in this case to be covered July 10 are
in the referral document Part B, pages 5-7 regazding "Minimum Landscape Requirements" and
"Street Tree and Public Tree Requirements". Time permitting on July 10, the Commission
should discuss a possible schedule for future agenda and staff may begin a presentation on the
remainder, Pazt C "Residential Appeazance Code" (pages 8-13). Otherwise, the Residential
Appeazance Code will be taken up at the administrative meeting scheduled for July 17.
BACKGROUND:
This case includes the specific Code amendments recommended by the City Council's
Appearance Code Committee to implement the Community Plan policies and strategies in the
accompanying case.
The Appearance Code Committee was appointed by City Council in July 2002 to investigate and
make recommendations on residential appearances of the City. Its recommendations were made
in May 2003 and have been reviewed by City Council and forwazded to Commission after some
specific changes were made and with a list of topics for further consideration by the
Commission. The Commission has very briefly reviewed the entire scope of recommendations
and has scheduled one hour to discuss, and possibly act on, the recommendations to amend the
Landscaping Code.
In summary, the Appearance Code Committee is recommending three sets of Development Code
amendments. The first improves street tree standazds. The second requires front yard trees for
single-family lots. These will be discussed July 10. The third, Residential Appeazance Standards,
is the most extensive and complex and will be discussed beginning July 31.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Proposed amendments to the current Landscaping Code aze to increase the minimum
street tree size from 1'/4 inches to 2`/2 inches and decrease street tree spacing by five feet.
These changes will create a denser and more effective street tree corridor. The
Appearance Code Committee determined that street trees are the most important
appearance element of neighborhoods. Committee recommendations were to increase
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -July 10, 2003
Page 4
size from the current 13/4 inches to 2 inches. City Council voted to increase the new
requirement to 2'/z inches prior to first reading. The City Forester participated in
Committee discussions and supports the Committee's recommendations.
A complementary amendment to the Landscaping Code requires the planting of front
yard trees on single-family lots. Currently all other land uses aze already required to
install landscaping on private property. Lots of 90 feet or greater width will be required to
install three trees in the front yazd, and narrower lots will be required to install two trees.
The front yard trees species must be on the City's approved list of street trees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Landscaping Code amendments.
Bases:
1) The Appearance Code Committee found that street trees and front yazd trees are
the two most important visual elements for a positive appearance in
neighborhoods.
2) Establishing a requirement for front yard trees will ensure that all homes have at
least minimal landscaping.
3) Increasing the visual presence of street trees and front yazd trees decreases the
visual impact of the design of individual homes, reducing the need for
architectural diversity controls.
4) Improving Dublin's landscaping standards brings Dublin into closer comparison
with other cities' standards.
Dublin Planning and. Zoning Commission
Minutes -July 10, 2003
Page 4
2. Administrative Request 03-014ADM -Code Amendment -Landscape Code
Mr. Harvey said Sections 1-3 of the proposed ordinance concern landscaping. He stated that
landscaping is critically important to appearance, and the Appearance Code Committee
researched street trees thoroughly. He showed a video of the Kendall Ridge streetscape
demonstrating a straight street with widely spaced, young street trees. He showed another video
of the Reserve in New Albany showing street trees up to eight inches in caliper, and closely
spaced. It creates a stronger rhythm and a more positive image. The Committee decided the
most important neighborhood appearance factors were street trees and private landscaping.
Mr. Harvey compared the street tree requirements from other cities with Dublin's standards.
Four had the same; one had a smaller required size, and 23 required larger size trees than Dublin.
Street tree spacing at seven cities was the same, three had wider spacing, and 21 required trees to .
be planted closer together than Dublin. The Committee recommended upgrading Dublin's
standards for tree size (from 13/4-inch to 2 inches) and spacing (decreasing the minimum and
maximum distances) for all types of trees. He noted that City Council recommended increasing
the minimum tree size at planting to 2`/2 inches, and the ordinance reflects this.
Mr. Harvey said the proposal will now require front yard landscaping in single-family
developments. He summarized standards used elsewhere. Some codes use tree canopy
percentages that are hard to administer. A minimum caliper of 2'/4 inches is used elsewhere. In
summary, City Council supported the Committee's recommendations. Asingle-family lot with
90 feet or more of street frontage will require three front yard trees. Lots less than 90 feet will
require two trees. This must be met on all street frontages.
Mr. Harvey said staff recommends approval of this part of this ordinance based on the visual
improvement that can be achieved. Additionally, it will bring Dublin's Code closer into
alignment with the practice elsewhere and decrease the need for architectural diversity controls.
Mr. Harvey said the front yard trees will be at least 2% inches and selected from the approved
street tree list. Mr. Saneholtz asked if there would be a variety of trees seen in the front yard and
street trees. Mr. Harvey said street trees will be the same, but the others will be mixed.
Mr. Sprague asked about the size of replacement street trees. Mr. Harvey said Dublin will
replace street trees after the warranty period and try to oversize them when possible to better
blend in with the older trees on adjacent lots. The minimum size is now 13/4 inches, and that is
the size most often planted. Ms. Clarke said as a general rule, trees three inches and less in
caliper transfer easily, and after that, the mortality rate climbs drastically.
Ms. Boring asked about encouraging ornamental, flowering trees. Mr. Harvey said there are
some flowering trees on the approved street tree list. The Committee decided not to require a
specific species. The City Forester would encourage using the same species on lots.
Mr. Gerber said that would be part of the landscape package that the builder would put on the lot.
Mr. Harvey said the typical builder offers three or more trees plus bushes, shrubs, etc. The
Committee thought the additional requirements should be the minimum, not the optimum.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
.C1Tl` OF DU(3L(N JUNE 19, 2003
t""' ion of Planning
Shier-Rings Road
Dui Jhio 43016-1236
$a,,..,.
'fione/T00: 614-4 i 0-4600
Fax 614-161-6566
Neb Site: www.duhlin.oh.us
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
8. Administrative Request 03-014ADM - • Code Amendment -Landscape Code and
Residential Appearance Standards
Request: Review and approval of a revision to the landscape requirements in section
153.133 (requiring front yard trees for single family lots) and 153.134 (size and
frequency of street trees); and adopting section 153.190 residential appearance standards.
for one, two, and three unit structures.
Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald
Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Brandol M. Harvey,AIA, AICP, Senior Planner.
" MOTION:. To table this administrative request.
b VOTE: 7-0.
RESULT: After a short discussion, this administrative case was tabled. The Landscape Code
portion will be presented again at the July 10 Commission meeting. The Residential Appearance
Standards will be presented on July 17.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
i ~ '1
~~`~ri ,C~~.~~
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
03-014ADM
Code Amendment
Landscape Code
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -June 19, 2003
Page 28
8. Administrative Request 03-014ADM - -Code Amendment -Landscape Code and
Residential Appearance Standards
Request: Review and approval of a revision to the landscape requirements in section
153.133 (requiring front yard trees for single family lots) and 153.134 (size and
frequency of street trees); and adopting section 153.190 residential appearance standards.
for one, two, and three unit structures.
Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jarie S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald
Pazkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Brandol M. Harvey,AIA, AICP, Senior Planner.
NOTE:
The Commissioners received a handout June 5 on this subject which included minutes from the
Appeazance Code Committee meetings, a copy of their recommendations, City Council's
changes prior to the first reading, and requests for additional Commission discussion on select
topics. City Council minutes for May 12 and 19 are not available.
BACKGROUND:
This case includes the specific Code amendments recommended by the City Council's
Appeazance Code Committee to implement the Community Plan policies and strategies. The
Appeazance Code Committee was appointed by City Council in July 2002 to investigate and
make recommendations on residential appeazances of the City. It consisted of the following
members:
Chuck Kranstuber, City Council Representative
George Peplow, Chairman
John Messineo, Planning & Zoning Commission
Charlie Driscoll, BIA Representative and Edwards Land Company
David Meleca, AIA, Architect
- Greg Wieland, AIA, Architect
The Committee conducted 12 meetings over eight months, including research as to what makes
neighborhoods successful, considering multiple facets of neighborhood chazacter, investigating
current Code requirements which affect neighborhood appearance, the evolution of Dublin's
development, and the potential for new development. Specific topics included subdivision layout
and topography, architectural diversity, azchitectural design elements, four-sided azchitecture,
street trees, private landscaping, and code enforcement.
In summary, the Appearance Code Committee is recommending three sets of Development Code
amendments. The first improves street tree standards and the second requires front yard trees for
single-family lots. The third is the most extensive and complex and recommends Residential
Appeazance Standards.
City Council held two work sessions, made certain changes and identified several topics for the
Commission to consider. The topics for additional Commission discussion and recommendations
aze limited to the third set, the Residential Appeazance Standazds. At the June 5 meeting, the
Commission received a document including the original recommendations of the Appearance
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -June 19, 2003
Page 29
Code Committee and text-box inserts identifying City Council's changes and topics for
additional Commission consideration.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Amendments to the current Landscaping Code to increase the minimum street tree size
from 1 3/< inches to 2-'/2 inches and decreasing minimum and maximum street tree
spacing by five feet. These changes will create a denser and more effective street tree
corridor. The Appearance Code Committee determined that street trees are the most
important appearance element of neighborhoods. The City Forester participated in and
supports these amendments.
A complementary amendment to the Landscaping Code requires the planting of front
yard trees on single-family lots. Currently all other land uses are already required to
install private landscaping. Lots of 90 feet or greater width will be required to install
three trees in the front yard, and narrower lots will be required to install two trees. The
front yard trees species must be on the City's approved list of street trees.
A set of new Residential Appearance Standards will apply to all new houses and
existing houses requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant
exterior alteration. A "house" includes one-, two- and three-family structures.
"Significant exterior alteration" is defined as "a change in roofline, adding or removing
windows or doors, altering projections and recesses, or changing the exterior building
materials."
The Residential Appearance Standards are by far the most lengthy and complex. They are
detailed and interrelate to one another. Changing a detail in one may have impacts to
several others. The following summarizes the key contents of the Residential
Appearance Standards in the order contained in the ordinance.
As mentioned above, City Council has requested that the Commission take a closer look
at several topics and make recommendations to the City Council. Those select topics
include bold text indicating City Council's general comments and requests.
Planned Districts are specifically addressed with the intent to require compliance unless
there are comparable or better design standards contained in the Planned District's
adopted ordinance. For both existing and future Planned Districts, a comparison would be
made between the (adopted or proposed) Planned District standards and these standards.
The more restrictive standard would apply. A special provision is given to existing
Planned Districts to allow an exemption for six months after the adoption of these
standards. That should allow homes in existing Planned Districts currently being
designed to proceed without difficulty. City Council requested the Commission to
consider completely exempting existing Planned Districts that have an Architectural
Review Committee.
Design Standards cover the following basic topics:
Garage placement and door size. Garages can be the dominate visual influence in an
elevation. Only garages in a front elevation are proposed for regulation. Garages on the
secondary street of a corner lot or through lot are exempt. The general intent is to limit
the dominance of garages and garage doors in the front elevation. Limits to door sizes
and percentage of the elevation are provided.
Vinyl siding. It was found that the negative perception of vinyl homes is often caused by
lack of detailing or siding pieces that have warped or separated. Any predominately
vinyl-sided home must include detailing from a list of options. Minimum thickness and
installation standards help to prevent warping and separation. City Council requested
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -June 19, 2003
Page 30
Commission to consider higher than 44 mil as a minimum thickness, a minimum
thickness for the underlayment, and the detailing options.
Four-sided architecture. The standards attempt to control the number and location of
design elements to prevent a negative appearance at minimal costs. A higher importance
is placed on street-facing elevations. Several tests aze required to discourage large azeas
of blank wall. The City Council requested the Commission to consider developing a
standard requiring the "balancing" of visual elements in astreet-facing side or rear
elevation, or requiring additional setbacks or landscaping.
Building Materials. Wood boazd, brick, stone, cultured stone, fibrous cement siding,
stucco, glass block and vinyl siding are the permitted finish materials. The number of
. materials used cannot exceed three. Asphalt dimensional shingles, slate, tile, standing
seam metal, wood shingles or shakes are the permitted roof materials. Several standazds
address how and when building materials should change as they occur in the elevations.
City Council requested the Commission consider whether chimneys should be only
brick, stone or stucco.
Roof slopes. The main architectural roof must have a minimum 6:12 pitch. Flat roofs
may be permitted, but not as the main azchitectural roof. Dormers, porches, and other
similar secondary architectural features may have roofs with a minimum 4:12 pitch.
Foundations. Foundations must be clad with facing material to include, but not be limited
to brick, natural stone, imitation stone, or split block. Alternatively, if wood or vinyl
siding is used, it may extend to within one foot of the finished grade at the base of the
wall. City Council requested the Commission consider eliminating split block as an
option for foundation faces and requiring minimum topsoil around foundations.
Windows and trim. Shutters or trim will be required azound all windows within any
elevation constructed of vinyl, stucco, wood, or fibrous cement siding. To maintain some
degree of azchitectural integrity, shutters would have to be the sized as if they aze
operable for the windows. Trim must be at least 3.5 inches in width. Special detailing
above and below windows in brick or stone walls is encouraged. City Council requested
the Commission to consider requiring mullions (real or otherwise) on front, side and
rear elevation windows, perhaps instead of shutters in rear elevations.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is anticipated that a more detailed presentation and discussion will occur at subsequent
meetings, either of the Commission as a whole or a subcommittee. In order to proceed, the
Commission needs to determine whether a review subcommittee is needed and to select its
membership. Additionally, a schedule needs to be set for future presentations.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -June 19, 2003
Page 12
7. Administrative Request 03-OSOADM: Community Plan Modifications
'~(:'8. Administrative Request 03-014ADM - -Code Amendment -Landscape Code and
Residential Appearance Standards
Ms. Clarke said the amendments to the Community Plan are completely non-controversial. She
said that Mr. Harvey tried to strengthen the connection between the Community Plan and the
Code modifications and drafted additional text for inclusion in the Community Plan. These two '
cases can be heard together or separately, as the Commission chooses.
Brandol Harvey said a report showed the combined recommendations from the Appearance Code
Committee and City Council. The comments from Council resulted from its two work sessions
and indicate areas for further study. He said the Appearance Code Committee was made up of
George Peplow, Chuck Kranstuber, John Messineo, Charles Driscoll, David Meleca, and Greg
Wieland. The Committee met twelve times over eight months.
Mr. Harvey said the Committee researched various neighborhoods to determine the appropriate
characteristics of "traditional suburban" developments. The Committee chose meandering
streets, numerous topographic changes, heavy public and private landscaping, and diversity in
setbacks and lot widths and important characteristics. He said consistent private and public
landscaping along the streetscape become a strong neighborhood element, and it decreases the
need for architectural diversity controls. Mr. Harvey said architectural diversity became a big
issue because houses were so visible from the street, particularly in new developments.
Mr. Harvey said suggestions are being made to the Policies, Issues and Strategies of the
Community Plan. The Community Plan amendment establishes the findings and some strategies
that would be implemented through the Code amendments. He said more trees are
recommended on single-family lots. Other types of development currently require private
landscaping, but not single-family houses. Recommendations include increasing the impact of
street trees and landscaping cul de sacs. Mr. Harvey said amendments to the Landscape Code
are proposed: to increase the size to 2'/z inches, to decrease the spacing by five feet, and to
require additional trees in the front yard based on lot width.
Mr. Harvey said the most complex issue is appearance standards for the houses themselves. The
topics include garage placement and door size, vinyl siding, specifications and detailing for
vinyl homes.
Mr. Sprague interrupted and raised aluminum siding as an issue.
Ms. Boring said when it states that City Council requested the Commission to consider an issue,
not all Council members said to do it. Their discussion was getting too long and engrossed. The
Commission should consider the issues and return with a recommendation to City Council. Mr.
Gerber said their purpose tonight was to determine a process for review.
Mr. Harvey said another topic was four-sided architecture. There were several formulas. He
said City Council was generally satisfied with the recommendation. There was a comment that
Planning Commission look at balancing or symmetry in a street facing elevation.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -June 19, 2003
Page 14
Ms. Clarke said all meetings had to meet in a public place, advertised in the media, and open to
the public.
Mr. Gerber suggested this be divided: Community Plan, Landscape Code, and Residential
Appearance Code. Ms. Clarke suggested the Community Plan and the Landscape Code be
combined. There is more of a learning curve for all of the architectural detail and standards
proposed.
Mr. Harvey suggested the Residential Appearance Code have one presentation on that entire part
of the Code, and then it be broken into subunits for discussion. The topsoil and four-sided
architecture issues may require separate meetings.
Mr. Gerber asked if starting July 10th, the Commissioners agreed to an hour presentation for the
Community Plan and Landscape Code, and then on July 17th, they would act upon it. The
Residential Appearance Code could be addressed on August 14th. He said they would have the
presentations and discussions of each topic at the beginning of the meetings. Ms. Boring
suggested that they remember the audience. Mr. Sprague agreed, but said the Commissioners
need to make these very important decisions at the beginning of the meetings. Mr. Gerber
agreed.
Ms. Clarke said the rest of the cases could be advertised to begin at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Zimmerman asked if new information would be in the July 10th Commission packet. Mr.
Harvey no.
Mr. Gerber asked for afive-minute outline of the probable schedule on July 10th.
Mr. Gerber made a motion to table the Community Plan Modifications, and Mr. Ritchie
seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor. (Tabled 7-0.)
Mr. Gerber made a motion to table Landscape Code and Residential Appearance Standards, and
Mr. Zimmerman seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor. (Tabled 7-0.)
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -June 13, 2003
Page 14
presentations and discussions of each topic at the beginning of the meetings. Ms. Boring
suggested that they remember the audience. Mr. Sprague agreed, but said the Commissioners
need to make these very important decisions at the beginning of the meetings. Mr. Gerber
agreed.
Ms. Clarke said the rest of the cases could be advertised to begin at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Zimmerman asked if new information would be in the July 10th Commission packet. Mr.
Harvey no.
Mr. Gerber asked for afive-minute outline of the probable schedule on July 10th.
Mr. Gerber made a motion to table the Community Plan Modifications, and Mr. Ritchie
seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor. (Tabled 7-0.)
Mr. Gerber made a motion to table Landscape Code and Residential Appearance Standards, and
Mr. Zimmerman seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor. (Tabled 7-0.)
9. Administrative Request 03-053ADM - Amendments to Planning and Zoning
Commission Rules and Regulations
Mr. Gerber said the Rules and Regulations reflect the Commission's suggestions from the last
meeting. Ms. Boring noted page 5, F and E had not been changed as requested. Mr. Gerber
made the motion to approve the amendments to the Commission Rules and Regulations. Mr.
Ritchie seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Zimmerman,
yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Ritchie, yes; and Mr. Gerber.
(Approved 7-0.) Mr. Gerber thanked Ms. Clarke for her help.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectively submitted,
Libby Farley
Administrative Assistant
Planning Division
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of_._____ Dublin City_Council Mee~ing___
OAVTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. EORM NO 101~B
May 19, 2003 Page 4
Held 20
i
Ordinance 5 -03 ~
Amendin ortions of the Zoning Code to Es blish the Historic Business (HB
District d the Historic Residential (HR) D' trict (Case No. 01-113ADM -His ric
l~, Distri Code Amendment)
Ord' ance 54-03
R oning Approximately 83 Parcels omprising an Area of Approxim ely 72.7
cres in Historic Dublin and Vicini , To: HR, Historic Residential D' trict (Case No.
01-1142 -Historic Development strict Rezoning I).
~s Ordinance 55-03 ~
Rezoning Approximately 74 arcels Comprising an Area of A roximately 28.11
Acres in Historic Dublin a Vicinity, From: CCC, Central C munity Commercial
District and CB, Central usiness District, To: HB, Histori usiness District (Case
No. 01-1142- Historic velopment District Rezoning II).
Ordinance 56-03
Amending Portio of the Zoning Code to Establis a "Architectural Review r
District" and to e-Organize the Architectural Rev' w Board (ARB) and Repea g
Sections 153. 0 through 153.187 (Case No.03- 9ADM -Architectural Revi !I
District and rchitectural Review Board Proc ures). !
j Ordinanc 7-03 II
. Adopti the Old Dublin Design Guidelin (Case No. 00-118ADM).
Mr. Kr nstuber moved to introduce Ordin ces 53-03 through 57-03 and refer them to
the arming & Zoning Commission.
. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the tion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Z rcher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, y ; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms.
Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; r. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, s.
Ms. Salay asked for an esti ed hearing date at P&Z.
Ms. Clarke responded that a HB and HR districts must fir be established before
properties can be rezon to those districts. The archite ural guidelines have bee in
use for about five year ,and this formally adopts the g delines. The reorganiza ' n of the
ARB would then foil ,and finally the rezoning of th parcels identified. She pects the
process to begin i June and continue through La r Day.
Mayor Kranst er asked that the titles of Ordi nces 58-03 and 59-03 b ead together,
as they bot relate to the appearance code.
Ordin ce 58-03
Ame ding Ordinance 123-97, by Adopting Modifications to the City of Dublin
Co munity Plan to Incorporate Findings, Policies, Issues and Strategies Relating
to Community Character and Residential Neighborhood Development. (Case No. 03-
050ADM -Community Plan modifications)
~ Ordinance 59-03
Amending Portions of the Zoning Code by Amending Section 153.133 (Minimum
Landscape Requirements), Section 153.134 (Street Tree and Public Tree
Requirements), and Adopting Section 153.190, Residential Appearance Standards.
(Case No. 03-014 ADM -Landscape Code Amendment and Adopting Residential
Appearance Standards)
Mr. Kranstuber introduced Ordinances 58-03 and 59-03.
Ms. Brautigam noted that at the last study session, the recommendations of the
Appearance Code Committee were presented in part. Tonight's presentation includes the
remainder of the recommendations.
Mr. Harvey presented the recommendations to Council.
Vinyl Siding
' The first recommendation relates to vinyl siding and the question of the proper thickness
of the material. (He showed slides of the various examples of installation of vinyl siding in
communities around the Greater Columbus area.) The Vinyl Institute recommends the 44
mills as a desirable standard. Some of the upper-end housing developers use 50 mills.
The durability of 44 and 50 mills is expected to be 40 years. The cost differences
between 44 to 50 mills is not substantial -fora 2,500 square foot home of 44 mills, the
material cost is $3,600. At 40 mills, the savings is $900. Taking it from 44 to 50 mills
brings an increase of $1,100. The Village of Highland Lakes houses shown in the slides
use 50 mills, and the same developer building now at the Reserve at Ballantrae uses 50
ji mills. The restricted covenants for the original part of Ballantrae require 44 mills as a
minimum. He added that proper installation is required to prevent warping and j
j~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
~iRUtes_o~__-_ Dublin City_Council Meeting-.
DRYiON LEGAL BUNK. INC.. FOAM NO. 1018
May 19, 2003 Page 5
Held 20 ~
L separation of vinyl siding. Some municipalities have prohibited pneumatic Hailers, but the
~ newer equipment sets the nail properly on the siding.
~
i
Mr. Kranstuber commented that many existing homes in Dublin have 36 mill siding, so this
~ will establish a standard. The Committee tried to be sensitive to the issues of affordable ~
i housing, and endorses a midline standard focusing on durability.
Mayor McCash commented that the 50-mill siding is produced by only a few suppliers in
Central Ohio, and would be available in fewer colors. From a diversity of color standpoint,
it the higher standard may reduce the options.
Mr. Harvey responded that several manufacturers provide 46 and/or 48 mill vinyl siding.
Mr. Reiner commented that he endorses a higher standard so that the product will endure
jl - perhaps a standard of 46 to 48 to minimize City inspections in the future. ~
Mayor McCash responded that the thickness would not affect the fading from ultraviolet
l light.
Mr. Reiner stated that he believes that the higher quality product has a superior ~
appearance.
Mayor McCash noted that much of the look relates to the installation. it
Mr. Kranstuber stated that banning vinyl siding has been considered by some groups in l
the past, or limiting the percentage of homes with vinyl siding. Upon closer examination of i
examples throughout the area, the Committee decided to focus on quality of the product. li
Mr. Reiner noted that another consideration is the City inspection of installed siding -are I
there times when the builder is required to remove poorly installed vinyl siding? If the only
control the City has is over the material, and not the installation, he would support a higher ~
ii quality material
I!
Mr. Kranstuber emphasized that the desire is to establish a standard, as none exists at ~
this time. The concern is with not making the standard so high that housing becomes
unaffordable. ~j
I
Mc Lecklider asked if the difference between 44 and 46 mills is noticeable? ii
Mr. Harvey responded that it is not visibly different, but theoretically it would be
proportionately stronger, last longer and would resist high temperature changes.
Therefore, it would separate less over a period of time.
Mr. Harvey then described the vinyl accessories that can improve the appearance of a
home at an economical price. He showed slides of the various items available, i.e., door
surrounds, mantel systems above windows, shutters, fascia boards, molding, trim boards,
accent panels.
He summarized that the recommendation of the Committee is for a minimum thickness of
44_ mills, that it must be applied to the OSB or plywood, that it must have a low oloss
fnish, and that it must be properly installed to prevent warping or separation.
Mr. Reiner asked about the dimensional thickness for the plywood.
Mayor McCash stated it should be a minimum of due to the structural load. However,
this is a building code issue and not related to the appearance code.
Mayor McCash suggested as a follow-up, that the Building division staff should devise
some proposed language to address these items.
Mr. Harvey agreed that staff would research the thickness of the underlayment as
suggested. i
Additional Requirements for Predominantly Vinyl Siding Homes i~
Mr. Harvey stated that the Committee recommends that every predominantly vinyl home
should be vinyl on the entry side. Where there is a vinyl sided elevation, a minimum 6"
fascia board should be required. In addition, two other options -such as shutters,
mantels, cornices, etc. -would be required.
Mr. Lecklider suggested that P&Z also consider the windowpane look for other than front j
elevations. These are done with inserts in the windows. j'.
Mr. Kranstuber stated that these are a nuisance when cleaning the windows. i'
Mrs. Boring commented that these types of inserts are not compatible with certain house
designs.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of___- ___--Dublin City_Co_u_ncil_ Meeting
_ DAYTON LEWLRIANN. INC_FORM NO_~0~~8
May 19, 2003 Page 6
Held 20 I
Discussion followed about requiring mantels on other than the front of the house. lip'
I
. ~i
Ms. Brautigam suggested that Council forward a detailed transcript of tonight's
suggestions to the Planning Commission for their review, and that revisions not be made
tonight to the draft Appearance Code. In this way, the Commission can consider all of the
Committee's proposal as well as the concerns of Council I
! Four Sided Architecture
Mr. Harvey noted that this is a trend in the industry, and it helps to achieve a sense of
place or neighborhood. The Committee originally considered requiring three design
I~ elements somewhere on each elevation. The Committee then focused efforts on the
i, dispersal of design elements to avoid having blank walls. The Committee recommends at
j~ least two design elements in any elevation wherever it faces, with a little more treatment
for the street facing elevation.
The Committee recommends this formula: Each elevation must contain at least two
design elements and each street facing elevation must contain three design elements.
it Further in all cases there must exist at least one design element in each one-half of the I1
elevation At least one design element should occur on the first floor, and should there be
a large upper wall area that would otherwise be blank then at least one design element i'
would have to be located in the upper wall area. He then detailed the various examples of
design elements that would meet these requirements.
Discussion followed.
1.
Mc Reiner noted that using the chimney as an architectural element may be problematic, ;~I
and asked that P&Z look at this closely.
Discussion followed about the type of materials allowed for a chimney.
I~
Mr. Harvey noted that the Committee is also recommending a set of definitions with
illustrations. These are included in the draft Appearance Code.
Another recommendation is to limit types of materials to be used on the exterior to wood,
brick stone (natural or cultured) products of siding that are typical of the manufacturer
hardy plank stucco glass block or vinyl siding. In the elevations, no more than three
materials can be used (He showed an example of a house and the varous reouirements.)
Foundations must be faced with either brick natural or cultured stone. split block, or the
exterior siding material must be brought down over the foundation to within 12 inches of
the finish grade. ~
I~
Mr. Reiner noted that the split block would not be an improvement over what is presently
allowed. j
Mc Harvey stated that the split block is becoming more of a common practice and it does il,
break up the gray concrete block appearance. The Committee felt it could be an
acceptable alternative.
Mr. Kranstuber commented that the only consideration was bringing the foundation cover ~I
down as much as possible while still allowing for mounding and landscaping. It was not a
cost issue.
Mr. Reiner objected to the split block - it is not a strong design element. He also
suggested that the City consider an ordinance that requires that the topsoil from a lot is
stored and then redistributed on the site after the house is built. He also endorses stone
or brick to cover the foundation. Having concrete block or split block around the base of
the house is very unattractive, and homebuyers then purchase foundation plantings to
hide this block. ~I
Mr. Kranstuber clarified that what the Committee is recommending is bringing the cedar,
the stone or whatever material down to 12 inches from the ground.
Mr. Reiner clarified that he is suggesting that the bottom 12 inches of base be brick or I~',
stone. ~
Mr. Lecklider stated that he believes all of the builders will opt for the split block if allowed. ~
He would recommend the brick or stone base instead.
Mr. Kranstuber summarized that perhaps staff could propose some alternative language
for P&Z to consider, based on these concerns.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
~linutes9f DublitLCity Council Mee~ng_
_____O_AY=ON LEGAI BLANK.INC.. FORM NO. l01K8
May 19, 2003 Page 7 I
I~'I Held 20 II
_ - Application I -
Mr. Harvey stated that the appearance code standards would apply to all new construction
'i and for existing construction when there is an expansion of 25 percent livable area or it
significant exterior alteration. Only the portion being changed must meet the new I
standards. In terms of existing planned districts, the Committee is recommending a
'I period of transition of six months. After that exemption period, any new building permit
must comply with the new standards. For new planned districts, they would have to meet
it these standards at a minimum. For exemptions, all of the properties covered under the
i,
Architectural Review District would be exempt. Any interior alteration is exempt if not
affecting the outside appearance of the house. Any building permit already submitted
would also be exempt.
i
Discussion followed about the role of the subdivision architectural review committee fora
planned district versus the appearance code requirements and their application. (I
Mr. Kranstuber stated that the appearance code would establish the minimum standards I
that all development must meet. In cases where the subdivisions review committee it
requires less, the appearance code would govern. i
i~' Mayor McCash stated that the way it is drafted, some people will be required to have the
City review architectural styles, but others will be reviewed by their neighbors. It seems it
~I should be applied equally to all neighborhoods -whether or not a neighborhood has an
architectural review committee. 11
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that she is hopeful that P8LZ understands that Council
desires that the appearance code be approved this year. Much of the work has already ~I
I' vel where P&Z was re resented. P&Z's role should be to
been ~~ne at the Committee le
improve what already exists in the draft document.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to refer Ordinances 58-03 and 59-03 to the Planning & II~
Zoning Commission. '
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; ~
l
Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes.
INTRODUCTION 8L PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS ~
Resolution 26-03
° Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into aOne-Year Contract for Legal Services
with the Law Director.
Ms. Salay introduced the resolution.
Ms. Brautigam stated that at the time she joined the City, several Council Members j
expressed concern about the legal fees and their hope for improved monitoring and li
control in the future. She has discussed with Mr. Smith the various ways the legal fees
could be reduced, and much of any litigation the City is involved in has been resolved. In ~i
addition, a review was done of the average costs for the last three years and
consideration has been given to implementing a retainer system. After reviewing the ;i,
material, she believes that a retainer system,.as recommended in the report, would be a ;j
good opportunity for the City. She believes that the City will save approximately $200,000
over the next year, based on the amount of previous billings. She has also worked with I~
members of staff to ensure that requests for legal services are closely reviewed. Routine,
non-legal matters previously referred to Legal staff are now handled in house. The
primary changes are as follows:
1) Presently, the City pays $6,000 per month for Mayor's Court legal fees. In the past
year, the law firm has tracked the actual monthly costs for the Mayor's Court at the i
previous hourly rate and it averages $9,800 a month for a service for which the
City pays $6,000 per month. This is too large a loss for the law firm to bear, in her i~
view, and therefore she proposes increasing the fixed rate for Mayor's Court to i
$9,000 per month. They will still experience a slight loss for this work, but it does
serve as a training ground for new attorneys in municipal law.
2) The City will no longer have an hourly rate for general legal services. Instead of
$120 per hour, which likely would have increased by ten percent this year, staff is ~i
recommending a $60,000 per month retainer which will cover general legal
matters, civil real estate matters including negotiations with property owners over ii
right-of-way, and general litigation such as appeals from the Board of Zoning
Appeals. The next level of complex real estate matters and litigation, involving
numerous court appearances and discovery, will be charged at the hourly billing
li
Dublin City Council
Study Session
Monday, May 12, 2003
Mayor McCash called the Monday, May 12, 2003 work session of Dublin City Council
to order at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at the Dublin Municipal Building.
Roll Call
Council members present were: Mayor McCash, Vice Mayor Boring, Ms. Salay, Mr.
Lecklider, Mr. Reiner, Mr. Kranstuber, and Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher.
Appearance Code Committee members present were: Mr. Peplow, Mr. Driscoll, and
Mr. Messineo.
Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Readler, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Harvey and
Mr. Gunderman.
Mr. Kranstuber noted that a community appearance code is a very complex topic.
Although the committee spent numerous.hours discussing the many elements in great
detail, the Committee has developed a list of streamlined solutions.
Mr. Peplow noted that consensus was obtained on many items. He thanked Council for
the appointment to the Committee. He enjoyed working with such a knowledgeable and
courteous group, and thanked staff for their support, especially Brandol Harvey. Mr.
Harvey anticipated the needs of the committee and provided invaluable direction in the
study.
Mr. Harvey stated that although the recommendations presented tonight are fairly
_ concise, they evolved after a study that encompassed extensive information. Additional
information is provided to Council tonight to provide explanation on how the Committee
arrived at their recommendations.
He then acknowledged each of the Committee members and noted how they had
contributed to the dialogue. He also acknowledged the efforts of staff, including
Planning, Building and Engineering divisions; Paula Chope, City Forester, for her
expertise regarding street tree issues; and Jennifer Readler, who provided legal
guidance.
He reviewed the relationship between this effort and Council goals and priorities. The
Community Plan and economic development strategies impact the scope of the
Appearance Code, as well as the budget constraints of the City.
Mr. Harvey stated that Council adopted as goals for 2003 the revision of the
Development Code and increased code enforcement. Whenever recommendations are
made for new requirements from development, more demand is put on code
enforcement. He noted that the committee's recommendations propose new
Dublin City Council
Study Session
May 12, 2003 -Page 3 of 15
Not all is developed yet. In those planned districts, only 17 percent of the approved
homes remain to be built - 2,000 housing units. Looking at planned districts as well as
straight zoning is very important as the recommendations are evaluated.
The committee reviewed Dublin's residential areas. They looked at newly developing,
maturing, and mature developments. An example of new development would be
Amberleigh North, which is a combination of straight and curvilinear streets, lots with
100 plus feet of frontage, and relatively low density. Along Somerset Way, the trees are
new 1-3/4 inch in diameter, and due to the newness of the neighborhood, the
dominant visual element in the neighborhood is the architecture.
An example of a maturing neighborhood is Amberleigh South. The trees are more
mature and there is an increase iri private landscaping. Although the roadway is the
primary visual element, from the sidewalk, the impact of private landscaping is
apparent. Driving down Glencullen Court, the view of homes is somewhat obscured by
the presence of maturing trees. There are also a number of trees in each private yard,
which helps to mask the architecture.
Kendall Ridge is composed of homes on smaller lots, averaging 60-65 feet; thus, there
are more homes per mile. The trees are relatively immature, and the homes are the
dominant element, particularly because of the garage fronts. There is, typically, one
private tree on each lot. The overall impression is one of roadway pavement and
garage fronts.
In the Dublinshire area, the landscaping is more mature, and it is begining to fill the
view. Most of the vista is green in this area.
In Indian Run Meadows, there are a variety of lot sizes with 65-85-ft. frontages. The
trees are maturing, both public and private, but the dominant visual element is, again,
the pavement. In comparing Indian Run Meadows and Dublinshire, the neighborhoods
are of similar density with trees of similar maturity, but more landscape is .viewed in
Dublinshire than pavement. Mr. Harvey showed an example of the effective use of
complementing public street trees with private trees. The garage front juts toward the
street, but the landscaping softens the view of the garage.
In the Woods of Dublin, most of the streets are curvilinear. The street trees are not
closely spaced together or overwhelmingly large, but the curved street makes them very
effective.
In Donegal Cliffs, there are curvilinear streets and fairly drastic topographical changes.
There is a strong feeling of changing landscaping and greenery in the area - a feeling of
movement and transition.
Waterford Village, south of Old Dublin, is one of the most mature planned districts. Its
development began in the early 1970's. It has curvilinear streets, with short vistas. On
Dublin City Council
Study Session
May 12, 2003 -Page 4 of 15
Stonewall Ct, there is a strong combination of public street trees and private
landscaping. The eyes are drawn to the landscaping, rather than homes.
The Committee also looked outside of Dublin. They looked at traditional neighborhood
development in New Albany, OH; Seaside, FL; Cheshire, SC; and Lakelands, SC.
There is a high emphasis on quality, and to a lesser degree, on diversity and
commonality. New Albany visually projects an image of country - an estate in the
suburbs. The feeling of street tree landscaping is a strong element. The initial
installation size of the street trees is 3" - 6". Cheshire, SC, was intended to look like a
1950's-1960's community. Lakelands, SC, is very urban in scale; the lots are small and
the total spacing between homes is 20 feet. There is a heavy emphasis on multi-family
development.
The fundamental finding of the committee was that a good neighborhood appearance is
less influenced by the appearance of individual homes and lots in the neighborhood
than by the neighborhood's overall view and the collective experience of traveling
through those neighborhoods.
Several key appearance elements were identified. They were all interrelated with
varying degrees of importance. Under neighborhood elements were street layouts,
curvilinear or grid, a diversity of lot width and front setbacks (already adopted in 2002).
Street trees and private landscaping were ranked first in importance. Garages were
ranked next in importance, in both garage placement and amount of door exposure to
the street. Elimination of blank walls was considered very important, as well as the
quality and durability of building materials and architectural detailing. Other elements
listed were: lot size diversity, consistency of house sizes, front setback diversity, side
yard diversity, and architectural diversity.
Mr. Kranstuber noted that the survey reflects the committee's opinion after several
meetings had occurred, at which the committee had viewed and evaluated several
hundred slides taken of various neighborhoods. The survey does not reflect pre-
existing prejudices of individuals. Initially, he believed the most important element was
aesthetics of houses. However, the slides were very revealing, which changed many of
the early opinions of the committee members.
Mr. Harvey, continuing, stated that in looking at the category of large, neighborhood
elements, street trees were considered the most important element. There are a
number of ways municipalities address street trees. Dublin looks at the tree as an
individual specimen that should be highlighted. The tree is placed to allow for maximum
growth of that tree. Space is allowed between all trees to allow for the optimum growth
of all trees and to facilitate maintenance of the street trees. The space varies slightly
according to the tree size. Typically, the space is 45-50 feet spacing (approximately
three and one-third vehicle lengths from tree trunk to tree trunk). Occasionally, another
method is used in placing trees, and that is to treat them as an individual group, with the
objective of achieving a sense of enclosure.
New Albany has done this to create a colonnade or edge effect.
Dublin City Council
Study Session
May 12, 2003 -Page 5 of 15
Another method is to deliberately have them grow together and over-reach the street to
create a sense of enclosure on the sides and overhead. Finally, there is the
combination approach, which is used to create a transition effect throughout a
neighborhood. New Albany has used this approach in The Reserve.
He showed examples of street tree landscaping in various communities. He displayed
an example of New Albany landscaping with 20-ft. spacing, 3"-6" initial installation size,
and a more suburban street with 24-ft tree spacing. He noted that in New Albany, all
the cul de sacs are either treated with landscaping or as a park with some type of park
improvements in them.
Mr. Harvey showed an example nearer to Dublin. There is a large cul de sac in Tartan
Fields that has an opportunity for landscaping in the center, but none has been
provided. The primary impression is of hardscape. In Muirfield, there are several large
cul de sacs, which are landscaped. The committee's opinion was that there is an
advantage in having a variety of cul de sac types in a subdivision.
Dublin's existing Code requirements for street trees control installation spacing and
size. There is a minimum and maximum requirement for spacing between trees. With
large trees, the minimum desirable spacing is 45 feet, the maximum is 50 feet and the
required tree caliper is 1-3/4 Moving down in size to the medium tier, the requirement
is 10 feet less in spacing, with a tree caliper of 1-3/4". In the small tree category,
spacing is 45-30 feet, with a tree caliper of 1-3/4". He noted that although those are the
standards, what may occur in the field may vary from the standard for a number of
reasons.
For instance, in looking at Kendall Ridge statistics, although the requirement is 50 feet,
trees occur on the average of 61'/z feet. This is due to the fact that Kendall Ridge lots
are small, and there are a number of driveways. Therefore, the opportunity to place
trees is interrupted. On the south side, there aren't as many driveways, so the spacing
between street trees averages 50 feet. In the median, the trees average 34 feet. In
Amberleigh, which has 100-foot lots, there are fewer driveways, and the average
spacing is 45-46 feet on each side.
The committee looked at the practices of other cities. Of the 44 cities surveyed: four
have the same requirements; 23 required larger tree size, and one had smaller initial
tree size. For spacing, seven had the same spacing between trees, 21 required closer
spacing, and three required more spacing.
Ms. Salay inquired how the City arrived at its spacing requirements.
Mr. Reiner stated that the City's ordinance is modeled after one in Lexington, Ky.
Mr. Kranstuber stated that the slides that were studied proved to the Committee that the
street trees and landscaping were of great importance in terms of appearance. Of the
Dublin City Council
Study Session
May 12, 2003 -Page 6 of 15
cities compared, only four had less stringent standards than Dublin; 24 were more
stringent than Dublin. Dublin's standards were in the bottom 10-15th percentile. Ms.
Chope, City Forester, was invited to a meeting. She was resistant to significant
increases in the street tree program. All the recommendations from this Committee are
for moderate changes, including to street trees. The recommendation is to diminish the
spacing slightly and increase the tree caliper slightly. The intent is to be more in line
with other cities, if possible. This initiative has failed before due to resistance from the
development community, but these recommendations should not have a significant
effect on the development community.
Mr. Reiner stated that the final test is if the legislation will hold up in the State Supreme
Court. When the present street tree standards were originally adopted in the 1980's,
Ohio judges were extremely conservative, ruling from apro-business perspective. That
caused the City to be overly cautious in establishing street tree regulations.
Mr. Harvey stated that there have been major changes in this area since that time.
Many more cities have instituted appearance codes. The courts have recognized that
there is a positive property value a welfare issue, associated with street trees for the
community. An appearance code is not considered "arbitrary and capricious."
Mr. Harvey stated that the Committee also considered private landscaping. Single-
family residential is the only use in Dublin today that is not required to have
landscaping. They looked at what other cities in Ohio are requiring with private
landscaping. Typically, two or three trees were required per lot, or the number of trees
was based on the lot size. A number of cities also took a design approach and
required that a minimum percentage of the yard must fall under a tree canopy once the
tree is mature. The design aspect is effective, but it is very difficult to monitor. From the
sampling, the average minimum tree caliper size required was 2-1/4".
Seven Dublin builders were surveyed, and they indicated that a minimum o one or o
trees is included in their base landscape package. They will provide more at additional
' cost. The separate cost of that package would average $500 - $750.
Mr. Harvey displayed a slide of a home site with the minimum current requirements. He
then added an overlay containing the additional proposed elements, which produced a
much more attractive view.
The Committee's recommendations in Part A of their report is: to update the
Community Plan to incorporate the findings and recommend some policies and
strategies. Some older traditional suburban developments have characteristics that
ought to be repeated, which includes curvilinear streets and specific typographical
characteristics. The older suburban developments have sizable and closely spaced
street trees and a variety of landscaped cul de sacs. There are mature and consistent
front yard trees throughout the subdivision. Well-landscaped trees in front yards reduce
- the importance of architecture of individual homes.
Dublin City Council
Study Session
May 12, 2003 -Page 7 of 15
As a result of those findings, the following issues, policies and strategies are
recommended: encourage curvilinear streets, increase the number and size of street
trees trying to achieve a street canopy rather than an individual specimen appearance,
require landscaping in cul de sacs and allow for alternative cul de sac sizes and
patterns, and require front yard trees for single-family, detached homes. Those policies
and strategies in Part A would then be implemented by Part B of the report, which might
appear deceptively simple. The net result, however, should be dramatic. The
recommendation is to reduce by five feet the minimum and maximum spacing between
street trees and to encourage the tree installation size from 1-3/4" to 2". These
. recommendations are supported by the City Forester. Additionally, the
recommendation is made that the City requires trees to be placed in the front yards of
single-family homes. The trees are to be from the approved tree list used by the street
tree program. Additionally, if the lot frontage is 90 feet or more, a minimum of three
trees would be required. If less than 90 feet, it would be two front yard trees.
Mayor McCash inquired if all three trees were to be the same.
Mr. Harvey stated that it would be an option, but not required.
Mrs. Boring stated that these are the Committee's recommendations. At what point is
Council's input regarding these recommendations desired?
Mr. Harvey suggested that Council defer discussion until the end of the presentation.
Mrs. Boring stated that Mr. Kranstuber has shared the Committee's concern about
making recommendations for only moderate changes. However, she is of the strong
opinion that the recommendation for increasing the tree width by'/<" is too minimal to
make any difference. She is hopeful that Council will consider increasing that size, to
be more in line with other cities.
Mayor McCash agreed. He believes that 2-1/2" is the minimum caliper tree for
commercial developments.
Ms. Clarke stated that measurements of nursery stock are typically given in a range; in
this case, it would be 2" to 2-1/2"..
Mr. Kranstuber said that he believes New Albany's street tree requirement is 2-1/2" or
3".
Mr. Harvey stated that it actually varies from 3" to 6".
Mr. Kranstuber stated Ms. Chope was very resistant to much change being made in the
tree caliper or the spacing between trees. He could not recall the basis for her
argument.
Dublin City Council
Study Session
May 12, 2003 -Page 8 of 15
Mr. Reiner stated that her argument is based upon the fact that 1-3/4" - 2-1/2" caliper
trees are good, transportable trees. In the industry, when a tree of greater caliper is
transported, 4"-6", the tree's growth is stunted. The ball is supposed to be made bigger
with a larger caliper tree. In reality, a 2"-2-1/2" tree sometimes outgrows a 3"- 4" tree.
This would be due to the amount of top growth in the larger tree, the upper quadrant of
which should be pruned back to accommodate the roots, which have been cut off. So,
the tree sits idle, attempting to recover its vitality.
Mr. Kranstuber inquired Mr. Refiner's recommendation on street tree width. Mr. Reiner
recommended 2" - 2-1/2" caliper trees. New Albany suffered approximately 98% loss
on some of their 6" street tree plantings. This was also due to the fact that they didn't
buy northern grown stock. For each caliper of tree, the cost is approximately $110, so a
2" caliper tree would cost $220; a 3" caliper tree would cost $330, etc.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested specifying 2-1/2" caliper, thereby ensuring that the
City acquires a 2" tree.
Mr. Peplow stated that the Committee's original intent was to install larger trees, until
the Forester explained that this would not achieve the desired results.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if the trees required for private landscaping would be of the same
caliper as those required for street trees.
Mr. Harvey stated the requirement would be the same for both.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if there were any discussions about the possibility of requiring a
different caliper for each.
Council consensus was that they be the same caliper in order to be of the same scale.
Ms. Salay inquired if the homeowners would be required to replace their trees that fail.
Mr. Harvey said that the homeowner would be required to maintain the trees in order to
meet the City's requirement.
Ms. Salay stated that could be a hardship for some homeowners.
Mayor McCash stated that this could present a problem. If eighty percent of the
landscaping that is required survives, that would be the best to be hoped for. Most of
the residents will take care of the trees. Compliance for the other 20 percent shouldn't
be a major objective of the City.
Mr. Harvey stated most of the builders are installing two or three trees. He noted that
enforcement on the basis of complaints made is not very productive. However, if the
City makes periodic inspection of the neighborhoods, a higher level of compliance could
be achieved.
Dublin City Council
Study Session
May 12, 2003 -Page 9 of 15
Mayor McCash stated that he would prefer to see the City focus on the trees being
installed at the time of construction, but not pursue enforcement of this issue.
Mr. Harvey stated that this may add to the property maintenance program of the City,
but it does not introduce a new avenue of Code enforcement.
Ms. Salay stated that when their neighborhood was new, the City made periodic checks
to ensure the street landscaping was becoming established. Perhaps the City could
include inspection of the required front yard trees along with the street tree inspection
during the critical two years following installation.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that homeowner associations also have landscape
inspectors. They typically send letters to a homeowner if they detect a problem with the
landscaping for a particular home. If the City requires homeowner associations for all
neighborhoods, perhaps the City could require that a landscape committee be part of
the structure of those associations.
Garages -Percentage of Coverage
Garages have been identified as a dominant element in residential development.
Therefore, the Committee's suggestion is to restrict garages in their placement on the
property and in the amount of garage door exposure. These limitations will apply on
those garages and garage doors facing the primary street. If the lot is a corner or
through lot with more than one street, it will be the primary frontage that the garage door
faces, which will be controlled. Side-entry, side or court garages would not be
controlled, as they do not face the primary street.
In determining percentages of garage door exposure in relation to overall elevation,
percentage is determined by taking the width of the door, divided by the width of the
elevation facing the street. The trim for the door opening does not count.
Mr. Kranstuber stated that in the discussion regarding garage doors, the Committee
refers to the architecture of the home. This restriction of 35 percent would have the
greatest effect on the smaller homes within the City. Looking at recently constructed,
two-car garage-door homes within the City, 86 percent of the houses surveyed would
meet the test. The most common two-car garage door is 16 feet. Using that as a
benchmark, what elevation would the house have to be to avoid exceeding 35 percent?
Mr. Harvey responded that the minimum house elevation would have to be 46 feet,
which would not be that demanding.
Mayor McCash inquired what the minimum lot width required would be. How would this
requirement fit in with the conservation subdivision design? If the lots were too narrow,
they would not fit the proposed regulation. However, a wider lot does not meet the 60
percent development and achieve the density guidelines.
Dublin City Council
Study Session
May 12, 2003 -Page 10 of 15
Mr. Harvey stated that in the typical conservation development, the area in which the
houses are placed is very dense. The side yard requirements are lower than in a
traditional suburban development. Many of the planned districts have 15' of total side
yard, including both sideyards. Twenty-five feet combined both side yards is typical in a
straight district, but most of the planned districts are greater than that. In a conservation
design district,15 feet of side yard is typical. Adding 15 feet to that that would result in a
61-foot wide yard. If the City were to adopt conservation design subdivisions, it would
be under a planned development approach. The applicant could propose whatever
standards they wish for their design or concept.
Mr. Harvey showed slides of various samples of garage percentage of elevation.
Discussion continued.
The Committee looked at three-car garages, which are becoming more popular.
Surveys indicated that, in Dublin, the average percent of elevation for three-car garages
is 45 percent. Studies indicate that 88 percent of the homes in Dublin would pass the
test, if that percentage were required.
Mrs. Boring inquired if the regulation pertained to the door width only; the garage
structure could be larger.
Mr. Harvey indicated that was so.
Mr. Harvey stated the Committee's recommendation for garage doors is that one and
two-car garage doors not exceed 35 percent of the overall house elevation, and garage
doors of three-car garages not exceed 45 percent.
Discussion continued.
Mr. Reiner expressed support for tightening the standard slightly. There are many
options available to builders within a tighter standard.
Mr. Kranstuber stated that the Committee determined three things: (1) identified that
the size of the garage versus the mass of the house is a problem with Dublin
architecture, (2) presented a framework for solution, (3) chose a number, which would
not be too rigid. The first two items, the Committee felt strongly about; there were
mixed opinions regarding the percentage. Therefore, if Council wants to change that to
amore aggressive number, the Committee does not object. He cautioned, however,
against increasing the number to an amount to which the building community would
object, and then not passing the legislation. He added that the Committee attempted to
be very reasonable, believing that the cumulative effective would make a difference.
Also, it is subject to revision; a year from now, the numbers could be increased.
Garage Projection .
Mr. Lecklider inquired about the formula for 15-foot projection.
Dublin City Council
Study Session
May 12, 2003 -Page 11 of 15
Mayor McCash inquired if that standard applied only to front-loaded garages.
Mr. Kranstuber said that it did; side-loaded garages would be exempt from the proposed
regulations.
Mr. Harvey showed an example of a "snout garage." He noted that homes that were
built in the 1980's frequently had a roof extended from the sidewall of the garage over
the front-entry porch. He showed examples of that style and also of flush garages.
Garage Color
Mr. Reiner stated that the slides reveal another problem. In painting the garages with a
contrasting trim, the garages are accentuated. He proposed requiring that garages be
trimmed in one of the primary colors used on the rest of the house, and, thereby, not
emphasized.
Mr. Harvey stated that the Committee discussed the advisability of including color
palette requirements. The consensus was that it is difficult to administer.
Mr. Reiner stated that in this one area a color requirement should be made, which
would be to use one of the primary colors of the remainder of the house and thereby
blend into the whole. In Muirfield, all basketball posts and mailboxes must be painted in
an innocuous color to de-emphasize them.
Mr. Harvey agreed that from an appearance standpoint, the high contrast emphasizes
the garage door. He has administered codes that addressed color and material
combinations. However, because homeowners tend to paint more often than they do
other home improvements, this complicates the code enforcement task. Requirements
at the time of the initial building permit pose no difficulty, however, the later painting by
the homeowner would be difficult to control.
Mr. Reiner stated that he proposes that the requirement apply only with the initial
construction.
Mrs. Boring stated that she does not support the idea of the City becoming involved in a
complicated enforcement issue,
Mr. Reiner noted that there are architectural review boards that include this requirement
in their criteria. The City should not completely overlook an important guideline. If the
homebuilder paints the garage trim one of the primary colors of the house, the
homeowner is more likely to retain that color than change it.
Mr. Kranstuber cautioned against "over-reaching." The homeowner should be able to
paint-his garage whatever color he wishes.
Dublin City Council
Study Session
May 12, 2003 -Page 12 of 15
Mr. Reiner reiterated that the requirement would apply only to the builder with initial
construction.
Mr. Peplow indicated that he would not object to including the requirement during the
construction stage.
Mr. Harvey stated that he could refine the language so that it would meet the intent as
s- proposed. The question is whether it is required only at the time of the initial building
permit and not to be maintained throughout the life of the house.
Council direction was to include the color requirement as construction criteria only, not
as a maintenance requirement.
Garage Projection resumed
Mr. Harvey stated that after extensive discussion, the Committee recommendation is
that a garage should not extend further than 15 feet from the main part of the house.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the garage extensions in Kendall Ridge.
Mr. Harvey estimated 10-12 feet.
Mr. Reiner inquired as to the aesthetic reason for wanting to place the garage in front of
the house.
Mr. McCash stated that, typically, a family room is behind the garage.
Mr. Harvey stated that the statistics for projections vary between the three-car and two-
car garages in Dublin. From a small sampling of 120 homes, the average projection for
a three-car garage is 6-1/3 feet and the average projection for atwo-car garage is 8-3/4
feet.
Mayor McCash inquired if there is an adjacent porch, would the projection be measured
from the front of the porch at the front of the house, excluding the porch?
Mr. Harvey stated that if the porch had a roof, it would be considered a vertical plane;
the projection would be measured from the porch.
Mr. Lecklider, referring to the previous discussion regarding percentage of elevation,
suggested that the maximum percent of elevation for athree-car garage not exceed 40
percent (rather than 45 percent as proposed). A smaller number than 15 feet for the
project should also be used.
Mr. Reiner agreed with Mr. Lecklider's proposal of 40 percent maximum coverage for
three-car garages. He also noted that if the projection were recessed somewhat, a
more interesting rear facade would be created. Is the issue to accommodate the
Dublin City Council
Study Session
May 12, 2003 -Page 13 of 15
developers or create more interesting houses? It is a difficult call. Council wants to be
user-friendly, yet instill motivation to build more interesting structures. The biggest
violator of this intent would be the production builder.
Mr. Driscoll stated that the Committee conducted a survey on this topic and determined
that in Ballantrae, surprisingly, the biggest violator was not M/I Homes, but rather, CV
Perry, Bob Webb and Truberry Homes.
Mr. Reiner inquired whether modification of this section would improve the quality of
architecture for houses.
Mr. Lecklider noted that the Committee probably considered the increased cost
associated with that type of change.
Mayor McCash stated that the cost would depend upon the layout. If there were no
structure over the garage and family room, the cost would be less than if a master
bedroom were constructed over that projection.
Mr. Reiner stated that his company builds patios daily for homes that have blank
facades. He would welcome a more complex facade, which would create opportunities
for creative landscaping.
Mr. Harvey stated that requiring that the garage be further recessed is not directly
proportional to the rear elevation of the house. Also, the more forward the garage is,
the more lot remains for the floor plan of the house.
Mr. Peplow stated that moving the family room into an L-shape off the back of the house
breaks up a blank facade, which achieves another objective of the committee.
Mr. Lecklider moved that fortwo-car garages, the projection be limited to twelve feet,
and for three-car garages, the projection be limited to ten feet.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion.
Mr. Lecklider stated that his motion is in the nature of a compromise. As Mr. Kranstuber
noted earlier, if the legislation does not appear to achieve Council's objective, it could
be revised next year.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms.
Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, abstain; Mayor McCash, yes.
Mr. Kranstuber explained that he hesitates to vote on a motion without first checking
with the builders regarding potential impact and without having Mr. Harvey "run the
numbers."
Mayor McCash agreed, but noted that he is comfortable that the Planning Commission
will conduct that study.
..W
Dublin City Council
Study Session
May 12, 2003 -Page 14 of 15
Mr. Lecklider moved to revise the recommendation for the maximum coverage of the
front elevation by the garage door for athree-car garage from 45 percent to 40 percent;
35 percent remaining the standard for the two-car garage maximum coverage.
Mr. Reiner seconded the motion.
Mrs. Boring stated that due to the statistics Mr. Harvey shared, she prefers to try a more
moderate approach initially.
Mr. Kranstuber stated that Mr. Harvey performed calculations on this issue. The
percentage the Committee recommended eliminates the truly offensive floorplans, but
allows the builders to retain most of their floorplans.
Mayor McCash stated that if other factors were addressed such as the color palette,
reducing the visibility of the garage, perhaps the recommended percentage would be
effective.
Mr. Lecklider stated that in defense of his motion, 45 percent translates to virtually half
of the front elevation consisting of garage doors. That is excessive. He would disagree
that the color would appear to reduce that fact. The design of the house being
consumed primarily by the garage door is inappropriate.
He believes that 40 percent is a very reasonable compromise.
Ms. Salay agreed. She prefers to set the standard at 40 percent. If that should be an
impossible standard, Council will be apprised of that fact.
Mr. Reiner agreed. A garage door that consumes 45 percent of the front elevation is
over-powering. If it is also projecting, it becomes the dominant feature of the house. If
the directive is to upscale the quality and appearance of the City's residential
development, it would be consistent with that directive to tighten the standard to 40
percent.
Vote on the motion: Mayor McCash, no; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, no; Mr. Reiner, yes;
Mrs. Boring, no; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes.
(Motion failed)
Mr. Harvey stated that the next topic is vinyl siding. Due to the late hour, he asked
whether Council would prefer to proceed or defer further discussion until the next
meeting.
Council consensus was to end discussion at this time.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if foundations would also be discussed at the next meeting.
Mr. Harvey indicated they would be discussed.
Mayor McCash thanked Mr. Harvey for an excellent presentation.
.w
Dublin City Council
Study Session
May 12, 2003 -Page 15 of 15
Mayor McCash moved to adjourn into executive session at 9:27 p.m. for the purpose of
discussion of legal matters and land acquisition. He noted that the meeting will be
reconvened only for the purpose of adjourning the Council meeting.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion.
The motion was carried unanimously.
The meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 10:10 p.m..
Clerk of Council