Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrdinance 078-17RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 Ordinance No. 78-17 (Amended) Passed , 20 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 153-058,153,059, AND 153.062 OF THE DUBLIN CODIFIED ORDINANCES (ZONING CODE) TO CREATE THE HISTORIC SOUTH DISTRICT AND ASSOCIATED REGULATIONS WITHIN THE BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT (CASE 17-052ADMC). WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to amend Dublin's Zoning Code to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, Dublin City Council adopted the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report on October 25, 2010 and has since integrated the policy recommendations of the Vision Report into the Dublin Community Plan as the Bridge Street District Plan, adopted on July 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, Dublin City Council adopted the Bridge Street Corridor Districts as part of the City of Dublin Zoning Code, including Sections 153.057153.066, on March 26, 2012 and as amended in November 2013, August 2014, December 2014, and February 2017 to implement the five Vision Principles identified in the Vision Report; and WHEREAS, Section 153.066 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code states that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Architectural Review Board may evaluate and monitor the application of the requirements and standards of Sections 153.057 through 153.066 and recommend to City Council any changes needed in the BSD district standards and requirements to better implement the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended adoption of the proposed amendments to Sections 153.058, 153.059, and 153.062 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) to create the Historic South District and associated regulations within the Bridge Street District on August 10, 2017 because it serves to improve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, of its elected members concurring, that: Section 1. Sections 153.058, 1.53.059 and 153.062 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin are hereby amended and shall provide as attached to this Ordinance: Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective on the earliest date permitted by law. ATTEST: Clerk of Council , 2017. Office of the City Manager 5700 Emerald Parkway e Dublin, OH 43017-1090 Cit o1 Dublin Phone; 614-410-4400 * Fax; 614-410-4490 Memo To: Members of Dublin City Council From; Dana L, McDaniel, City Mana�4, Date November 16, 2017 Initiated By: Vincent Papsidero, FAICP, Director of Planning Jennifer M. Rauch, A1CP, Planning Manager Nichole M, Martin, Planner I Re: Ordinance 78-17 (Amended)-- Amending Sections 153,058, 153.059, and 153062 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) to Create the Historic South District and Associated Regulations within the Bridge Street District (Case 17.052ADMC - Historic Dublin Zoning Code Amendment), Update At the November 6, 2017 City Council meeting, Council members expressed concerns about the unintended consequences of updating the Code without addressing potential inconsistencies with the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines; the implications of limiting development resulting from the proposed regulations; the proposed hourly restrictions for eating and drinking establishments; and the size restrictions for exercise and fitness uses, Cade Changes The proposed Code has been modified from the first reading to address the concerns about the hourly restrictions for eating and drinking establishments and the size restrictions for exercise and fitness uses, The intent of the initial hourly restrictions for eating and drinking establishments was to address resident concerns regarding noise and traffic, while ensuring compatibility when eating and drinking uses are located adjacent to residential uses, The existing eating and drinking uses within the District have a range of hours, with the latest establishment open until 1;00 a,m, on weekends. Based on Council's discussion, the proposed hourly limitation has been removed to ensure all eating and drinking uses are treated consistently within the entire Historic District, The proposed Code has also been corrected to reduce the maximum area of an exercise and fitness use to 3,600 square feet, which aligns with the proposed maximum building area outlined in the Code (1,800 square -foot building footprint and maximum two stories). Development Limitations As directed by Council, staff was charged with providing an update to the Code regulations within the subject portion of the Historic District to ensure future development is compatible with the existing character, building scale, and uses, as well as adjacent residences, The proposed amendment aims to restrict future development within the southern part of the Historic District by limiting building footprints, building height and lot coverage, Historic Dublin Design Guidelines Council expressed concerns about how the Guidelines and the Code would work together to address concerns about the overall character of the District, and proceeding with this Code amendment when the update of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines is unknown, The Historic Memo re. Ord, 78-17 (Amended) - BSD - Historic Dublin Zoning Code Amendment November 16, 2017 Page 2 Dublin Design Guidelines utilize the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as the basic foundation and build upon them to provide a more specific set of guidelines that are specific to Dublin's Historic District, The goal of the Guidelines is to work in tandem with the Code, Council's discussion at the first reading appeared to be in support of holding the adoption of the proposed Historic District Code amendments until the Guidelines can be updated, Staff has significant concerns about postponing the Code amendments given the original concern by Council that initiated this project, but recognizes the importance of updating the Guidelines, Staff recommends the Code amendment be adopted as proposed, and the update of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines be prioritized with completion and submittal for adoption by the summer of 2018, Summary This is a request to amend a portion of the Zoning Code to create the Historic South District and associated regulations within the Bridge Street District, The amendment will provide regulations to address development pressure within this portion of the Historic Dublin, Background Staff initiated a major update to the Bridge Street District (BSD) Zoning Code in 2016. As directed by City Council, the prioritized tasks included amendments for the Historic Dublin core in response to concerns raised by adjacent residents, These were in response to a development proposal on the Biddie's property and focused on the potential of commercial intrusion into the neighborhood, density and building height, noise and traffic, The City engaged Clarion Associates and CodaMetrics to revise the regulations to ensure development is consistent with the neighborhood character of the Historic District south of Bridge Street, In coordination with CodaMetrics, Planning engaged the community in two public workshops; October and December 2016, The first workshop offered four stations addressing the following topics; transitional zoning, building character, parking and infill development, The second workshop built on the outcomes of the first by surveying residents, business owners, and landowners to determine appropriate zoning district boundaries and development standards, In March 2017, an Architectural Review Board (ARB) work session was held to review the outcomes of the public meetings and provide preliminary direction to the consultant regarding revisions, In June 2017, CodaMetrics and Planning staff reengaged the public in an Open House and the ARB with a Special Meeting, As outcomes of this effort, the proposed amendment was updated to reflect the neighborhood's requests to reduce building coverage, reduce impervious lot coverage, set a maximum overall building height, clarify measurement of building height, and added size - limited exercise and fitness facilities, In July 2017, the Administrative Review Team (ART) made a formal recommendation of approval to the ARB for the Code and Zoning Map Amendments, as updated based on the June 2017 Open Memo re, Ord, 78-17 (Amended) - BSD - Historic Dublin Zoning Code Amendment November 16, 2017 Page 3 House and ARB Special Meeting, The ARO recommended approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) at their July 26th meeting with one condition to resolve a minor typographical error, In August 2017, the PZC reviewed the proposal at their August 10th meeting, and made a recommendation of approval to City Council with no conditions, The Commission determined the ARB and Council are best suited to address residents' outstanding concerns that were shared at the PZC meeting, Based on the Commission's discussion and resident requests, staff directed the consultant to increase rear yard setbacks for buildings and parking areas, The Historic Dublin Neighborhood Association submitted letters to the ARB, PZC, and staff that outlined their concerns regarding the proposal, Staff prepared a written response and subsequently met with the authors and involved neighborhood stakeholders. Many of these issues raised in the initial letter had been incorporated into the proposal, At the October 16, 2017 City Council Work Session, staff requested Council review the proposed Code and Zoning Map Amendments prior to formal review and approval, Council affirmed that the direction taken by staff and the consultant is consistent with Council's direction and was supportive of the proposed Code amendments and rezoning proceeding with the formal review process, Council members discussed how the discrepancies between the Bridge Street Code requirements and the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines will be handled moving forward, Staff is undertaking a comprehensive Code amendment for the entire Bridge Street Code, which is running in tandem to an update to the Guidelines The proposed initial draft of the overall Bridge Street Code updates and the Guidelines is targeted for February, 2018, Proposal The proposed changes are consistent with Council's direction, Input into the final recommendations is based on stakeholder engagement to identify common themes, staff experience in administration of the Code provisions, and the consultant's experience writing form - based regulations for a variety of communities. website for public consideration, The draft changes have been posted on the City The draft changes place a significant limit on the size and scale of all future development within a new sub -district (Historic South District) that responds to the area of concern expressed by Council, The proposal also restricts the size and operating hours of all future eating and drinking establishments in order to minimize potential impacts to adjacent residences, Specifically, the changes include; 153,058 -m BSD Districts Scope and Intent Creation of the Historic South District and identification of the sub -district's intent. 153,059 — Uses Identification of permitted and conditional uses for the Historic South District, Parking structures are not permitted, nor are they not allowed as conditional uses as primary or accessory uses in the new sub -district, Eating and Drinking facilities are sized -limited, with limited hours of operation (7am- 10pm), and limited hours for commercial deliveries and refuse collections (8am-5pm), Memo re. Ord, 78-17 (Amended) - BSD - Historic Dublin Zoning Code Amendment November 16, 2017 Page 4 The hours of operation may be modified as part of a request for a Conditional Use, + Exercise and Fitness facilities are size limited (10,000 square feet), 153,062 — wilding Types + Revisions to the building type standards for the Historic Cottage Commercial building, + Rear building setback 25 feet with parking setback of 5 feet. This ensures that current views are maintained across the rear of properties abutting S, High Street, + Building height is limited to two stories or a maximum of 24 feet to the midpoint of the eaves; and one and half stories or a maximum of 18 feet to the midpoint of the eaves within 50 feet of the rear lot line (updated from language previously referred to rear lane), These provisions ensure that building heights decrease away from S, High Street towards the adjacent residential blocks to minimize visual impacts, + A reduction in the footprint of any individual building to 1,800 square feet to ensure scale is consistent with the existing character of the sub -district, Individual buildings on the same parcel can be connected via an "enclosed connection" or hallway, but overall building intensity is limited by the lot coverage requirements noted below, + Maximum building coverage is limited to 50 percent of a site and maximum impervious coverage has been reduced to 65 percent (from the earlier proposal of 75 percent), This reduces the buildable area and is consistent with existing character, Existing parking standards within the BSD as applied to the Historic District uses were not altered, On-site parking cannot be visible from High Street; it must be located behind buildings, This standard maintains the pedestrian -oriented character along the N, High sidewalks and ensures a building wall consistent with the historic character, Planning and Zoning Commission Review On August 10, 2017, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed Zoning Code amendments to City Council, Recommendation Staff recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 78-17 (Amended), HISTORIC DUBLIN: EXISTING ZONING CODE SUMMARY &EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED REVISIONS May 9, 2017, revised June 1, 2017, revised July 17, 2017, revised July 31, 2017, revised October 3, 2017, revised November 13, 2017 CODAMETRICS PURPOSE Over the last year, the Historic District in Dublin's downtown has experienced significant development pressure. Due to the charm and character of the area, the value of the land is increasing and surface parking lots and some buildings are now seen as opportunities for infill development. Residents have expressed concerns regarding the scale and impacts of this potential development along with additional commercial uses in the Historic District. Based upon these concerns, in May of 2016, City Council directed staff to take a closer look at the existing districts and design regulations to address these concerns, while • a srueraeumr Rene rovrlrew ea uM ove mnR,knR mn :r Ana e•�e m m. .e:�a�nai nnw �Rr� 1i f ea�A.%aen °.,00 el ro u�Wne .� ynp µrpt annlNeimerp oPe MINe MninRrarles mp elNa ,r�tim ano gwk.wv,ran RaraRe rorpam.R�: mormmttwree.mr mer.:aem�ai pr pN[evnr. DRAFT balancing the redevelopment potential sought by the development community. The following document outlines the revisions recommended to the Bridge Street District (BSD) code related to the Historic Core. No revisions are currently proposed to the Historic Transition and Historic Residential districts. me ron� m xnpm sa[n n< nmlmw amon�<a a n<gnt[ ..: moroarom neoieomy abpm a: S:ury r IIIu4atevmNfurngrMmavmwn MRm M1pnllre[rpv i..l IM9<EYn4 wOBmele{aak wrtl peer lnnamwvA m! e�ln dsM •ea w no `�YiilanvaNamvwrn�gvemae:mar�n�a,aemxne wnoie Ie,R�m[a M1 be ms IM eu i W aga reW a to M vert N%hrn m� AW)3ilmAraryysteppinRmelrepmsnmwrM1max inrelxgn to m .e:aemim ewlmr�a[.oss I<un<.,m awyalminw,.rt amppm, nre grurM story w Inn ve 4u itl ugs reNte to tM vent mry hom c. �w �� rirv� - W� � I I zi ry CI .. ' HISTORIC DUBLIN Zon:wc DISTRICT, •t Illustration Boards from the Public Workshop 1. The board on the left illustrates option 3, the most widely preferred design option for the rear of lots. The board on the right illustrates the impacts of height on adjacent residential on well sloped lots. Measuring heights will be addressed in the overall revision to the BSD code, defining the measurement from the average grade of the building. 2 NOVEMBER 13, 2017 DRAFT The following outlines the key meetings and results from those meetings related to the new district and revisions to the BSD in the historic core. Public Workshop 1 The first workshop, held October 4, 2016, put forth some proposals for addressing the concerns. The workshop was well attended by approximately 50 people including residents, business owners and land owners. The interactive workshop included four stations each addressing a different topic. Each participant was able to rotate through all four stations. • Station 1 introduced the potential for a new transitional zoning district between the Bridge and High Street intersection and the residential buildings on neighboring streets and the south end of High Street. • Station 2 addressed the current code requirements for materials and design details such as massing, windows, and roofs. • Station 3 provided a discussion format for parking provisions in the area, focusing on the difference between the areas north and south of Bridge Street. • Station 4 presented some design options addressing potential infill development in the rear of lots along Blacksmith and Mill Lanes. Public Workshop 2 The results of the first workshop were presented at a second workshop, held December 8, 2016. A survey was provided to gain additional comments and more detailed recommendations for potential Code changes. The discussion focused on future development and zoning requirements including architectural character, design, building materials and uses within the Historic District. Architectural Review Board (ARB) Work Session An informal work session was held for the Architectural Review Board on March 8, 2017, to review the results of the two public input sessions. The Board reviewed the materials presented to the public and the public input that was provided at these meetings. The consultant presented the initial recommendations for the zoning code amendments within the Historic District, which was based on the input from these public input sessions. The Board discussed the proposed recommendations and provided feedback to the consultant to consider as the recommended code language is developed. PROJECT TIMELINE Open House RB Special Meeting On June 14, 2017, an open house was held prior to a special meeting of the ARB. At the open house, large-scale boards were displayed outlining the key components of the proposed code for the historic core. Staff and the consultant were available for one-on-one discussions with participants. During the presentation to the ARB after the open house, several potential revisions were discussed. The resulting revisions included clarification of the roof height measuring process, reduced building coverage, reduced impervious lot coverage, revisions to uses including the addition of a size - limited exercise and fitness facilities, adding overall maximum height dimension. Administrative Review Team Meeting On July 20, 2017, the administrative review team met and discussed the revised code. ARB Meeting On July 26, 2017, staff presented the revised code and discussed potential revisions. Accessory parking structures were removed from the uses table as a result of this meeting (consultant's error). Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting On August 10, 2017, staff presented the revised code to the PZC and discussed potential revisions. As a result, an increased rear building setback was included with a separate parking setback. Historic Dublin Neighborhood Association Key Stakeholder Meeting On September 8, 2017, a meeting was held with neighborhood stakeholders to discuss potential revisions. Based upon this meeting, the civic building type was eliminated from the new district. Council Work Session On October 16, 2017, the new district and code revisions were discussed in a council work session. Council First Reading On November 6, 2017, the first reading of the revisions prompted the removal of hours of operation for eating and drinking establishments and further reduction in the size of exercise facilities. REVISIONS TO THE BRIDGE STREET DISTRICTS DEVELOPMENT CODE: HISTORIC CORE DISTRICTS 3 SUMMARY AND INTENT OF THE CODE REVISIONS The following provides a summary of the major revisions along with the intent of those changes. Introduction of a New District The new Historic South zoning district is intended to provide a framework for smaller -scaled buildings generally between Spring Hill Lane and John Wright Lane along South High Street. The new district as proposed permits the existing Historic Cottage Commercial and detached single-family home buildingforms. The limitation on the buildingforms ensures smaller -scaled buildings and more open space on the lots, instead of the more continuous "streetwall" established bythe Historic Mixed Use Building. (See revisions to zoning map and section 153.058.) Uses in the New District The new Historic South district allows for a mix of uses similar to the Historic Core to occur within the buildings, but does apply some limitations. Parking structures and principal -use parking lots (parcels with DRAFT surface parking similar to the public lots on the north side of Bridge Street) are not permitted. Eating and drinking establishments were desired by most workshop attendees, but deliveries have been limited to specific hours ofeperatian to address noise concerns. (See section V. Uses in this document.) Building Type Revisions A series of revisions to the Historic Cottage Commercial building type are provided to address the scale of infill development within the Historic South district. (See revisions to 153.062.) The following is the key revision - Rear Infill Limitations The Historic Cottage Commercial Building has been revised and re -illustrated to address development in the rear portion of lots, especially adjacent to the historic single family district. The intent of these new regulations is to allow infill within the character of the existing area, specifically stepping the buildings down to 1.5 stories at the rear lanes among other requirements. lllustrotion of the scale of development proposed in the code revisions for the rear of the Historic Cottage Commercial Building Types. 4 NOVEMBER 13, 2017 DRAFT Existing Historic Cottage Commercial in Dublin: the scale of existing cottage" buildings provides the guidance for the Historic Cottage Commercial building. Historic Cottage Commercial in other communities: new construction similorin scale, not located in Dublin. REVISIONS TO THE BRIDGE STREET DISTRICTS DEVELOPMENT CODE: HISTORIC CORE DISTRICTS INTRODUCTION TO REVISIONS The following outlines revisions proposed to the Bridge Street Districts code regarding the Historic District only. I. Districts Intent Section 153.058 is revised to establish the new Historic South District and add intent language for the new district. II. District Map The Bridge Street Districts zoning map is revised to define the parcels to which the new Historic South District will be applied. III. Building Types by Districts Table Table 153.062-A. Building Types by Districts is revised to add the new district and define which building types will be permitted within it (Historic Cottage Commercial and Single -Family Detached House only - Civic Building is not permitted). IV. Building Types The Historic Cottage Commercial building type is revised to define the type of development that can occur, especially in the rear portion of the lots. The table of regulations is revised and the drawings have been updated. Some line items in the table have been struck -through; those line items will be addressed in subsequent revisions to the overall code. Additionally, Table 153.062-C. Building Type Table Legend is deleted as the keyed numbering system between the building type tables and the illustrations is different for each building type. An appendix is included at the end of this document to provide some explanation for revisions to the building regulations. V. Uses In section 153.059, the use table is revised to incorporate the new district. A revision to uses previously permitted only in the upper floors, now permits those uses in the rear of the upper floors and in the basement. New language is also defined for limitations on deliveries to eating and drinking establishments in the new district. DRAFT The revisions outlined in the above -listed sections address the structural changes made to the key components of the Bridge Street District (BSD) zoning code in order to update the Historic District area. Future revisions to the BSD code will address parking, landscape, and building design elements, among other BSD -wide regulations. It is important to note that the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines still apply to all properties in Historic District. The Architectural Review Board reviews all cases and has purview over all details. 6 NOVEMBER 13, 2017 DRAFT The following appendix explains the intent behind the revisions made to the building type tables. The Historic Cottage Commercial table is used for illustration. The tables now separate property line coverage requirements between principal frontage streets (defined on the street types map) and side streets. Principal frontage streets are intended to be fronted by buildings along the sidewalk. For the Cottage Commercial, a minimum of 50% coverage provides for significant openings between buildings for landscape and patio areas. Minimum rear setbacks for buildings and parking areas have been set separately to address neighborhood concerns about the location of the buildings close to the residential garages. Minimum and maximum lot width are removed as they simply are not necessary. In a place where small scale buildings are desirable, setting a minimum lot width is antithetical. Also, actual maximum building width is more important than a lot width, especially as multiple buildings may be developed on one lot. These new standards focus on the scale of the buildings on the lot. For the Historic Cottage Commercial, all buildings shall be small scale. Building footprint limits the overall building size, building length limits the length of the building along the street, and building spacing requires wide spaces between buildings. Enclosed connections between buildings are limited in depth and required to be setback from the front facade an additional 15 feet providing green space or courtyard in front. The connections are also limited to a single 1. STREET FRONTAGE Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted Fiait Principal Frontage 50% minimum Property Line Coverage Occupation of Corner Required Non -Principal Frontage Street 60% maximum Property Line Coverage Front RBZ 0-25 ft. [see note 1] Corner Side RBZ 0=150-25 ft. [see note 1] RBZ Treatment Landscape, patio, or streetsca pe Right -of -Way Encroachment Projecting signs, eaves, awnings 2. BUILDABLE AREA Side Yard Setback 3 ft. Rear Yard Building Setback 25 ft. Rear Yard Parking Setback 5 ft. ""i 1i 11o'--"m-zrn-`-Width Maxi -ter'-- -`v" idth 30 ft. None Building Footprint Building Length Building Spacing Permitted Enclosed Connections between Buildings 1800 sq. ft. maximum 70 - ft. 50 ft. maximum 18 ft. minimum maximum 1story, maximum 12 -ft. depth, minimum 15 -ft. setback from front facade Max. Building Coverage 50% total Max. Impervious Coverage 75% Add'tl Semi -Pervious Coverage 10% 3. PARKING LOCATION, LOADING & ACCESS story. The connections can provide more flexibility for I Rear or-sidepravidied -the - businesses to expand within buildings. o 1 ou o property mrre- Parking is limited to the rear of the lot, as very few Parking Location eoverage -is-net, screened from principal frontages parking lots are located along the principal frontage by building street (High St). Net� Ne� Removal of requirements that are not applicable to the Reuss area simply allows for more space in the tables. Access is addressed in other locations of the code. REVISIONS TO THE BRIDGE STREET DISTRICTS DEVELOPMENT CODE: HISTORIC CORE DISTRICTS 7 This note has not been revised, but will move back under the Building Siting section once space has been created with removed table line items (lot width and loading, etc.). In general, the ground story regulations have been clarified to apply mainly to the spaces along the principal frontage streets. This means that heights, uses, and other facade requirements (storefronts, entrances) are relaxed on the ground stories of non -principal frontage streets. Additionally, a maximum height in feet has been added to account for roof height. Note that the overall height in feet is measured to the midpoint of the pitched roof. Here, the floor to floor heights are defined for the ground stories along the principal frontage streets, where retail and service uses are likely to occur. Buildings in the rear of the lot or along a side street then utilize the "All Other Stories' floor -to floor minimum and maximum heights, allowing more flexibility for the wider variety of uses allowed. The maximum height in the rear 50 feet of all lots along S. High Street steps down to a maximum of 1.5 stories. The Cottage Commercial building is a maximum of 2 stories, but along Blacksmith and Mill Lanes and all rear lot lines, it is required to step down to 1.5 stories. As discussed above, the ground story limitations on residential are now confined to the ground story along the principal frontage street (S. High Street and Bridge Street). All permitted uses may occur in all other stories, including the ground stories of building faces along side streets and lanes. Occupied space is now only required along principal frontage streets, allowing service and storage areas on the interior of buildings to occur along side streets as needed. Note that parking is not permitted within the Cottage Commercial buildings (unchanged from current code). Accessory garages are permitted per other code sections. DRAFT Note 1: When any front or corner property line is within five feet or less of the back of curb, the RBZ shall begin five feet off the back of curb to allow for adequate sidewalk width. Overall Height: Minimum Height lstories Maximum Height lstories, 24 ft. Ground Story Principal Frontage Floor to Floor Heights: Minimum Height 8 ft. Maximum Height 11 ft. All Other Stories Floor to Floor Heights: Minimum Height 7.5 ft. Maximum Height 11 ft. Maximum Height within 50 ft of the Rear Lot Line: 1.5 stories Ground Story on Res cle it a' uses p oh b red Principal Frontage All uses except residential Street blpi e Al Other Stories All permitted uses Parking within Building Not permitted Occupied Space Required on principal frontage NOVEMBER 13, 2017 DRAFT As discussed above related to Heights and Uses, the ground story regulations have been clarified to apply mainly to the spaces along the principal frontage streets. For the Historic Cottage Commercial, this does not affect to transparency; however, for other building types, storefront transparency will be required only along principal frontages, where retail uses are more likely to occur. Transparency requirements and blank wall limitations are now only required for street facades. This allows more flexibility for the incorporation of kitchens and storage areas on the building facades interior to the lot. For the S. High Street area, the lanes in the rear are considered streets, so street facade transparency is still required. The requirement for multiple entrances along streets is now simplified. Because of the limitation in building width for the Historic Cottage Commercial, this same requirement is met simply by requiring one entrance per building on a street facade. The removal of parking lot facade requirements allows more flexibility on those facades. The regulations for the whole of BSD are currently being revised to move some of the building type regulations to a more flexible design guideline document. Facade divisions and buildingvariety guidelines will be included in that process; therefore, these line items are removed from the table. Although facade materials and roof types will likely move to the proposed design guideline document in the overall BSD revision, those two requirements are integral to the definition of the Cottage Commercial building type. The limitation on primary materials and the requirement for a pitched roof are characteristic to these districts. Details will still be reviewed by the ARB during the project review process. Refer to §753.062(D) through §153.062(K) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. STREET FACADE TRANSPARENCY Transparency Minimum 25°%20% Blank Wall Limitations Required on ground story of street facades Geft&r&4mntateftey RAirtrmnm-159'6 mai-Blank all H 11 i'tatio is 3. BUILDING ENTRANCE N6t_requ ed. Principal Entrance Location Street facade of each building Stieet of E it anees Facades. .. _...__. Pa 'dig Lot Faeades` 4. FACADE DIVISIONS E pe eve y 30 to hu Id igs eve. 50 rr . Poatapplicable ,is P40-greate,than 30 ft. Bivisio is efi-the-greun�Siery. Plane u, Type 5. FACADE MATERIALS Permitted Primary Materials Stone, brick, wood siding 5. ROOF TYPES Pitched roof, other types permitted with approval (refer Permitted Types to §753.062(C). Flat Roof ed to ��qs Tower Not Permitted REVISIONS TO THE BRIDGE STREET DISTRICTS DEVELOPMENT CODE: HISTORIC CORE DISTRICTS 9 The following scenarios utilize the existing parking and open space requirements in the BSD to calculate the potential for development on a typical site in the new BSD Historic South district. Note that meeting the current requirements eliminates one building shown on the original historic cottage commercial building type illustration, mainly due to parking. Also, the open space requirements allow for the utilization of a fee -in -lieu of development of new open space and the use of existing open space within 660 feet of the property. Most parcels in the BSD Historic South district are within 660 feet of an existing park, plaza, or historic open space parcel. Smaller private green spaces will likely develop versus large public open spaces. The goal of the open space for the Historic Cottage Commercial building type is more site specific, with the intent of limiting building coverage and creating green spaces along the street. The required space between the buildings accomplishes this. The elimination of this fifth building reduces the overall building coverage shown from 43% to 34%, not including parking lot area. Finally, note that landscape requirements for the interior parking have not been met. Further, the landscape code is currently difficult to interpret. With the overall code revisions, the perimeter landscape requirements should be defined and the interior parking lot landscape studied to apply to smaller lots. Parking Units Open Space Units Retail: 3 spaces/1000sf Commercial: 1 sf/50 sf Restaurant: 10 spaces/1000sf Residential: 200 sf/unit Office: 2.5 spaces/1000sf Residential: 1.5 spaces/unit (assumed 2 bedroom units, 1000sf each) DRAFT Scenario I: RESTAURANT & OFFICE This scenario includes ground story restaurant and upper story office in the corner building and a story office building along High Street. Restaurant parking requirements are the highest, met here by reducing the number of buildings on site and incorporating office in the ground story of one building. Retail requires just slightly more spaces than office and could easily be accommodated in this scenario. Interior parking lot landscaping could be utilized in the extra parking spaces. Conversely, this scenario requires the least amount of open space with all commercial space. 53 01 Pon P A 600 Parking a, spaces�a �v J v Na X 1600 sr Building Uses Parking Spaces Open Space (sq. ft.) restaurant 18 36 Agroundfloor upper floor office 5 32 office 4 32 Bgroundfloor upper floor office 4 32 REQUIRED 31 132 PROVIDED 31 433 *200 sf Connection between A and B is included in the sf of ground story A. 10 NOVEMBER 13, 2017 DRAFT Scenario II: RETAIL & RESIDENTIAL This scenario includes retail space in the ground story of both buildings along High Street and residential in the upper stories plus another 2 -story and one 1.5 -story building on the side street. Retail requires slightly less parking required than restaurant spaces. Residential has the fewest number of parking spaces required, so the site can accommodate up to 4 buildings. Residential requires the most open space on the site. The requirements are easily met with two of the smallest open space type: the pocket plaza. No other open space type can be accommodated on this site reasonably as the site is just under half an acre, but these sites are generally within range of public open space. Side Street Required C 55Areer ,u i elback 11501f 200 Sf 1200 sf Scenario III: OFFICE & RESIDENTIAL This scenario is very similar to Scenario II, with office uses instead of retail uses in the ground story of buildings A and B on High Street. Building C is 2 -story all residential and Building D is 1.5 -story all residential, the same as Scenario II. The parking required is just one space less than Scenario II, as fractional required spaces count as a whole space. The open space is the same as in Scenario II. Side Street Building Uses Parking Required 25Areer D C A 6 36 tiadd��p residential 3 360 retail bck 27 Bgroundfloor upper floor 1600 Sf 2 265 11505f 20 sf 1200 s 00 sf 280 d upper floor residential 2 240 d) 2 230 Dgroundfloor upper floor residential 1 115 No` 23 1553 PROVIDED 23 2245 C w � B X � dor Lan ape iseror per Fv( 151.115R11d(c), 1325 sf � 1325 sf COp�lonA Building Uses Parking Open Space Agroundfloor retail 6 36 upper floor residential 3 360 retail 4 27 Bgroundfloor upper floor residential 2 265 residential 3 280 Cgroundfloor upper floor residential 2 240 residential 2 230 Dgroundfloor upper floor residential 1 115 REQUIRED 23 1553 PROVIDED 23 2245 *200 sf Connection between A and B is included in the sf of ground story A. *200 sf Connection between C and D is included in the sf of ground story C. Building Uses Parking Open Space Agroundfloor office 5 36 upper floor residential 3 360 office 4 27 Bgroundfloor upper floor residential 2 265 residential 3 280 Cgroundfloor upper floor residential 2 240 residential 2 230 Dgroundfloor upper floor residential 1 115 REQUIRED 22 1553 PROVIDED 22 2245 *200 sf Connection between A and B is included in the sf of ground story A. *200 sf Connection between C and D is included in the sf of ground story C. REVISIONS TO THE BRIDGE STREET DISTRICTS DEVELOPMENT CODE: HISTORIC CORE DISTRICTS 11 DRAFT 12 NOVEMBER 13, 2017 HISTORIC DUBLIN: EXISTING ZONING CODE PROPOSED REVISIONS May 9, 2017, revised June 1, 2017, revised July 17, 2017, revised July 31, 2017, revised October 3, 2017, revised November 13, 2017 CODAMETRICS (f) Residential and business uses that have convenient (B) Intent access to existing and future transit stops. The Bridge Street District zoning districts are generally (3) Open Space The Bridge Street District should have a variety of functional, well-designed open spaces that enhance the quality of life for residents, businesses, and visitors. Open spaces should: (a) Include a wide range of characters from small intimate spaces to larger neighborhood and community uses, including small parks and playgrounds to provide gathering spaces for neighborhoods, (b) Be arranged and designed as part of a district - wide open space network that defines and connects neighborhoods and the larger Dublin community, (c) Be located within convenient walking distance of all residents and businesses. (4) Buildings Buildings should have a range of high-quality residential, commercial, mixed-use and civic architectural styles to reinforce the unique identities of each part of the District. Buildings should be characterized by: (a) Easily convertible spaces that allow for uses to change overtime, (b) Residential uses with a variety of housing types, sizes, and price levels, (c) Abroad mix of shops, offices, and housing integrated within and among a variety of building types, and (d) Architecture that reflects Dublin's commitment to high quality and enduring character. § 153.058 BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT (BSD) DISTRICTS SCOPE AND INTENT (A) Scope The following Bridge Street District (BSD) districts are hereby created. The districts described by §153.058 are intended to be used for all land within the Bridge Street District. Unless otherwise specifically noted, after the effective date of this amendment all development and redevelopment within the BSD zoning districts shall be consistent with §153.057, General Purpose and subject to the regulations of §§153.058 through 153.066. Other provisions of Chapters 152 and 153 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances apply in the BSD zoning districts. Where there are conflicts, the provisions of §§153.058 through 153.066 shall prevail. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit an application for rezoning to any non -BSD zoning district provided in this Chapter. based on the District Framework of the Bridge Street District Area Plan. The purpose of the Framework is to allow development regulations to be adapted to the unique conditions present in each area. Although each district is unique, the five Vision Principles are intended to create a cohesive area, based on the concepts of walkability and urban vitality to support the quality of life for residents of all generations. The titles of each district are intended to describe the predominant land use character and/or special geographic locations rather than a single type of use. The following further describes the intent of each BSD zoning district. (1) BSD Residential The intent of this district is to accommodate single- family, two-family, townhouse, live -work and multiple -family uses in mid -rise development. The BSD Residential district integrates existing and new residential developments to create true neighborhoods and add to the population base needed to help support nearby retail and office development. Uses are generally limited to residential and small-scale residential support uses, as listed in Table 153.059-A. (2) BSD Office Residential The intent of this district is to accommodate a mix of office and multiple -family residential development at higher densities and in larger buildings. This district offers great flexibility to take advantage of visibility and access for office uses, with opportunities to create residential neighborhoods to support the adjacent BSD zoning districts. Uses include a mix of residential, personal service, and commercial uses, as listed in Table 153.059-A. (3) BSD Office The intent of this district is to allow a mix of offices and retail support uses, as listed in Table 153.059-A. The BSD Office district provides significant additional development capacity and redevelopment opportunities that foster office uses with a walkable design along signature streets, and provides increased accessibility and an improved roadway network to ease traffic pressure along major roadways. (4) BSD Commercial This district applies generally to existing retail centers and other low-rise commercial uses, including single use freestanding retail buildings, as listed in Table 153.059-A. Properties initially zoned into this district may be eligible for rezoning to the BSD Vertical Mixed Use District or to other surrounding BSD zoning districts when future redevelopment to higher densities is desired. (5) BSD Historic Core This district applies to the historic center of Dublin and reinforces the character of this area as the BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT §153.058 3 DEVELOPMENT CODE BSD DISTRICTS SCOPE & INTENT centerpiece of the Bridge Street District. The district focuses on ensuring sensitive infill development and redevelopment and providing an improved environment for walking while accommodating vehicles. The district accepts building types that are consistent with the historic development pattern of Historic Dublin, subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, and permit similar uses that support a highly walkable setting, as listed in Table 153.059-A. (6) BSD Historic South This district is intended to apply to the smaller, cottage - scale buildings on the southern end of South High Street in the historic core of Dublin. The district focuses on ensuring sensitive infill development and redevelopment and providing an improved environment for walking while accommodating vehicles. The district accepts building types that are consistent with the historic development pattern of Historic Dublin, subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, and permits similar uses that supporta highly walkable setting, as listed in Table 153.059-A. (7) BSD Historic Residential The intent of this district is to permit the preservation and development of homes on existing or new lots that are comparable in size, mass, and scale, while maintaining and promoting the traditional residential character of the Historic Dublin area. The purpose of these regulations is to protect the scale and character of the original platted village by maintaining regulations consistent with the previous Historic Residential zoning in place prior to the adoption of this amendment, as listed in Table 153.059-A. (8) BSD Sawmill Center Neighborhood This district applies to the majority of the commercial areas at the east end of the District. The standards of the BSD Sawmill Center Neighborhood create an active, walkable destination through integration of a strong mix of uses. Development within this district relies on the provision of physical and visual connections through improved access and enhanced visibility from Sawmill Road, and links to adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces. This district accommodates a wide variety of building types and permitted uses, as listed in Table 153.059- A. Redevelopment of the BSD Sawmill Center area creates a walkable, mixed use core as the east anchor of the District. The district is subject to the specific neighborhood standards defined in §153.063(0), establishing open space patterns, location requirements for building types, and permitting pedestrian -oriented, mixed use shopping areas. (9) BSD Historic Transition Neighborhood This district complements the BSD Historic Core district by accommodating a variety of building types within a finer grained street and block network and uses consistent with that district. It accommodates uses similar to those in the BSD Historic Core district, as listed in Table 153.059-A. Development allows an extension of the walkable mixed use character of the BSD Historic Core district on the larger parcels within this district. The district is subject to the specific neighborhood standards defined in §153.063(D). These requirements establish open space patterns and location requirements for building types, provide additional residential opportunities, and extend the small scale commercial activities of the BSD Historic Core district. (10) BSD Indian Run Neighborhood This district applies to the larger parcels north and west of the Indian Run and south of I-270, including adjacent properties fronting the north side of Bridge Street. The BSD Indian Run Neighborhood district is intended to develop as a new walkable, mixed use district that takes advantage of excellent highway visibility, an improved road network, and proximity to Historic Dublin and the natural areas flanking the Indian Run. Development within the district relies on a comprehensive road network providing connections within the Indian Run district and to the rest of the District, as well as sensitivity of development at its edges given its proximity to Historic Dublin and the Indian Run. This district accommodates a wide variety of building types and permitted uses, as listed in Table 153.059-A. Redevelopment of the area creates a walkable, mixed use core as the west anchor of the District. The district is subject to specific neighborhood standards defined in §153.063(E). These regulations are intended to establish natural and man-made open space patterns, build pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular networks, provide location requirements for building types; and foster a pedestrian -oriented, neighborhood scale mixed use shopping area. 4 § 153.058 DRAFT DATE BSD DISTRICTS November 13, 2017 SCOPE & INTENT 11 BSD Scioto River Neighborhood The standards of the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood are intended to create an active, walkable destination through integration of a vibrant mix of uses. Development in this district is oriented toward the Scioto River and the public spaces along the riverfront, and includes important vehicular and bicycle links to adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces. This district accommodates a wide variety of building types and permitted uses, as listed in Table 153.059- A. Development of the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood area establishes a walkable, mixed-use core as the center of the Bridge Street District. The district is subject to the specific neighborhood standards defined in §153.063(F), establishing open space patterns, location requirements for building types, and permitting pedestrian -oriented, mixed-use shopping areas. 12 BSD Vertical Mixed Use The intent of this district is to allow a wide variety of mid -rise, mixed use development, including vertical mixed use with ground floor retail, and large format retail with liner buildings, as listed in Table 153.059- A. It is intended to be available for areas initially zoned into the BSD Indian Run Neighborhood, BSD Scioto River Neighborhood and BSD Sawmill Center Neighborhood districts, once these areas are developed and the applicable neighborhood standards are no longer needed to establish the organization and hierarchy of places. The district may be applied to areas initially zoned to the BSD Commercial District or elsewhere in the Bridge Street District as may be deemed appropriate when future redevelopment to higher densities is desired. Accordingly, the district is not intended to be mapped at the time the BSD zoning districts are initially adopted. 13 BSD Public This district applies to a variety of public spaces and facilities, including but not limited to schools, parks, open spaces, and places that accommodate more intensive recreation, such as outdoor entertainment venues, as listed in Table 153.059-A. It also applies to lands in and adjacent to rivers and creeks on which development is limited due to inclusion in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated floodplain as regulated by this chapter, or lands that have special cultural or environmental sensitivity. BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.058 C, DEVELOPMENT CODE BSD DISTRICTS those modifications to the Existing Structure shall not be further modified in a manner that brings the Existing Structure out of compliance with those specific requirements. 2. For Existing Structures within the BSD Historic Core and Historic Residential Districts, the Architectural Review Board shall determine those building type requirements that will apply to specific buildings. 3. All new construction in the BSD Historic Core District shall meet the requirements of §153.062, §§153.170 through 153.180, and the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. 4. All new construction in the BSD Historic Residential District shall meet the requirements of §153.063(B), §§153.170 through 153.180 and the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines, in addition to the requirements of §153.062 as determined to be architecturally appropriate by the Architectural Review Board. (g) Refer to §153.059(A)(6) for requirements for Existing Uses. (3) General Requirements Every building, erected, altered or moved, shall be located on a lot as defined herein, or as otherwise permitted by this chapter. All building types shall meet the following requirements. (a) Zoning Districts Each building type shall be constructed only within its designated BSD zoning district. Table 153.062-A, Permitted Building Types in Each BSD Zoning District, outlines which building types are permitted in which BSD zoning districts. Refer to §153.058, BSD Districts Scope and Intent, for a description of each district. (b) Uses Each building type may house the uses allowed in the district in which it is located. Refer to Table 153.059-A. Additional use restrictions may apply based on the specific building type requirements TABLE 153.062-A. PERMITTED BUILDING TYPES IN EACH BSD ZONING DISTRICT BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 27 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES D Distri C00 d 7 m c m '�O 3 O O O O •Y d C: Y U {/� �L =" UL cc 7" cX C cc C d E u •O u •O u� =.O•yam I=t N u •O ,6 u u Ot NL 3° VL °° t d o = = =° °° = z O O u x x SZ -Z v z nZ > a x Single Family Detached • • � Single Family Attached • • • • • • Apartment Building • • • • • • • c y Loft Building • • • • • • • a F Corridor Building • • • • • • m Mixed Use Building • • • • • • • • °m Commercial Center • • • o0 S Large Format Commercial • • • • • >n n n� m Historic Mixed Use Building • • o c Historic Cottage Commercial Building • • 0 Civic Building • • • • • • • • • • v ao Parking Structure • • • • • • • • • • •� Podium Apartment Building • • • • m BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 27 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES particular care must be taken to render these elements less visible to public view through architectural integration or other means of screening as approved by the required reviewing body. These elements shall not be used to meet blank wall requirements. (b) Fagade Divisions 1. Architectural elements or forms shall be used to divide the surface of the fagade into pedestrian scaled vertical increments appropriate to the architectural character of the building type. Acceptable divisions include, but are not limited to: A. A recess or projection along the building fagade for a minimum of 18 inches in depth. B. Use of a distinctive architectural element protruding from or recessed into the fagade a minimum of three inches, including pilasters, entranceways, or storefronts. 2. Architectural elements, forms, or expression lines may be used to divide portions of the fagade into horizontal divisions appropriate to the architectural character of the building type. Elements may include a cornice, belt course, corbelling with table, moulding, stringcourses, pediment, or other continuous horizontal ornamentation with a minimum one -and -a -half inch depth. 3. Where changes in roof plane are required by the building type, they shall be used to divide the roof mass into increments no greater than the dimensions permitted for each building type and shall correspond to recesses and projections in building mass. Permitted changes include a change in roof type and/ or horizontal or vertical variations in the roof plane. 4. Unless otherwise determined to be architecturally appropriate by the required reviewing body, minimum increments shall be provided pursuant to the building type tables. (0)BUILDING TYPES The following defines the building types permitted in the BSD zoning districts. Refer to Table 153.062-e - the list of symbols used on _- building type tables to-iflustrateth� individual individual building type feqmrementa-�� building is represented on every building type TPS BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 37 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES TABLE 153.062-C. BUILDING TYPE TABLE LEGEND Symbo Building Type Requirement Symbol Building Type Requirement A Mu a Principal Buildings W Upper Story B Front Pro Line Coverage X Parking within Building C Occupation o ner Y Occupied Space D Front Required il!!59 Zone (RBZ) Z Ground Story Street Facade Transparency E Corner Side RBZ AA Upper Story Transparency F G Front Setback Corner Side SetbackO� BB CC Transparency (Street Facing Facades) Blank Wall Limitations (Street Facing Facades) H Side Yard Setback <� 7 Garage Openings I Rear Yard Setback `. E� Parking Lot Ground Story Transparency J Minimum Lot Width 1 3nsparency (Non -Street Facing Facades) K Maximum Lot Width GG nk Wall Limitations (Non -Street Facing Facades L Maximum Building Length or Depth HH Prin I Entrance Location M Minimum Lot Depth II Number o treet Facade Entrances N Parking Location JJ Number of Par'hW Lot Entrances O Loading Facility Location KK Mid -Building Pedestr way P Entry for Parking Within Building LL Facade Divisions Q Access MM Vertical Increments R Minimum Building Height NN Horizontal Facade Divisions S Maximum Building Height 00 Required Change in Roof Plane or Type T Accessory Structure Height PP Permitted Roof Types U Minimum Finished Floor Elevation QQ Tower V Ground Story BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 37 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES (10) Historic Cottage Commercial 1. STREET FRONTAGE Maximum 1story, Connections between Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted Minimum 15 -ft. setback F oitPrincipal Frontage 50% minimum 0 Property Line Coverage Transparency Minimum 25%20% Occupation of Corner Required 0 Non -Principal Frontage Street 60% 0 Property Line Coverage maximum from principal Front RBZ 0-25 ft. [see note 1] 0 Corner Side RBZ 6-15 0-25 ft. [see note 1] 0 RBZ Treatment Landscape, patio, or is �t streetscape Access Right -of -Way Encroachment Projecting signs, eaves, 5. FACADE MATERIALS awnings Overall Height: Minimum Height Maximum Height 2. BUILDABLE AREA 5. ROOF TYPES Ground Story Principal Frontage Floor Side Yard Setback 3 ft. 0 Rear Yard Building Setback 25 ft. 0 Rear Yard Parkine Setback 5 ft. All Other Stories Floor to Floor Heights: AAtntmvm-Lot Width 30 ft. maxi 11tJ 11 Lot Width None Building Footprint 1800 sq. ft. maximum 0 Building Length 70 ft. 50 ft. maximum m Building Spacing 18 ft. minimum m Permitted Enclosed Maximum 1story, Connections between Maximum 12 -ft. depth, Buildings Minimum 15 -ft. setback Add'tl Semi -Pervious from front facade Max. Building Coverage 50% total Occupied Space Required on principal frontage Max. Impervious Coverage 75%65% cade •FaRequirements Add'tl Semi -Pervious 1. STREET FACADE TRANSPARENCY Coverage 10% Transparency Minimum 25%20% 3. PARKING LOCATION, _EI "_` I R. NON STREET FAEABE TRANSPARENEY Rear erside, pevided the Ge ie a' T a isp&r&fxy f 1596 Location d from principal frontages by Principal Entrance Street facade of each building Location building of En t, anues eve 50 it Pa. chir Eut Facade, Not app' cable 4. FACADE DIVISIONS is �t Access Ie 5. FACADE MATERIALS Overall Height: Minimum Height Maximum Height 1stories 2stories, 24 ft. 5. ROOF TYPES Ground Story Principal Frontage Floor to Floor Heights: Minimum Height 8 ft. m Maximum Height 11 ft. All Other Stories Floor to Floor Heights: Minimum Height 7.5 ft. Maximum Height 11 ft. Maximum Height within 50 ft of the Rear Lot Line: 1.5 stories, 18 ft. 56 DRAFT Ground Story on Principal Frontage All uses except residential Street HpperAll Other Stories All permitted uses Parking within Building Not permitted Occupied Space Required on principal frontage cade •FaRequirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(K) for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. STREET FACADE TRANSPARENCY Transparency Minimum 25%20% Blank Wall Limitations Required on ground story of street facades R. NON STREET FAEABE TRANSPARENEY Ge ie a' T a isp&r&fxy f 1596 mai-Bla ilk al! {dot requ ed. H 11itatio is 3. BUILDING ENTRANCE Principal Entrance Street facade of each building Location of En t, anues eve 50 it Pa. chir Eut Facade, Not app' cable 4. FACADE DIVISIONS is �t mac N v:sio is of the -ground- Ste ry. Ie 5. FACADE MATERIALS Permitted Primary Stone, brick, wood siding Materials 5. ROOF TYPES Pitched roof, other types permitted with approval (refer Permitted Types to §153.062(C). Flat Roof elitialucenays alud_bra� Tower Not Permitted Note 1: When anyfront or corner property line is within five feet or less of the back of curb, the RBZ shall begin five feet off the back of curb to allow for adequate sidewalk width. § 153.062 (0) (10) BUILDING TYPES - HISTORIC COTTAGE COMMERCIAL DRAFT DATE November 13, 2017 DRAFT PLAN illustrating (a) Building Siting 0 Non -Principal Frontage Street 0 01 NOTE: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. 10, 0 0 SECTION illustrating (b) Height and (c) Uses attic under pitched roof attic under pitched mot dpoin midpoint A i -fP pitch of Pitch - (D m m m m I( ® m ELEVATION illustrating (d) Facade Requirements C ® m ® typical 0o HE FM o 000 000 Uf,.. FIGURE 153.062-W: HISTORIC COTTAGE COMMERCIAL BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 (0) (10) 57 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING P s - HISTORIC COTTAGE COMMERCIAL E m ® m ® typical 0o HE FM o 000 000 Uf,.. FIGURE 153.062-W: HISTORIC COTTAGE COMMERCIAL BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM. BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 (0) (10) 57 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING P s - HISTORIC COTTAGE COMMERCIAL § 153.059 USES and compliance with any use specific standards referenced in the Use Table and the applicable (A) INTENT provisions of Chapter 153. (1) The intent of §153.059 is to establish uses for land and (d) An "S" in a cell indicates a use that is allowed in buildings desired in each BSD zoning district based on that BSD zoning district only if limited in size, the vision for each area described in the Dublin subject to compliance with any use specific Community Plan (Bridge Street District Area Plan) and standards referenced in the Use Table and the the Bridge Street District's five Vision Principles. This applicable provisions of Chapter 153. is achieved through the variety of permitted, (e) A "T" in a cell indicates a use that is allowed in conditional, accessory and temporary uses allowed in that BSD zoning district for a limited period of each zoning district. In some cases, special siting and time pursuant to a permit from the City, subject size limitations to establish the development character to compliance with any use specific standards articulated in the Dublin Community Plan apply. referenced in the Use Table and the applicable (2) This section ensures vibrant, mixed-use, pedestrian- provisions of Chapter 153. oriented development by emphasizing certain uses in each zoning district and positioning the Neighborhood (f) A blank cell indicates that the use is prohibited in Districts to thrive as critical activity nodes by that district. concentrating commercial activity in these special (3) Use Specific Standards character areas. Refer to § 153.063, Neighborhood (a) Additional standards may apply to either Standards, for the neighborhood district requirements. permitted or conditional uses in a BSD zoning (3) The titles of each zoning district describe the district. These additional standards are cross- predominant land use character and/or special referenced in the last column of Table 153.059-A geographic locations rather than a single type of use. as use specific standards and detailed in Zoning district titles shall not be construed as requiring §153.059(0). a particular use and shall not preclude other uses from (b) In some cases, additional restrictions on uses being established in each district, as permitted in this apply to specific building types in §153.062(0) section. Refer to §153.058, BSD Districts Scope and and to the Bridge Street District neighborhood Intent, for the intent of each zoning district. districts in §153.063. (4) Similar Use Determination (B) GENERAL PROVISIONS (a) When a proposed land use is not explicitly listed (1) Permitted and conditional uses available in each BSD in Table 153.059-A, the Director shall determine zoning district are shown in Table 153.059-A. whether it is reasonably included in the definition Permitted and conditional uses may be restricted by of a listed use, or that the proposed use meets the location, size, period of operation, or other use-specific following criteria to the extent that it should be standards as designated in Table 153.059-A. treated as a permitted or conditional use in the (2) Table 153-059-A - Explanation of Terms district. (a) Listed uses are defined in §153.002(A). 1. The use is not specifically listed in any other (b) A "P" in a cell indicates a use that is permitted by BSD zoning district. right in that BSD zoning district, subject 2. The use is generally consistent with the intent to compliance with any use specific standards of the BSD zoning district and this chapter. referenced in the Use Table and the applicable 3. The use will not materially impair the present provisions of Chapter 153. or potential use of other properties within the ( usesame district or bordering districts. fight in that BSE) zoning diatfict on any upper 4. The use has no greater potential impact on floor .f the structure, subject to compliance with surrounding properties than those listed in any use specific «..lrd referenced in the r the district in terms of aesthetics, traffic Table and the applicable provisions of Chapter generated, noise, potential nuisances and 153. Unless otherwise restricted by specific other impacts related to health, safety and building type requirements of 153.062(0), welfare. permitted or conditional uses not specified as "U' 5. The use will not adversely affect the relevant may occur on any floot, including basements ot elements of the Community Plan, including 1mvet lev cis, subject to applicable use specific the Bridge Street District Area Plan. (b) The Director's written determination shall be (c) A "C" in a cell indicates a use that is allowed provided to the applicant and may be appealed to in that BSD zoning district only upon approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals. a conditional use as described in §153.236 6 § 153.059 DRAFT DATE USES November 13, 2017 Table 153.059-A: Permitted and Conditional Uses in BSD Districts KEY: P= Permitted = C=Conditional S=Size Limited T=Time Limited Permit o PRINCIPAL USES RESIDENTIAL Dwelling, Single-family P BSD DISTRICTS SPECIFIC STDS. SEE X153.059 (C) (1)(a) L�OE�H u 0 W teHH 00 O Z u uZ u- 0 0 p 0 Z H O W 2 0 2 a' 2 F P P z �o Q0 00QUO wo ZZ0 " Jo gmooQJ Qwo V1z0 �o 0170 Uwo V17I w JN X w— >X m d Dwelling, Two-family P Dwelling, Townhouse P P P P P P (1)(b) Dwelling, Live -work C P P P P P P P P P (1)(c) Dwelling, MultiplefamilyP CIVIC/PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL P P UP Up UP P P P P P (1)(d) Cemetery P Community Center C C P P P P P (2)(a) Community Garden P P P P P P P P P P P P P (2)(b) Day Care, Adult or Child C P P P P P P P P P P (2)(c) District Energy Plant C C C C C C C C C C C (2)(d) Education Facility C P P P P P P P P P P P Elementary or Middle School P P P P P P P P P P P P Government Services, Safety C C C C C C C C C P High School P P P P P P P P P P P P Hospital C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S (2)(e) Library, Museum, Gallery P P P P P P P P P P P P (2)(f) Municipal Parking Lot P P P P P P P P P P Religious or Public Assembly C/S C/S C/S cis cis cis C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S (2)(g) Park or Open Space P P P P P P P P P P P P P Transportation, Park & Ride C C C C C C C Transportation, Transit Station COMMERCIAL Animal Care, General Services, C Veterinary Offices, and Veterinary Urgent Care and Animal Hospitals C C P C P P P P P P P P C PP C C (3)(a) Bank C P P P P P P P P P Bed and Breakfast P P (3)(b) Conference Center C C C C C C Eating and Drinking C/S P/S /C P/S /C P P PIS /C P P P P P (3)(c) Entertainment / Recreation, C/S Indoor P/S /C P/S /C P/S /C PIS /C P P P P C (3)(d) Exercise and Fitness C/S C P P C PIS PIS /C C P P P P (3)(e) /C Fueling / Service Station C (3)(f) Hotel P P P P P P P P P Office, General C P P P P P P P P P U BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.059 (� DEVELOPMENT CODE USES Table 153.059-A: Permitted and Conditional Uses in BSD Districts KEY: P= Permitted = C=Conditional S=Size Limited T=Time Limited Permit BSD DISTRICTS SPECIFIC SIDS. SEE §153.059 (C) o w U0 �w 0� U O o U u OW tea' O SU u O� 7 O 2m u Z 0 00 W 2W= Z u OZ 0 qa 2F Z �o Qmo 0170 7,0 zZz " Lis,w Jo gmo X170 Qw0 vZ= �O omo 0170 7,7,0 vZ= JN ¢Q �X w— >� J m d Office, Medical C P P P P P P P P P P Parking Structure P/C P/C P/C C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C (3)(g) Parking Lot Surface C P C C P P C C (3)(h) Personal, Repair, & Rental Services C/S P/S /C P/S /C P/S /C P/S /C P/S /C P/S /C P P P P (3)(i) Research & Development P P P P P P P P P U Retail, General C/S P/S /C P/S /C P P/S /C P/S /C P/S /C P P P P (3)0) Sexually -oriented Businesses C (3)(k) Skilled Nursing, Rehabilitation, Home for the Aging, and Nursing Homes C C C C Vehicle, Sales Rental, and Repair C C (3)(p Wireless Communications Refer to Chapter 99 of Dublin Code of Ordinances ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses are permitted only in connection with a permitted or approved conditional use on the same property, and must be clearly subordinate and incidental to that use. No accessory use may be operated when a permitted or approved conditional use does not exist on the property. ATM, WalkHpP P P P P P P P P P P Bicycle Facilities P P P P P P P P P P P P P Community Activity or Special Event T T T T T T T T T T T T T (4)(a) Construction Trailer/Office T T T T T T T T T T T T (4)(b) Day Care, Adult or Child P P P P P P P P P P P P P (2)(c) Drive-in/Drive-through C C C C C C C (4)(c) Dwelling, Accessory P P P P P P P P P P P (4)(d) Dwelling, Administration, Rental, or Sales Office P P P P P P P P P P P (4)(e) Eating & Drinking C P P P P P/S /C P P P P P P Essential Utility Services P P P P P P P P P P P P P Exercise and Fitness P P P P P P P P P P P P Farmers Market C P P P P P P P P P P Helipad/Heliports C C C C C C Home Occupation P P P P P P P P P P P (4)(f) Outdoor Dining and Seating P/C P/C I P/C I P/C I P/C P/C I P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C (4)(fg Outdoor Display or Seasonal Sales T T T T T T T T T T T T (4)(h) Parking, Structure P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C (3)(f) Parking, Surface P P P P P P P P P P P P (4)(i) Renewable Energy Equipment P P P P P P P P P P P P P (4)(j) Renewable Energy Equipment, Wind C C C C C C C C C (4)(k) 10 § 153.059 DRAFT DATE USES November 13, 2017 Table 153.059-A: Permitted and Conditional Uses in BSD Districts KEY: P= Permitted — C=Conditional S=Size Limited T=Time Limited Permit BSD DISTRICTS USE SPECIFIC STDS. J J ¢ ¢ Z z w w u u u Z u �o Jo �o JN o Vo V OW 0� 00 OZ Qm0 >mo omo ¢Q J SEE w �w tea' o O 7 H0 0 W qa 0170 wo QUO Qwo 0170 Cwo �X w— m §153.059 0� O V SU 2 N 2 a' 2 F zzz v�zz v�zz >> d (C) Residential Model Home T T T T T T T T T T (4)(1) Retail or Personal Services C P P P P P P P P P P Swimming Pool P P P P P P P P Transportation, Transit Stop P P P P P P P P P P P Vehicle Charging Station P P P P P P P P P P P Wireless Communications Refer to Chapter 99 of Dublin Code of Ordinances (C) USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS Certain uses listed in this section may be permitted or conditional only with additional use specific standards. Additional use specific standards may apply to uses within specific building types and neighborhood districts, refer to §153.062(0) for use and occupancy requirements based on building type and §153.063 for use requirements for neigh- borhood districts. (1) Residential Uses (a) Dwelling, Single -Family 1. Applications for development shall not contain more than 35 detached single-family dwelling units. 2. Development applications containing detached single-family dwelling units shall not be accepted if any of the property lines of the proposed units would be located within 400 feet of any single-family detached dwelling constructed or approved within the BSD Residential district after the effective date of this amendment. 3. No single-family detached dwelling unit may be constructed within 500 feet of the I-270 right-of-way as measured from the nearest property line. 4. Single-family detached dwellings shall have no more than one principal building and its permitted accessory structures located on each lot. 5. Single-family dwellings in the BSD Historic Residential District shall meet the requirements of §I53.063(B) and shall not be required to meet the standards of §153.062(0) (1). (b) Dwelling, Townhouse 1. If single-family attached residential units are located across the street from existing single- family detached dwellings, no more than eight attached units may be permitted in a building. 2. Ground floor residential uses are not permitted on Bridge Street in the BSD Historic Transition Neighborhood District. (c) Dwelling, Live -Work 1. No more than two non-resident employees are permitted in addition to the residents) of the dwelling. 2. The non-residential use must be operated by a resident of the live -work dwelling unit. 3. Signs are permitted in accordance with §153.065(H). (d) Multiple -Family Multiple -family uses are not permitted on ground floor elevations fronting Principal Frontage Streets in the BSD Office Residential and Office districts. (2) Civic/Public/Institutional Uses (a) Community Center Incidental sales of such products as refreshments, athletic supplies for activities conducted on the premises, and similar products are permitted. (b) Community Garden 1. Incidental sales of items grown on the premises are permitted. Areas used for sales shall be located at least 10 feet from the edge of the pavement of any street. Parking shall be located off-street or in permitted on -street locations. One, 24 -square -foot sign shall be permitted, located at least 10 feet from the edge of the street and not within the public street right-of-way. 2. Refuse and compost bins must be constructed to be rodent -resistant and located as far as practicable from abutting residential uses. Refuse must be removed from the site at least once a week. 3. No outdoor work activity that involves power equipment or generators may occur after 9:00 pm or prior to 7:00 am. BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.059 11 DEVELOPMENT CODE USES 4. One accessory building, not exceeding 100 square feet in gross floor area, may be permitted, provided the location meets all setback requirements applicable to accessory buildings as provided in §153.074. (c) Day Care, Adult or Child 1. The use shall at all times comply with the requirements of O.R.C. §5104. 2. Outdoor recreation areas shall be located to the side or rear of the principal structure 3. and be enclosed with a permitted fence. The outdoor recreation area shall be screened using fencing and/or landscaping to provide a minimum 50% opaque screen. 4. All outdoor play equipment and shade structures visible from the right-of-way or adjacent properties shall use subdued, earth toned colors. 5. Adult and/or child day care uses are prohibited in civic building types as the sole principal use. (d) District Energy Plant Incidental sales of electrical energy to public utilities are permitted. (e) Hospital Hospitals shall be limited to no more than 75,000 square feet of gross floor area per structure, not including associated parking structures. (f) Library, Museum, Gallery Incidental sales of refreshments and items related to exhibits or activities at the facility are permitted. (g) Religious or Public Assembly Religious or public assembly structures shall be limited to no more than 100,000 square feet of gross floor area, not including associated parking structures. (3) Commercial (a) Animal Care, General Services, Veterinary Offices, and Veterinary Urgent Care and Animal Hospitals All activities shall be conducted indoors. No outdoor animal exercise or activity areas shall be permitted. (b) Bed and Breakfast 1. The property owner shall reside on the property and/or manage the facility. No more than eight guest units are permitted. 2. Guest accommodations are limited to short- term stays of no more than 14 days. (c) Eating and Drinking 1. Eating and drinking facilities shall be limited to no more than 3,500 square feet of gross floor area for single tenant buildings in the BSD Office, BSD Office Residential, and BSD Residential districts, unless otherwise permitted as a conditional use. 2. Eating and drinking facilities in multi - tenant buildings in the BSD Office, BSD Office Residential, and BSD Residential districts shall be limited to no more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area, or 20% of the gross floor area of the ground floor of the principal structure, whichever is smaller, unless otherwise permitted as a conditional use. 4. Deliveries and refuse (such as but not limited to grease traps, recycling, and trash) pick-up in the Historic South shall be limited to between the hours of 8 00a local time and 5:00pm local time. (d) Entertainment or Recreation, Indoor 1. Indoor entertainment or recreation uses shall be limited to no more than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area in the BSD Office, BSD Office Residential, BSD Residential, BSD Commercial, and BSD Vertical Mixed Use districts, unless otherwise permitted as a conditional use. 2. In the BSD Public district, the use must be owned and operated by either a public or non- profit organization. (e) Exercise and Fitness 1. To avoid large, single tenant uses that detract from the urban, walkable intent of the Bridge Street District, exercise and fitness uses shall be limited to no more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area in the BSD Residential, BSE) Histefie-SetHht and BSD Historic Transition Neighborhood districts. Exercise and fitness facilities exceeding 10,000 square feet in this district may be permitted as conditional uses. 2. To avoid large-scale uses that detract from the intended scale of the Historic South district, exercise and fitness uses shall be limited to no more than 3,600 square feet of gross floor area. 1 § 153.057 DRAFT DATE: USES NOVEMBER 13, 2017 (t) Fueling/Service Station 1. Fuel pumps shall be located on the same lot as a permitted building type. 2. Fuel pumps are not permitted between the principal structure and an adjacent principal frontage street 3. Where pumps are facing any street type except for an alley or service street, a street wall at least three feet high shall be placed between the pumps and associated vehicular circulation area and the street. Refer to 4. §1 53.065(E)(2) for street wall requirements. 5. Each fueling/service station shall be buffered from adjacent properties as required in 6. §153.065(D)(4) and meet the applicable requirements of § I 53.065(D)(5). 7. Motor vehicles may be continuously stored outdoors on the property for no more than 24 hours. 8. Refer to § I53.062(L) for vehicular canopy requirements. (g) Parking, Structure 1. Parking structures completely lined by space available for occupancy along a public or private street frontage, and parking structures located on the interior of blocks with other building types located between the parking structure and the street, are permitted. All other parking structures, including podium parking structures with non -occupied space along public and private street frontages, are conditional uses. 2. When constructed as a principal use, either as a public or a private parking structure, no more than 75% of the parking spaces shall be used to provide the required accessory 3. parking for other principal uses located within 600 feet of the structure, unless otherwise approved with a parking plan in accordance with §1 53.065(B)(1)(f). 4. Where applicable, the building type requirements of §153.062(0)(12) — (13) shall also apply. (h) Parking, Surface Lot 1. All surface parking lots shall meet the surface parking lot design requirements of 2. §153.065(B)(6). 3. When constructed as a principal use, surface parking lots shall not have frontage on or have direct access from a principal frontage street unless permitted by the City Engineer. (i) Personal, Repair, and Rental Services 1. Personal, repair, and rental service establishments shall be limited to no more than 10,000 square feet for single tenant buildings in the BSD Office, BSD Office Residential, and BSD Residential districts, unless otherwise permitted as a conditional use. 2. Personal, repair, and rental services in multi- tenant buildings in the BSD Office, BSD Office Residential, and BSD Residential districts shall be limited to no more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, or 20% of the gross floor area of the ground floor of the principal structure, whichever is smaller, unless otherwise permitted as a conditional use. 3. Personal, repair, and rental service uses shall be limited to no more than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area in all other BSD zoning districts except the BSD Indian Run Neighborhood, BSD Sawmill Center Neighborhood and BSD Scioto River Neighborhood, unless otherwise permitted as a conditional use. 0) Retail, General To avoid large, single tenant uses that detract from the urban, walkable intent of the Bridge Street District, general retail uses in the BSD Residential, Office Residential, Office, Commercial, Historic Core and Public districts shall be limited to no more than 20,000 square feet of gross floor area, unless otherwise permitted as a conditional use. (k) Sexually Oriented Business Establishments 1. Sexually Oriented Business Establishments shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 120 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances. 2. No person shall operate, locate, or permit the location of a sexually oriented business establishment within 750 feet (as measured from property line to property line) of any residential use or district, school, preschool, adult or child care, religious or public assembly, or any other civic/public/ institutional use (within the City of Dublin or other municipality), or another sexually oriented business establishment. (1) Vehicle Sales, Rental, and Repair There shall be not more than one full access driveway for each 100 feet of lot frontage or portion thereof. BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.059 1 J DEVELOPMENT CODE USES 1J 2. Vehicular use areas are not permitted between the principal structure and a principal frontage street. Where vehicular use areas are located between a principal structure and any other street type, a street wall shall be installed along that portion of the lot line between the vehicular use areas and the street. Refer to § 153.065(E)(2) for street wall requirements. (4) Accessory and Temporary Uses (a) Community Activity and Special Event 1. The site of the activity or event shall be adequately served by utilities and sanitary facilities. 2. The activity or event shall not become a safety hazard or public disturbance and shall not cause substantial adverse impacts on surrounding properties or land uses by creating excessive noise, glare, heat, dust, odors, or pollutants as determined by the Director and Fire Marshal. 3. A permit shall be obtained for the Community Activity or Special Event from the City of Dublin Events Administration. (b) Construction Trailer/Office Construction trailers and/or offices shall comply with the setbacks applicable to principal structures on the property, but are not required to comply with street frontage requirements for building types. Construction trailers and/or offices shall comply with the provisions of §153.097. (c) Drive-in/Drive-through 1. Drive-in/drive-throughs are permitted only as accessories to banks in the BSD Vertical Mixed Use and BSD Historic Transition Neighborhood districts following approval of a Conditional Use application by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 2. Drive-in/drive-through vehicular stacking areas and associated service locations shall not be on the side of a building facing a principal frontage street. Where drive-in/ drive-through access lanes are facing a non - principal frontage street, a street wall at least three feet high shall be placed between the access lanes and the street. Refer to §153.065(E)(2) for street wall requirements. 3. No menu boards, speakers, or service windows shall be located between any fagade of the principal structure and a front or corner side property line. 4. Drive-in/drive-through vehicle stacking spaces shall be at least 20 feet long. Stacking spaces may not impede on-site or off-site vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian circulation. Where five or more stacking spaces are provided, the individual stacking Imes shall be clearly delineated. The number of stacking spaces and a traffic and pedestrian circulation plan shall be submitted by the applicant with the conditional use application and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. Uses with drive-in/drive-through facilities shall be buffered from adjacent properties as required in §153.065(D)(5). 6. Audible electronic devices such as loudspeakers, service order devices, and similar instruments shall not be located within 25 feet of the lot line of any residential district or use and shall be subject to 7. §132.03(A)(6). 8. Refer to §153.062(L) for vehicular canopy location and design requirements. 9. Structures related to drive-in/drive-throughs shall not have frontage on, or be readily visible from, any shopping corridor. 10. Protective bollards, when used, shall be painted to match one of the colors used on the nearest structure with which the bollards are associated. (d) Dwelling, Accessory An accessory dwelling located in a single-family, two-family, or townhouse dwelling must comply with the following standards: 1. No more than one accessory dwelling unit is permitted on a lot with a single-family, two-family, or townhouse dwelling. Where townhouse dwellings do not have individual lots, no more than one accessory dwelling unit is permitted for each townhouse unit in the development 2. An accessory dwelling unit shall be limited to no more than 800 square feet of gross floor area. 3. When accessory to a single-family dwelling, the accessory dwelling unit may be located either within the single-family dwelling structure or in a permitted accessory structure. 4. When accessory to a townhouse dwelling, the accessory dwelling unit may only be located in a permitted accessory structure or within the basement level of the principal dwelling. 5. When accessory to a single-family dwelling 1 A § 153.057 DRAFT DATE: `7 USES NOVEMBER 13, 2017 or two-family dwelling, the accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate entrance from the principal dwelling unit, and that entrance shall not face the front lot line and shall not be located on the same building fagade as the principal building entrance closest to the street. 6. The owner of the dwelling must occupy either the principal dwelling unit or the permitted accessory dwelling unit. 7. Ownership of the accessory dwelling unit may not be separate from the ownership of the principal dwelling unit. (e) Dwelling Administration, Rental, or Sales Office These uses shall comply with the provisions of §I53.073(D) and setbacks applicable to principal structures on the property, but are not required to comply with street frontage requirements for building types unless the use is conducted within a permanent principal structure. (t) Home Occupations All home occupations in the BSD Historic Residential district shall comply with the provisions of §153.073. In all other BSD zoning districts, home occupations shall comply with the following standards. 1. The use must be conducted entirely within the principal dwelling or accessory buildings. 2. No business involving retail sales of goods on the premises is permitted. 3. No person not a member of the household residing on the premises shall work on the premises. 4. Not more than 25% of the ground floor gross floor area of the principal dwelling shall be devoted to the home occupation. 5. The exterior of the structure shall not be modified to accommodate the home occupation. 6. No display or signs pertaining to the home occupation shall be visible from the street. 7. No equipment shall be used that creates noise, vibration, sound, smoke, dust, odors, heat, glare, X -Ray or electrical disturbance to radio or television that is discernible m adjacent dwelling units or at the property line. 8. All home occupations that require a license from the state or City shall maintain a valid license at all times and shall operate in compliance with the terms of that license and all applicable regulations of the state or City at all times. 9. Home occupations shall not include or involve motor vehicle or equipment repair, the sale of weapons or hazardous materials, or other activities that would constitute a nuisance in a residential area. (g) Outdoor Dining and Seating 1. Outdoor dining and seating areas, furniture, and enclosures shall be set back at least five feet from the curb and at least five feet from all street trees and street furniture. In no case shall these amenities be placed in a manner that would provide less than six feet of clear area for pedestrian use. 2. The use of outdoor speakers shall require a conditional use. Outdoor speakers shall comply with the provisions of § 132.03(A)(6) of the Dublin City Code. 3. Advertising is not permitted on dining furniture, accessories, or other similar amenities. 4. Dining furniture shall be of the same design, material and color for all furniture associated with the use. When not in regular use, outdoor furniture shall be stored in a location that is not visible to the public, unless the patio furniture is all- weather material, set up for use and not covered in any way, and weather conditions make the use of furniture possible. (h) Outdoor Display or Seasonal Sales 1. Outdoor seasonal plant display shall comply with the provisions of § 153.099. 2. Outdoor sale of merchandise is permitted, and shall comply with the provisions of 3. §153.099(C)(2). Merchandise shall only be displayed during the hours of operation for the principal use. No permit is required. 4. Outdoor sales of Christmas trees and pumpkins shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 116 of the Dublin City Code. (i) Parking, Surface (Accessory) 1. Where the non-residential gross floor area of the principal structure is 100,000 square feet or more and the principal structure is on a lot that is four acres or less, surface parking shall not be used to provide required parking. 2. However, surface parking may be used for a maximum of 5% of the required spaces provided the parking lot is located to the side or rear of the principal structure and not fronting on a public street. BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.059 1 C DEVELOPMENT CODE USES 1 J 3. This requirement applies only to principal structures constructed after the effective date of this amendment 0) Renewable Energy Equipment 1. In the BSD Historic Core and BSD Historic Residential districts, only equipment for the collection of solar and geothermal energy is permitted. 2. Ground -mounted equipment for the collection of geothermal energy is permitted only to the rear of and within five feet of the principal structure. 3. Ground -mounted equipment for the collection of solar energy is permitted to the side or rear of the principal structure, but not within five feet of a side or rear property line. Rooftop equipment for the collection of solar energy is permitted provided it extends no more than 18 inches beyond the maximum permitted height of the principal structure. 4. Building -mounted renewable energy equipment shall be integrated into the architectural character of the principal structure. Ground -mounted renewable energy equipment shall be sited to minimize view from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties, and shall be camouflaged to the extent that the equipment can function normally. (k) Renewable Energy Equipment, Wind I . Ground -mounted equipment for the collection of wind energy is permitted to the rear of the principal structure, may not exceed the maximum permitted height of the principal structure by more than 40 feet, and must be set back from each property line a distance equal to the height of the equipment that exceeds the height of the principal structure. 2. As an exception, within 200 feet of the I- 270 right-of-way, ground -mounted wind energy equipment shall be limited to 150 feet and must be set back from each property line a distance equal to the height of the equipment. 3. Height of the equipment is measured to the farthest extent of any part of the equipment 4. Building -mounted equipment for the collection of wind energy must be integrated into the architectural character of the principal structure. 5. Rooftop -mounted equipment for the collection of wind energy shall be permitted to exceed the maximum permitted height of the principal structure by no more than 15 feet. (1) Residential Model Home Residential model homes shall comply with the provisions of §153.073(D). 1 G § 153.057 DRAFT DATE: V USES NOVEMBER 13, 2017 § 153.058 BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT (BSD) DISTRICTS SCOPE AND INTENT (A) Scope The following Bridge Street District (BSD) districts are hereby created. The districts described by §153.058 are intended to be used for all land within the Bridge Street District. Unless otherwise specifically noted, after the effective date of this amendment all development and redevelopment within the BSD zoning districts shall be consistent with §153.057, General Purpose and subject to the regulations of §§153.058 through 153.066. Other provisions of Chapters 152 and 153 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances apply in the BSD zoning districts. Where there are conflicts, the provisions of §§153.058 through 153.066 shall prevail. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit an application for rezoning to any non -BSD zoning district provided in this Chapter. (B) Intent The Bridge Street District zoning districts are generally based on the District Framework of the Bridge Street District Area Plan. The purpose of the Framework is to allow development regulations to be adapted to the unique conditions present in each area. Although each district is unique, the five Vision Principles are intended to create a cohesive area, based on the concepts of walkability and urban vitality to support the quality of life for residents of all generations. The titles of each district are intended to describe the predominant land use character and/or special geographic locations rather than a single type of use. The following further describes the intent of each BSD zoning district. (1) BSD Residential The intent of this district is to accommodate single- family, two-family, townhouse, live -work and multiple -family uses in mid -rise development. The BSD Residential district integrates existing and new residential developments to create true neighborhoods and add to the population base needed to help support nearby retail and office development. Uses are generally limited to residential and small-scale residential support uses, as listed in Table 153.059-A. (2) BSD Office Residential The intent of this district is to accommodate a mix of office and multiple -family residential development at higher densities and in larger buildings. This district offers great flexibility to take advantage of visibility and access for office uses, with opportunities to create residential neighborhoods to support the adjacent BSD zoning districts. Uses include a mix of residential, personal service, and commercial uses, as listed in Table 153.059-A. (3) BSD Office The intent of this district is to allow a mix of offices and retail support uses, as listed in Table 153.059-A. The BSD Office district provides significant additional development capacity and redevelopment opportunities that foster office uses with a walkable design along signature streets, and provides increased accessibility and an improved roadway network to ease traffic pressure along major roadways. (4) BSD Commercial This district applies generally to existing retail centers and other low-rise commercial uses, including single use freestanding retail buildings, as listed in Table 153.059-A. Properties initially zoned into this district may be eligible for rezoning to the BSD Vertical Mixed Use District or to other surrounding BSD zoning districts when future redevelopment to higher densities is desired. (5) BSD Historic Core This district applies to the historic center of Dublin and reinforces the character of this area as the BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT §153.058 3 DEVELOPMENT CODE BSD DISTRICTS SCOPE & INTENT centerpiece of the Bridge Street District_ The district focuses on ensuring sensitive infill development and redevelopment and providing an improved environment for walking while accommodating vehicles. The district accepts building types that are consistent with the historic development pattern of Historic Dublin, subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, and permit similar uses that support a highly walkable setting, as listed in Table 153.059-A. (6) BSD Historic Residential The intent of this district is to permit the preservation and development of homes on existing or new lots that are comparable in size, mass, and scale, while maintaining and promoting the traditional residential character of the Historic Dublin area. The propose of these regulations is to protect the scale and character of the original platted village by maintaining regulations consistent with the previous Historic Residential zoning in place prior to the adoption of this amendment, as listed in fable 153.059-A. (7) BSD Sawmill Center Neighborhood 'T'his district applies to the majority of the commercial areas at the east end of the District The standards of the BSD Sawmill Center neighborhood create an active, walkable destination through integration of a strong mix of uses. Development within this district relies on the provision of physical and visual connections through improved access and enhanced visibility from Sawmill Road, and links to adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces. 'Phis district accommodates a wide variety of building types and permitted uses, as listed in Table 153.059- A Redevelopment of the BSD Sawmill ('enter area creates a walkable, mixed use core as the east anchor of the District. 'the district is subject to the specific neighborhood standards defined in §153.063(C), establishing open space patterns, location requirements for building types, and permitting pedestrian -oriented, mixeduse shopping areas. (8) BSD Historic TrarnsitiornNeighborhood This district complements the BSD Historic Core district by accommodating a variety of building types within a finer grained street and block network and uses consistent with that district. It accommodates uses similar to those in the BSD Historic Core district as listed in Table 153.059-A. Development allows an extension of the walkable mixed use character of the BSD Historic Core district on the larger parcels within this district. The district is subject to the specific neighborhood standards defined in § 153.063(D). These requirements establish open space patterns and location requirements for building types, provide additional residential opportunities, and extend the small scale commercial activities of the BSD Historic Core district. (9) BSD Indian Run Neighborhood This district applies to the larger parcels north and west of the Indian Run and south of I-270, including adjacent properties fronting the north side of Bridge Street The BSD Indian Run Neighhorhood district is intended to develop as a new walkable, mixed use district that takes advantage of excellent highway visibility, am improved road network, and proximity to Historic Dublin and the natural areas flanking the Indian Run. Development within the district relies on a comprehensive road network providing connections within the Indian Run district and to the rest of the District, as well as sensitivity of development at its edges given its proximity to Historic Dublin and the Indian Run. This district accommodates a wide variety of building types and permitted uses, as listed in Table 153.059-A. Redevelopment of the area creates a walkable, mixed use core as the west anchor of the District. The district is subject to specific neighborhood standards defined in §157.063(F,). 'T'hese regulations are intended to establish natural and man-made open space patterns; build pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular networks, provide location requirements for building types, and foster a pedestrian -oriented, neighborhood scale mixed use shopping area. N0)BSD Scioto River Neighborhood The standards of the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood are intended to create an active, walkable destination through integration of a vibrant mix of uses. Development in this district is oriented toward the Scioto River and the public spaces along the riverfront, and includes important vehicular and bicycle links to adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces. This district accommodates a wide variety of building types and permitted uses, as listed in Table 153.059-A. Development of the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood area establishes a walkable, mixed-use core as the center of the Bridge Street District The district is subject to the specific neighborhood standards defined in §153.063(1), establishing open space patterns, location requirements for building types, and permitting pedestrian -oriented, mixed-use shopping areas. (11) BSD Vertical Mixed Use The intent of this district is to allow a wide variety of mid -rise, mixed use development, including vertical mixed use with ground floor retail, and large format retail with liner buildings, as listed in Table 153.059- A. It is intended to be available for areas initially zoned into the BSD Indian Rim Neighborhood, BSD Scioto River Neighborhood and BSD Sawmill Center Neighborhood districts, once these areas are developed and the applicable neighborhood standards are no longer needed to establish the organization and hierarchy of places. The district may be applied to areas initially zoned to the BSD Commercial District 4§ 153.05$ EFFECTIVE DATE BSD DISTRICTS MARCH 29, 2017 SCOPE & INTENT or elsewhere in the Bridge Street District as may be deemed appropriate when nature redevelopment to higher densities is desired. Accordingly, the district is not intended to be mapped at the time the BSD zoning districts are initially adopted. (12) BSD Public This district applies to a variety of public spaces and facilities, including but not limited to schools, parks, open spaces, and places that accommodate more intensive recreation, such as outdoor entertainment venues, as listed in Table 153.059-A. It also applies to lands in and adjacent to rivers and creeks on which development is limited due to inclusion in a Federal Emergency Management -Agency (FEMA) designated floodplain as regulated by this chapter, or lands that have special cultural or environmental sensitivity. BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.058 DEVELOPMENT CGDE BSD DISTRICTS SCOPE & INTENT those modifications to the Existing Structure shall not be further modified in a manner that brings the Existing Structure out of compliance with those specific requirements. 2. For Existing Structures within the BSD Historic Core and Historic Residential Districts, the Architectural Review Board shall determine those building type requirements that will apply to specific buildings. 3. All new construction in the BSD Historic Core District shall meet the requirements of §153.062, §§153.170 through 153.180, and the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. 4. All new construction in the BSD Historic Residential District shall meet the requirements of §153.063(B), §§153.170 through 153.180 and the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines, in addition to the requirements of §153.062 as determined to be architecturally appropriate by the Architectural Review Board. (g) Refer to §153.059(A)(6) for requirements for Existing Uses. (3) General Requirements Every building, erected, altered or moved, shall be located on a lot as defined herein, or as otherwise permitted by this chapter. All building types shall meet the following requirements. (a) Zoning Districts Each building type shall be constructed only within its designated BSD zoning district. Table 153.062-A, Permitted Building Types in Each BSD Zoning District, outlines which building types are permitted in which BSD zoning districts. Refer to §153.058, BSD Districts Scope and Intent, for a description of each district. (b) Uses Each building type may house the uses allowed in the district in which it is located. Refer to Table 153.059-A. Additional use restrictions may apply based on the specific building type requirements TABLE 153.062-A. ING TYPES IN EACH BSD ZONING DIST Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Uf a Apartment Building Loft Building 0 Z Corridor Building w Mixed Use Building 7 m Commercial Center UJ Large Format Commercial Building H H Historic Mixed Use Building WHistoric Cottage Commercial 0. Civic Building Parking Structure Podium Apartment Building BSD DISTRICTS m e 7 0F C OO0OOd ° d Oi°C°r ° d° k d C 0: y ° v° 0:O —0 Q�0 ° 9 V V O OL r viE o " "v r'v my vv v " 0: O O V 2 SZ Az W oz > a 2 • J BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 27 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES UNEEnn UUMEnnn ■■■■oma ■■■■■oma BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 27 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES particular care must be taken to render these elements less visible to public view through architectural integration or other means of screening as approved by the required reviewing body. These elements shall not be used to meet blank wall requirements. (b) Facade Divisions 1. Architectural elements or forms shall be used to divide the surface of the facade into pedestrian scaled vertical increments appropriate to the architectural character of the building type. Acceptable divisions include, but are not limited to: A. A recess or projection along the building facade for a minimum of 18 inches in depth. B. Use of a distinctive architectural element protruding from or recessed into the facade a minimum of three inches, including pilasters, entranceways, or storefronts. 2. Architectural elements, forms, or expression lines may be used to divide portions of the facade into horizontal divisions appropriate to the architectural character of the building type. Elements may include a cornice, belt course, corbelling with table, moulding, stringcourses, pediment, or other continuous horizontal ornamentation with a minimum one -and -a -half inch depth. Where changes in roof plane are required by the building type, they shall be used to divide the roof mass into increments no greater than the dimensions permitted for each building type and shall correspond to recesses and projections in building mass. Permitted changes include a change in roof type and/ or horizontal or vertical variations in the roof plane. 4. Unless otherwise determined to be architecturally appropriate by the required reviewing body, minimum increments shall be provided pursuant to the building type tables. (0)BUILDING TYPES The following defines the building types permitted in the BSD zoning districts. Refer to Table 153.062-C for the list of symbols used on the building type tables to illustrate the individual building type requirements. Because some of the individual building type requirements do not apply to every building type, not every symbol is represented on every building type. BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 37 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES ABLE 153.062-C. BUILDING TYPE TABLE LEGEND Symbol Building Type Requirement Symbol Building Type Requirement A Multiple Principal Buildings W Upper Story B Front Property Line Coverage X Parking within Building C Occupation of Corner Y Occupied Space D Front Required Building Zone (RBZ) Z Ground Story Street Facade Transparency E Corner Side RBZ AA Upper Story Transparency F Front Setback BB Transparency (Street Facing Facades) G Corner Side Setback CC Blank Wall Limitations (Street Facing Facades) H Side Yard Setback DD Garage Openings I Rear Yard Setback EE Parking Lot Ground Story Transparency J Minimum Lot Width FF Transparency (Non -Street Facing Facades) K Maximum Lot Width GG Blank Wall Limitations (Non -Street Facing Facades L Maximum Building Length or Depth HH Principal Entrance Location M Minimum Lot Depth II Number of Street Facade Entrances N Parking Location JJ Number of Parking Lot Entrances O Loading Facility Location KK Mid -Building Pedestrianway P Entry for Parking Within Building LL Facade Divisions Q Access MM Vertical Increments R Minimum Building Height NN Horizontal Facade Divisions S Maximum Building Height 00 Required Change in Roof Plane or Type T Accessory Structure Height PP Permitted Roof Types U Minimum Finished Floor Elevation QQ Tower V Ground Story BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 37 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES (10) Historic Cottage Commercial (a) Building Siting 1. Street Frontage Transparency Multiple Principal Buildings Permitted Blank Wall Limitations Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 50% 3. Building Entrance Occupation of Corner Required O Front RBZ 0-25 ft 1 G Corner Side RBZ 0-15 ft1 Parking Lot Facades: Number of Entrances RBZ Treatment Landscape, Patio, or Streetscape 4. Fagade Divisions Right -of -Way Encroachment Projecting signs, eaves, awnings, patios, & canopies Vertical Increments 2. Buildable Area IWY Horizontal Facade Divisions Minimum Side Yard Setback 3 ft. CD Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. 5. Fagade Materials Minimum Lot Width Maximum Lot Width 30 ft. None O Maximum Building Length or Depth 70 ft. Maximum Impervious Coverage Additional Semi -Pervious Coverage 75% 10% 3. Parking Location & Loading Parking Location Rear or side, provided the minimum front property line coverage is met Loading Facility Location Not applicable Entry for Parking within Building Not applicable Access Refer to §153.062(N)(1)(c) 0 (b) Height Minimum Height 1 story Q Maximum Height 2 stories Ground Story: Minimum Height Maximum Height 8 ft. 11 ft. Upper Stories: Minimum Height Maximum Height 7.5 ft. 11 ft. (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Ground Story Residential uses prohibited Upper Story No additional requirements Parking within Not permitted Building Occupied Space Not applicable (d) FaSade Requirements Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N)for design requirements general to all buildings. 1. Street Fagade Transparency Transparency Minimum 25% Blank Wall Limitations Required on ground story only 2. Non -Street Fagade Transparency Transparency Minimum 15% Q Blank Wall Limitations Not required 3. Building Entrance Principal Entrance Location Principal frontage street facade of building Street Facades: Number of Entrances 1 per every 30 ft. for buildings over 50 ft. minimum Parking Lot Facades: Number of Entrances Not applicable 4. Fagade Divisions Vertical Increments No greater than 30 ft. IWY Horizontal Facade Divisions Not applicable Required Change in Roof Plane or Type At every vertical division 5. Fagade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Wood Siding 6. Roof Types Pitched roof; other types Permitted Types permitted with approval (refer to §153.062(D)) Tower Not permitted Note: 1 When any front or corner property line is within five feet or less of the back of curb, the RBZ shall begin five feet off the back of curb to allow for adequate sidewalk width. 56 § 153.062 (0) (10) EFFECTIVE DATE BUILDING TYPES - MARCH 29, 2017 HISTORIC COTTAGE COMMERCIAL Note: Graphic figures ere intended to illustrate one result of one or more of the general requirements and do not represent all requirements or actual development. FIGURE 153.062-W: HISTORIC COTTAGE COMMEP.CIP BUILDING TYPE DIAGPAM. Zone BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT C) 153.062 f01 (10) 57 DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING PS - HISTORIC COLLAGE COMMERCIX 1 3, 5Q USES and compliance with any use specific standards referenced in the Use Table and the applicable (A) INTENT provisions of Chapter 153. (1) The intent of §153.059 is to establish uses for land and te) An -S" in a cell indicates a use that is allowed buildings desired in each BSD zoning district based in that BSD zoning district only if limited in on the vision for each area described in the Dublin size, subject to compliance with any use specific Community Plan (Bridge Street District Area Plan) standards referenced in the Use Table and the and the Bridge Street Districts five Vision Principles. applicable provisions of Chapter 153. This is achieved through the variety of permitted, (f) A "T" in a cell indicates a use that is allowed in conditional, accessory and temporary uses allowed in that BSD zoning district for a limited period of each zoning district In same cases, special siting and time pursuant to a permit from the City, subject size limitations to establish the development character to compliance with any use specific standards articulated in the Dublin Community Plan apply referenced fn the Use Table and the applicable (2) This section ensures vibrant, mixed-use, pedestrian- provisions of Chapter 153. oriented development by emphasizing certain uses in (g) A blank cell indicates that the use is prohibited fn each zoning district and positioning the Neighborhood that district. Districts to thrive as critical activity nodes by concentrating commercial activity in these special (3) Use Specific Standards character areas. Refer to §153.063, Neighborhood (a) Additional standards may apply to either Standards, for the neighborhood district requirements. permitted or conditional uses in a SSD zoning (3) The titles of each zoning district describe the dishict 'These additional standards are cross - predominant Land use character and/or special referenced in the last column of 'Table 153.059-A geographic locations rather than a single type of use. as use specific standards and detailed in Zoning district titles shall not be construed as requiring §153.059(0). a particular use and shall not preclude other uses from (b) In some cases, additional restrictions on uses being established in each district, as permitted in this apply to specific building types in §153.062(0) section. Refer to §153.058, BSD Districts Scope and and to the Bridge Street District neighborhood Intent, for the intent of each zoning district districts in §153.063. (4) Similar Use Determination (1) Permitted and conditional uses available in each BSD zoning district are shown in Table 153.059-A. Permitted and conditional uses may be restricted by location, size, period of operation, or other use -specific standards as designated fit Table 153.059-A. (2) Table 153-059-A - Explanation of Terms (a) Listed uses are defined fn §153,002(A). b) A "P" in a cell indicates a use that is permitted by right in that BSD zoning district, subject to compliance with any use specific standards referenced fn the Use'lable and the applicable provisions of Chapter 153. (c} A "U" in a cell indicates a use that is allowed by right in that BSD zoning district on any upper floor of the structure, subject to compliance with any use specific standards referenced in the Use Table and the applicable provisions of Chapter 153. Unless otherwise restricted by specific building type requirements of 153.062(0), permitted or conditional uses not specified as "U" may occur on any floor, including basements or loner levels, subject to applicable use specific standards. (d) A 'C" in a cell indicates a use that is allowed in that BSD zoning district only upon approval of a conditional use as described in §153.236 (a) When a proposed land use is not explicitly listed fn Table 153.059-A, the Director shall determine whether it is reasonably included fn the definition of a listed use, or that the proposed use meets the following criteria to the extent that it should be treated as a permitted or conditional use in the district. 1. The use is not specifically listed in any other BSD zoning district 2. The use is generally consistent with the intent of the BSD zoning district and this chapter. 3. The use will not materially impair the present or potential use of other properties within the same district or bordeung districts. 4. The use has no greater potential impact on surrounding properties than those listed in the district in terms of aesthetics, traffic generated, noise, potential nuisances and other impacts related to health, safety and welfare. 5. The use will not adveisely affect the relevant elements of the Conrmunfty Plan, including the Bridge Street District Area Plan. (b) The Director's written determination shall be provided to the applicant and may be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. 6 § 153.059 EFFECTIVE DATE USES MARCH 29, 2017 TABLE 153.059-A: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN BSD ZONING DISTRICTS KEY BSD Zoning Districts Use Specific Standards See §C) 3.059 P Permitted U Permitted on Upper floor only C Conditional Use S Size Limited T Time Limited m ++ y M 'H d a J d ;2 w O u w O m i d E E O U U H _ H _ 0 ns M 0 �a s H IM d ZZ 0 =s �' O =a Ms � om C O "Z L C 0 �s U O -a C � om O dZ mZ ` 0 js 0 �a -C G om W mZ k m 2 t d y N >D a 3 a PRINCIPAL USES Residential Dwelling, Single -Family P P (1)(a) Dwelling, Two -Family P Dwelling, Townhouse P P P P P (1)(b) Dwelling, Live -Work Dwelling, C P P P P P P P P (1)(c) Dwelling, Multiple -Family P P P U U P P P P P (1)(d) Civic/Public/Institutional Cemetery P Community Center C C P P P P P (2)(a) Community Garden P P P P P P P P P P P P (2)(b) Day Care, Adult or Child C P P P P P P P P P (2)(c) District Energy Plant C C C C C C C C C C (2)(d) Educational Facility C P P P P P P P P P P Elementary or Middle School P P P P P P P P P P P Government Services, Safety C C C C C C C C C P High School P P P P P P P P P P Hospital C/ S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S (2)(e) Library, Museum, Gallery P P P P P P P P P P P (2)(f) Municipal Parking Lot P P P P P P P P P P Religious or Public Assembly C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S (2)(g) Parks and Open Space P P P P P P P P P P P P Transportation, Park & Ride C C C C C C C Transportation, Transit Station C C P P C C C Commercial sm Animal Care, General Services, Veterinary Offices, and Veterinary Urgent Care and Animal Hospitals C C P P P P P P P P (3)(a) Bank C P P P P P P P P P Bed and Breakfast P (3)(b) Conference Center C C C C C C Eating and Drinking C/S �C �C P P P P P P P (3)(c) Inter ainment / Recreation, C/S C /C /C C P P P P C (3)(d) Exercise and Fitness C/S C P P C /S C P P P P (3)(e) Fueling / Service Station C (3)(f) Hotel P P P P P P P P P Office, General C P P P P P P P P U BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.059 (� DEVELOPMENT CODE USES TABLE 153.059-A: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN BSD ZONING DISTRICTS KEY BSD Zoning Districts Use L P Permitted m 0 0 =s C 0 ` 0 k Specific U Permitted on m J �s �s js Standards upper floor only ++ d i M 0 �' O U O 0 See C Conditional Use y d E U �a =a -a � m §C) 3.059 S Size Limited .o u u s Ms C �.0 -C 2 � T Time Limited H E H H H :5P� PG Pt 'yd d a d w w O d CO M yN 3 a O O U _ _ =Z "Z LnZ LnZ >D a Office, Medical C P P P P P P P P P Parking, Structure P/C P/C P/C C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C (3)(g) Parking, Surface Lot C P C C P P C C (3)(h) all, Repair, & Rental C/S %C P P P P (3)(i) Serso C /C /C /C Research & Development P P P P P P P P U Retail, General C/S C /C P /C /C P P P P (3)(7) Sexually Oriented Business C (3)(k) Establishment Skilled Nursing, Rehabilitation, Home for the Aging, and C C C C Nursing Homes Vehicle Sales, Rental and Repair I C C (3)(1) Wireless Communications Refer to Chapter 99 of Dublin Code of Ordinances ACCESSORY AND TEMPORARY USES ATM, Walk -Up P P P P P P P P P P Bicycle Facilities P P P P P P P P P P P P Community Activity and Special T T T T T T T T T T T T (4)(a) Event Construction Trailer/Office T T T T T T T T T T T (4)(b) Day Care, Adult or Child P P P P P P P P P P P P (2)(c) Drive-in/Drive-through C C C C C C C (4)(c) Dwelling, Accessory P P P P P P P P P P (4)(d) Dwelling Administration, Rental, P P P P P P P P P P (4)(e) or Sales Office Eating & Drinking C P P P P P P P P P P Essential Utility Services P P P P P P P P P P P P Exercise and Fitness P P P P P P P P P P P Farmers Market C P P P P P P P P P Helipad/Heliports C C C C C C Home Occupation P P P P P P P P P P (4)(f) Outdoor Dining and Seating P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C (4)(g) Outdoor Display or Seasonal T T T T T T T T T T (4)(h) Sa les Parking, Structure P/C P/C P/C P/C C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C (3)(f) Parking, Surface Lot P P P P P P P P P P P (4)(i) Renewable Energy Equipment P P P P P P P P P P P P (4)(j) Renewable Energy Equipment, C C C C C C C C C (4)(k) Wind Residential Model Home T T T T T T T T T (4)(1) Retail or Personal Services C P P P P P P I P P P 10 § 153.059 EFFECTIVE DATE USES MARCH 29, 2017 TABLE 153.059-A: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN BSD ZONING DISTRICTS KEY BSD Zoning Districts Use L a0,� P Permitted m 0 �s 0 =s = 0 ` 0 k Specific U Permitted on m J �s j 4, One accessory building, not exceeding 100 square feet in gross floor area, may be permitted, provided the location meets all setback requirements applicable to accessory buildings as provided in §153.074, (c) Day Care, Adult or Child 1. The use shall at all Times comply with the requirements of'O.R.C. §5104. 2. Outdoor recreation areas shall be located to the side or rear of the principal structure and be enclosed with a permitted fence. The outdoor recreation area shall be screened using fencing and/or landscaping to provide a minimum 50% opaque screen. 3. All outdoor play equipment and shade structures visible from the right-of-way or adjacent properties shall use subdued, earth toned colors. 4. Adult and/or child day care uses are prohibited in civic building types as the sole principal use. (d) District Energy Plant Incidental sales of electrical energy to public utilities are permitted. (e) Hospital Hospitals shall be limited to no more than 75,000 square feet of gross floor area per structure, not including associated parking structures. (f) Library, Museum, Gallery Incidental sales of refreshments and items related to exhibits or activities at the facility are permitted. (g) Religious or Public Assembly Religious or public assembly structures shall be limited to no more than 100,000 square feet of Mss floor area, not including associated parking structures, (3) Commercial (a} Amin,1 Care, General Services, Veterinary Offices, and Veterinary Urgent Care and Animal Hospitals All activities shall be conducted indoors. No outdoor animal exercise or activity areas shall be permitted. (b) Bed and Breakfast I. The property owner shall reside on the property and/or manage the facility. No mare than eight guest units are permitted. 2. Guest accommodations are linnfed to short - term stays of no more than 14 days. (c) Eating and Drinking Eating and drinking facihdes shall be limited In no more than 3,500 square feet of gross floor area for single tenant buildings in the BSD Office, BSD Office Residential, and BSD Residential districts. unless otherwise permitted as a conditional use. Eating and drinking facilities in multi -tenant buildings in the SSD Office, BSD Office Residential, and BSD Residential districts shall be ffinited to no more than 5,000 square feet of grass floor area, or 20% of the gross floor area of the ground floor of the principal structure, whichever is smaller, unless otherwise permitted as a conditional use. (d) Entertainment or Recreation, Indoor 1. Indoor entertainment or recreation uses shall be limited to no more than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area in the BSD Office, BSD Office Residential, BSD Residential, BSD Commercial, and BSD Vertical Mixed Use districts, unless otherwise permitted as a conditional use. 2. In the BSD Public district, the use must be owned and operated by either a public or non- profit organization. (e) Exercise and Fitness 'Lo avoid large, single tenant uses that detract from the urban, walkable intent of the Bridge Street District, exercise and fitness uses shall be limited to no more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area to the BSD Residential and BSD Historic Transition Neighborhood districts. Exercise and fitness facilities exceeding 10,000 square feet in this district may be permitted as conditional uses. (f) Fueling/Service Station 1. Fuel pumps shall be located on the same lot as a permitted building type. 2. Fuel pumps are not permitted between the principal structure and an adjacent principal frontage street, 3. Where pumps are faefng any street type except for an alley or service street, a street wall at least three feet high shall be placed between the pumps and associated vehicular circulation area and the street. Refer to §153.065(E) (2) for street wall requirements. 4. Each faehngiservice station shall be buffered from adjacent properties as requhed in §153.065(D)(4) and meet the applicable requirements of §153.065(D)(5). 5. Motor vehicles may be continuously stored outdoors on the property for no more than 24 hours. 6. Refer to §153.062(L) for vehicular canopy requirements. 12 163.059 EFFECTIVE ®ATE USES MARCH 29, 2017 RECORD OF ACTION city of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission OHIO, USA Thursday, August 10, 2017 1 6:30 pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: S. Historic Dublin — BSD Code Amendment Historic Dublin 17-OS2ADMC Administrative Request — Code Proposal: An amendment to Sections 153.058, 153.059, and 153.062 of the Bridge Street District Code to create the Historic South District and associated regulations within this new district. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Location: Historic District Applicant: City of Dublin, Dana McDaniel, City Manager. Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, Planner I; and Jennifer Rauch, AICP, Planning Manager. Contact Information: (614) 410-4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us; (614) 410-4690, jrauch@dublin.oh.us Case Information: httv;/Idublinobigg5a.gov/arb/17-05 MOTION: Mr. Brown moved, Mr. Miller seconded to approve this Administrative Request Code Amendment with a recommendation that City Council hear further input from the community and the Architectural Review Board. VOTE: 4-0. RESULT: This Administrative Request Code Amendment will be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation of approval. RECORDED VOTES: Victoria Newell Absent Amy Salay Yes Chris Brown Yes Cathy De Rosa Yes Robert Miller Yes Deborah Mitchell Absent Stephen Stidhem Absent STAFF CERTIFICATION Avinwi Nich le M. Martin Planner I PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410,4600 fax 614.410.4747 14cUif Dun OHIO, USA MEETING MINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, August 10, 2017 AGENDA Thomas Kohler, Subarea A — United Healthcare Signs 5900 Parkwood Place 17-073AFDP Amended Final Development Plan (Approved 4 — 0) 2. St. John's Lutheran Church — Bell Tower 17-066CU 6135 Rings Road Conditional Use (Tabled 4 — 0) 3. PUD —Autumn Rose Woods 7150 & 7270 Hyland -Croy Road 17-062FDP/FP Final Development Plan (Approved 4— 0) Final Plat (Recommended for Approval 4 — 0) 4. BSD -P — Columbus Metropolitan Library, Dublin Branch 75 North High Street 17-069Z Rezoning (Recommended for Approval 4 — 0) S. 2M Historic Dublin — BSD Code Amendment Historic Dublin 17-052ADMC Administrative Request — Code (Recommended for Approval 4 — 0) Historic Dublin — Zoning Map Amendment Historic Dublin 17-074Z Rezoning (Recommended for Approval 4 — 0) Historic Dublin — BSD Code Amendment 17-052ADMC Historic Dublin Administrative Request — Code The Vice Chair, Chris Brown, said the following application is for an amendment to Sections 153.058, 153.059, and 153.062 of the Bridge Street District Code to create the Historic South District and associated regulations within this new district. He said this is a request for a review and recommendation of approval to City Council under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. The Vice Chair stated cases 5 and 6 would be heard together but voted on separately. 6. Historic Dublin — Zoning Map Amendment 17-074Z Historic Dublin Rezoning The Vice Chair, Chris Brown, said the following application is for an amendment to the Zoning Map for 25 parcels to establish Bridge Street District - Historic South as a new zoning district. He said the parcels are adjacent to S. High Street, south of Spring Hill and north of John Wright Lane. He said this is a request PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 10, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 8 for a review and recommendation of approval to City Council under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Nichole Martin explained the Code Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment cannot stand alone, therefore, a consolidated presentation is being provided this evening. She presented the background for these two applications: May 2016: City Council directive to address character of new development within the southern Historic District October 2016: Planning initiated the first public workshop which included four stations addressing transitional zoning, building character, parking, and infill development. December 2016: A second public workshop built upon the first by surveying stakeholders to determine appropriate zoning district boundaries and development standards. March 2017: An Architectural Review Board (ARB) Work Session was held to review the outcomes of the public meetings. June 2017: Planning Staff and CodaMetrics held a public open house and an ARB Special Meeting to answer questions and receive feedback from the public and the Board. July 2017: The ARB recommended approval with one minor condition. Ms. Martin stated the Commission's charge this evening is to review the proposal, taking into account the Architectural Review Board's consideration and to make a recommendation to City Council, who will make the final determination. Ms. Martin stated there are amendments requested for three sections of the Code: §153.058 — BSD Districts Scope and Intent • Creation of the Historic South District and identification of the sub -district's intent. §153.059 - Uses • Identification of permitted and conditional uses for the Historic South District. • Application of use -specific standards for Eating and Drinking facilities, and Exercise and Fitness facilities. o Eating/Drinking facilities are size -limited, with limited hours of operation, and limited hours for commercial deliveries and refuse collections. The hours of operation can be modified as part of a request for a Conditional Use. o Exercise and Fitness facilities are size -limited. §153.062 — Building Types • Revisions to the building type standards for the Historic Cottage Commercial building. • Building height is limited to two stories or a maximum of 24 -feet to the eave; and one and half stories or a maximum of 18 -feet to the eave within 50 -feet of the rear lot line. • A reduction in the footprint of any individual building to 1,800 square feet to ensure scale is consistent with the existing character of the sub -district (individual buildings on the same parcel can be connected via an "enclosed connection" or hallway). • Maximum building coverage is limited to 50 percent of a site, and maximum impervious coverage has been reduced to 65 percent (from the earlier proposal of 75 percent). • On-site parking cannot be visible from High Street; it must be located behind buildings. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 10, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 8 Ms. Martin said the request is to Rezone 25 parcels (and portions of parcels) from BSD Historic Core to the BSD Historic South District. She presented the Proposed Zoning Map, showing the existing and proposed BSD zoning districts. She pointed out the new BSD Historic South District that will be applied to land generally along S. High Street, south of Spring Hill and north of John Wright Lane. She stated the new district will have more limited building types as well as more limited uses. Ms. Martin noted that the Zoning Code does not contain specific review criteria for a Zoning Code Amendment, however, the Planning Report has outlined considerations that are appropriate to discuss when amendments and rezoning are under consideration. She reported that Staff found those guidelines to have been met based on the Council directive and consistency with the Bridge Street District Special Area Plan. Ms. Martin stated the Architectural Review Board's recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a Code Amendment includes the following condition: 1) That the Use Table be updated to reflect that Parking Structures are not permitted or conditional as an Accessory Use in the Historic South District. She said since the ARB meeting, Staff has addressed the typographical error. Therefore, she said Staff is recommending that the PZC recommend approval to City Council with no conditions. Ms. Martin stated Planning and the ARB's recommendation to the PZC for a Rezoning Map Amendment for the inclusion of the Historic South Zoning District is recommended with no conditions, which they also recommend to City Council with no conditions. Cathy De Rosa inquired about the design guidelines. She asked if the guidelines that cover the entire Bridge Street District would apply here. Mr. Martin explained that back in May 2016, Council gave Planning two specific directives with respect to the BSD Code: 1) Sign Code Amendment; and 2) Amendment for development character in the southern Historic District. Hopefully soon, she said the Commission will see large scale amendments to the BSD Code, and as part of that, they will be creating design guidelines for the entire BSD, including specific standards that speak to the Historic District. She added that any application that came forward today would still be reviewed under the current BSD Code and the existing HistoiicDublin Design Guidelines. The Vice Chair called for public comment. Steve Rudy, 129 S. Riverview Street, Dublin asked to read from a letter that was drafted from The Historic Dublin Neighborhood Association, of which he is the president, and was addressed to the Commission and Staff. All of these comments were already presented to the ARB on July 26 (reference those minutes for additional detail) but he wanted it on record for this PZC meeting. He said they like that amendments are being made to the Code to ensure historic structures in the Historic District are not slowly erased. Preserving the Historic District with its charming architecture, cottage scale, lawns, and views is a community asset that is a goal we should all share. He said a lot of input from the residents has been shared at each of the meetings related to this topic. The nine concerns for the new district are summarized below: Limit overall building height to 22 feet and do not make the requirement only about number of stories permitted. The second story of a 1.5 -story structure should be limited in floor space to one half the floor space permitted for the first floor. New buildings should not front any alleys. Alleys and streets should not be considered street frontage, therefore, not subject to street frontage requirements. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 10, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 8 4. Density and parking are linked problems. Adequate parking must be required on site because street parking is already in use. Buildable area and rear yard setbacks should be 25 feet not 5 feet. Parcels may not be combined. Maximum building coverage should be 50% not 40%. Impervious coverage should be a maximum of 40% and semi -pervious coverage should be a maximum of 75%. 5. The appeal of this district is the village -like appearance and many of the buildings were once residences and they have lawns, gardens, large trees, and views to other properties. Dense urban should be kept in the north and east and not south of Bridge Street. 6. Include the southeast corner of Bridge and High down to Spring Hill alley in this new district so the homeowners east of Blacksmith Lane can have the same protection; this block of historic buildings should not be left out. 7. Permitted building type chart needs to be amended. 8. Old Dublin Design Guidelines should be kept intact and in force. 9. Prohibition of combining lots was restated and buildings should not be linked. Chris Brown addressed the history of the area because he said every quaint village area grew that way because of particular characteristics from their history. He said there was a house, outhouse, little barn or shed and that actually contributed to that open character Mr. Rudy is talking about now but at the time, he has seen enough old pictures and renderings and plaques that showed a particular density to that area. He indicated part of the question becomes how to keep that integrity. He noted the scale of the building is crucial. He added the nature of that area to him, fit their needs and requirements at the time and some of that has become not required as technology, plumbing, electricity have come along and livestock is no longer needed. He said he did not want to inhibit the growth and the maintenance of that natural character of the history of the community. He suggested that sometimes, a creative architect, can utilize what would have been an outbuilding and create a structure that responds to the community. He concluded he understood what Mr. Rudy was discussing but what Staff is trying to create with everyone is that there is latitude that the area stays attractive to people for a long time that can afford to maintain it, contribute to the character, and contribute to the community feel. Mr. Rudy said economic prosperity is part of it. Mr. Brown said he has a hard time codifying good architecture and what works as a community and there are some very good examples of communities that are built from ground up that have stayed modest in scale. He explained the goal is to preserve the nature and the character of that village and codify that in some way, shape, or form. Mr. Papsidero said Staff had a direct charge from City Council to propose amendments to the Code that would ensure that the southern part of the district would be protected from any new development that was out of scale or character with the existing pattern and Staff has fulfilled that charge with this proposal. Mr. Brown said that is what this is about — preservation, to which Mr. Papsidero agreed. He said Mr. Rudy is stating this is not necessarily responding to that level with setbacks, height of buildings, and everything else. Mr. Brown asked if that is something that could be developed and modified as the character guidelines are developed or whether that needs to be part of this proposal. Mr. Papsidero said some of the communities recommendations are very specific such as height of floors and setbacks, etc., which is part of the Zoning Code. He said if the Commission were to support the Code Amendments, staff recommends that the Commission refers staff back to the ARB so they can review that because they are the reviewing body based on location. Lori Burchett reported that the ARB felt that the response from Staff adding maximum height requirements and reducing the building footprint, was responsive to the concerns of the community. She said the ARB was very supportive and there was one dissenting vote from one board member, the rest of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 10, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 8 the Board was supportive of what Staff and the Consultant have brought forward. She added there have been a variety of comments from other interested parties in the area that were also taken into consideration to find the best solutions. Jane Fox, 6193 Dublin Road, said it is wonderful that City Council asked that the character of the historic district be preserved. She reported she served on the ARB for a little while so she understands where this direction has gone and Planning has spent a lot of time trying to listen to everybody's input. The area that we are talking about, she said, only impacts a certain number of residents, very few, and most of their properties abut the backs of these properties. When residents came together, she said the primary concern was to absolutely preserve the historic character. She said a lot of elements can be codified but character cannot be and that is not being addressed in this proposal. She said it will be but believes it should be done congruently. She said the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines have not been able to hold the line on what has been happening in the Historic District and maybe it is because they are a little outdated and contradict the BSD Zoning Code. She emphasized if we do not have this hand-in-hand now, preservation of historic character is not guaranteed. She noted that the Zoning Code is very difficult for residents to understand because it is so complex. She said they are coming to the City with specific revisions because it is the best suggestion they can make. She restated the City needs hand-in-hand Guidelines to go along with the Code Amendments to guarantee character preservation. Ms. Fox said the alleys are a huge problem. In the BSD Code, she said alleys are defined as service streets. She noted Blacksmith Lane and Pinney Hill Lane are alleys/service streets and cannot be used as principle or non -principle streets. She said when we start building on them, the traffic burden is increased, it is difficult for fire and safety to have access, the density and infill is increased, parking is reduced, and this proposal does not address parking. She asked if this level of infill is permitted as she questioned where the people would park. She emphasized that the alleys be defined as alleys and the lanes are alleys. She restated parking should be addressed. She said the Historic Dublin Business Association has been reaching out to Planning for more parking. She indicated the Historic Dublin Business Association has a wonderful plan that provides a lot of parking back there. She said if parking is not addressed, both the businesses and the residents will be hurt. She said the one declining vote in the ARB was by the Board Member that lives in the area because he believes this proposal is not quite there, either. She emphasized parcels cannot be permitted to be combined because then it changes the character. Lastly, and most importantly she said, the percentage of coverage needs to be seen in context and the typical footprint in Historic Dublin now needs to be understood. She asked the Commission to consider what they are trying to preserve, and manage. She said she would support an organic incremental developmental pattern. A five-foot setback on the alleys is not enough room and concluded that if the few neighbors sat down with Planning they could come up with a plan to make everyone happy. Tom Holton, 5957 Roundstone Place, said the proposed changes do not preserve the character of the Historic District or consider Dublin's quality of life for those moving to Dublin to raise a family. He said that is important because this is a special place. And at one time, he said Dublin was divided into quadrants. He indicated this is the last quadrant of that Historic District that has not been fully developed. He said that Franklin Street and S. Riverview Street are special places; in the spring and fall, there is hardly better places in Dublin to walk as it is magical. He stated the Historic District itself used to be defined by the boundaries of the Old Village of Dublin and the center of that is the intersection of Bridge and High Streets. Mr. Holton said if growth is the factor for this area, it will be at the cost of the character and at the cost of the residents who live there now including their quality of life, which we say we value. Brian Jones, 37 S. Riverview Street, said at the last ARB meeting, Staff said they intend to go back and visit the Guidelines after the Zoning Code was amended. He said the Code should support the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. The most definable characteristic of old Dublin, he said, is its intimate, small, Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 10, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 8 village -scale buildings. He said they are located close together along the sidewalk, range from 1 — 2.5 stories in height, and nearly all of the buildings have a residential quality; buildings are not linked. He concluded this Code update is changing the character, dramatically. Mr. Brown said we have an Architectural Review Board and a Historical Society, and it seems we are trying to restrict development that might potentially get out of scale. He explained each new proposal would be reviewed to make sure it fits the character and the scale, which we are trying to set guidelines for. Mr. Papsidero said historic districts have review -applied design guidelines that try to massage a proposal but zoning standards are still needed relative to dimensional standards — height, square footage, lot coverage, and impervious coverage; both tools are needed. He said the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines are not changing any time soon and are in place. He restated staff was directed by Council to come up with Code Amendments that would reduce the mass and scale of any new development. As a result, he reported staff has presented: o A reduction in height; o A reduction in the maximum square footage of any individual building; o A way to connect those structures together; o A maximum of 50% building coverage; and 0 65% maximum total impervious coverage. Mr. Papsidero emphasized this proposal is still constraining the amount of development, regardless of the individual form. He added the smaller boxes are much more in character with the existing historic cottages then previous development proposals. He said that those proposals uncluded a much bigger box then would be allowed under these proposed regulations. Mr. Papsidero explained the building links were a recommendation by the City's consultant, because she was concerned that we still needed to balance design sensitivity and character with the ability of an individual property owner to do certain things with their property and saw linkages as a viable way to accomplish that. Mr. Brown said when he first read the proposal he noted how much more restrictive it is compared to what is required currently. Mr. Papsidero reported that staff debated internally regarding the impact of these proposed regulations. He indicated it is the general opinion that these proposed amendments will not prohibit any kind of new investment. Bob Miller asked for staffs perspective on the residents concern about the alleys. Ms. Burchett said the alleys are actually not a principle frontage street as part of this Code so those will be somewhat protected. Ms. Martin said the BSD Code is not a standard residential zoning district and therefore, it is a denser, urban environment, which is why the setback is proposed at five feet as opposed to 25 feet and it is based on building type. Mr. Papsidero confirmed that has been on the books and is not being changed. He said the change here is the idea of reducing the height within 50 feet of that rear yard line, again to minimize the physical impact on the adjacent residences. He pointed out that with the 1,800 -square -foot maximum building footprint, the building form that could result from this proposed Code is smaller in some cases than some of the more recent single-family construction, which is much larger. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 10, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 8 Ms. De Rosa asked if the concerns brought forward this evening about the five-foot setbacks, etc. had been discussed because she had not seen comments in any of the notes from prior meetings. Ms. Martin said Denise Frantz King had read the entire letter at the July ARB meeting that Mr. Rudy was referencing this evening. She reported the Chair of that meeting did not request staff respond to each of the comments. A number of the items highlighted in that letter, she said, were based on a document from June, which was not what the ARB was tasked with reviewing that evening; and that is not what has been presented to the Commission tonight. She noted some of the items requested were already incorporated and updated. From staff's perspective, the Chair thought the other items had been discussed at length at the ARB Special Meeting in June and that the items that we reached consensus on between the public and the ARB, those were reflected in the update and the three members that recommended approval felt comfortable with that. Mr. Papsidero added that the first public workshop had well over 50 residents in attendance at which stage they all spent a lot of time discussing details. At the second workshop, he said, there were approximately 30 residents and changes were made after that workshop. He said there has been a great deal of community dialogue in a public setting including one-on-one conversations with residents as that has been the focus of the process from the beginning — very transparent. Ms. Martin added 30 people attended the Open House in June. Ms. De Rosa asked if the connectors were discussed in those meetings or if it is staff's view that the residents by -in -large are supportive. Ms. Martin noted some residents are not supportive but others may be. She restated the linkages were a recommendation from the City's consultant. She emphasized they are limiting building size significantly — a maximum of 1,800 square feet is a fairly small footprint. She explained the connectors are meant to be set back from the structure and there is a maximum width requirement. She added the form is heavily dictated and begins to speak to the passage that was read out of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines about the residential character at a story and a half to two and a half stories although this one is a maximum of 2 stories, which is less than the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. Ms. De Rosa said the graphic examples of buildings appear to be more than 50% lot coverage. She said she is a visual person and context matters but this does not appear in character. Mr. Papsidero noted the graphics are meant to be illustrative and not of the development capacity of the ground. He said from a graphic example standpoint, they included two graphics where there might have been 12 graphics. He said they demonstrate ways in which all different measurements are depicted graphically in a 3-D rendering. He said they tried to avoid 6, 8, or 10 different drawings. Ms. De Rosa suggested that it would be more helpful to really show that the character is actually going to be maintained by these standards. She said the drawings do not currently depict what she is hearing staff articulate or what she has read in the Code. In fact, she said, just the opposite because it appears dense and out of character as they are not demonstrating a cottage feel. Amy Salay said she is also not an architect and is a very visual person. She said pictures really help her to understand what is being discussed. Ms. Salay said she agreed with Mr. Rudy about the setback in those backyards that do not back up to an alley. Ms. Salay said overall, she is concerned this is going to chill investment in that part of the district. She said several of the existing empty buildings are suffering from what she calls, benign neglect, where they are rotting on their foundations and it comes to a point where it will not be safe as it will be in danger of collapse - then it is condemned, torn down, and gone forever. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 10, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 8 Ms. Salay said there have been huge houses built in the Historic District but that is the only way it makes economic sense to invest all that money. She said there are very few people that want to invest a lot more than what they could ever expect to get in return. She indicated that everyone likes the little gift shops that go into these buildings but it is hard to make it work, long term and it is more a labor of love than an economic decision. Ms. Salay stated there is a real delicate balance we have to be cognizant of. The residents down there need to know they will not have a mammoth building in their backyard. By the same token, we need to figure out what we want up on High Street and the kind of business we want to try to incent. Otherwise, we are going to lose it all just from structures falling in and being demolished. She concluded that the City is not quite there yet with this proposal but she does not know how to fix it. Mr. Brown said this is not normally under the Commission's purview but the ARB and Staff have reviewed and discussed the proposal; it is not perfect but he does not feel he is in a position to come up with the answer. He said he understands limiting the size, footprint, and height but it is always hard to quantify and codify character and the preservation is fundamental and that in itself is an economic driver. He suggested the graphics are deceptive from what the verbiage states. He asked how organic development should be codified because all of this is a throwback to the agricultural times where there was just a little community pop up and different sectors serve different needs and some of those buildings were linked. He said there were also a lot of auxiliary structures at the time. He said now it is a different dynamic with different economic drivers; people live far differently and need the ability to do that. He said he is not opposed to bridging buildings together. He said he understands the residents want to preserve all that and he also feels it is very important. Ms. De Rosa said we have two choices: 1) recommend that this proposal go back to the ARB to have further conversations; or 2) the PZC can forward this proposal onto City Council. She indicated she sees a little more scrubbing will be done but in terms of moving it forward, it might make more sense to now get Council involved in the conversation. She said she only sees 5 or 6 different points this evening that probably need more work along with revised drawings to assist further discussion. She stated the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines are an important perspective to use with this as well since character is so much of the conversation for this part of the City. Ms. Salay agreed to the second approach. Ms. Salay encouraged the residents to consider the economic realities and what could happen to some of those historic buildings. Mr. Brown said he believes staff, the ARB, and the Commission have done their due diligence and this should be forwarded now to Council. He emphasized the Commission would be forwarding the proposal to City Council because they believe Council is in a better position to build upon this. The Vice Chair called for a motion on Case 5 Motion and Vote Mr. Brown moved, Mr. Miller seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the Administrative Request Code Amendment with a recommendation that City Council hear further input from the community and the Architectural Review Board. The vote was as follows: Ms. De Rosa, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Recommended for Approval 4 — 0) Motion and Vote Mr. Brown moved, Mr. Miller seconded, to recommend approval to City Council to approve this Rezoning to amend the Zoning Map for the inclusion of the Historic South District with a recommendation that City Council study and work with the community and the Architectural Review Board to further study setbacks, height restrictions, and connectors. The vote was as follows: Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Recommended for Approval 4 — 0) Cray of Dublin OHIO. usn Planning and Zoning Commission August 10, 2017 17-052ADMC - HISTORIC DUBLIN - CODE Reviewing Board Summary Planning and Zoning Commission An amendment to Sections 153.058, 153.059, and 153.062 Site Location of the Bridge Street Distract Code to create the Historic Historic Dublin South District and associated regulations within this new distract. Proposal Code Amendment (ADMC) Zoning Map Zoning BSD -HC, Bridge Street District, Historic Core District Property Owners Varies Applicant/Representative Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin Applicable Land Use Regulations Zoning Code Section 153.232 & 153.234 ARB Recommendation At the July 26, 2017 meeting, ARE recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for amendments to Sections 153.058, 153.059, and 153.062 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code. Staff Recommendation Approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for amendments to Sections 153.058, 153.059, and 153.062 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code. Contents A. Context Map.................................................2 B. Overview......................................................3 C. Details.........................................................3 D. Criteria Analysis............................................4 E. Recommendation..........................................5 Case Manager Nichole M. Martin, Planner I (614) 410-4635 nmartinnc dublin.oh.us Neat Steps Upon a recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission the code amendments will be forwarded to City Council for review and approval. The amendments will require two readings before City Council and will be in effect after the 30 -day referendum period after the second reading. Indian Run Or E&I W Brid E Bridge St St cf) 4 4 S, -d, cf) Waterford Q� Marion St b AQr Longview Dr O 9 Grandview Dro Tuller Rd rn 0 m ;t Clark St 9 0 0 S;LELL,� 53] Martin Rd W"A"tio I& City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 17-052ADMC I Historic Dublin Code Amendment Thursday, August 10, 2017 1 Page 3 of 5 B. Overview 1. Case Summary In 2007, a special area plan identified planning objectives for Historic Dublin, which were incorporated into the 2013 Bridge Street District Special Area Plan as of the Community Plan. The plan recognizes a desire to "enhance and revitalize Historic Dublin as an activity center within the City that is vibrant, pedestrian -oriented and user friendly with a mix of uses to support economic, civic, recreational and housing opportunities for all segments of Dublin's population". The proposed code amendment is intended to respond to the community desire to allow for a mix of uses while preserving the existing residential character, which is a critical component to a support vibrant, walkable, mixed use community. 2. Background In October 2016, staff initiated a major update to the BSD Code. As directed by City Council, the prioritized tasks included amendments for the Historic Dublin core in response to development pressures. The City engaged Clarion Associates and CodaMetrics to revise the regulations to ensure development is consistent with the neighborhood character of the Historic District south of Bridge Street. In coordination with CodaMetrics, Planning engaged the community in two public workshops: October 2016, and December 2016. The first workshop offered four stations addressing the following topics: transitional zoning, building character, parking and infill development. The second workshop built on the outcomes of the first by surveying residents, business owners, and land owners to determine appropriate zoning district boundaries and development standards. Subsequently in March 2017, an ARB work session was held to review the outcomes of the public meetings and provide preliminary direction to the consultant regarding revisions. In June 2017, a public open house and special ARB meeting was held to gain feedback regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. At the July 26, 2017 ARB meeting, the Board formally reviewed the request for an amendment to the BSD Code, and considered public comment on the proposal. The Board determined the proposed amendments to the intent, uses, and building types are consistent with the directive from Council and major concerns raised throughout the public process dating back to October 2016. The ARB recommended approval with one condition to address an undetected error. Both the Administrative Review Team and Planning Staff recommended approval to the ARB for this application to preserve the existing residential character south of Spring Hill while still preserving the opportunity to continue building along W. Bridge Street. C. Details 1. Proposal The proposed code changes place limits on the size and scale of all future development within a new sub -district (BSD -HS, Bridge Street District — Historic South). The proposed amendments define the new zoning district and outline permitted uses for the new district. Additionally, permitted building types are defined for the district, which are proposed to include Single Family Detached, Historic Cottage Commercial and Civic building types. The City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 17-052ADMC I Historic Dublin Code Amendment Thursday, August 10, 2017 1 Page 4 of 5 Historic Cottage Commercial building type is refined to more closely align with the existing character in the southern portion of Historic Dublin, which is dominated by 1.5 - to 2 -story "cottage"type residential -style buildings. a. 153.058 — BSD Districts Scope and Intent Creation of the Historic South District and identification of the sub -district's intent. b. 153.059 — Uses Identification of permitted and conditional uses for the Historic South District. Parking structures are not permitted or conditional as primary or accessory uses in the new sub -district. Application of use specific standards for Eating and Drinking, and Exercise and Fitness facilities. Eating and Drinking facilities are sized -limited, with limited hours of operation, and limited hours for commercial deliveries and refuse collections. The hours of operation can be modified as part of a request for a Conditional Use. o Exercise and Fitness facilities are size limited. c. 153.058 — Building Types • Revisions to the building type standards for the Historic Cottage Commercial building. • Building height is limited to two stories or a maximum of 24 feet to the eave; and one and half stories or a maximum of 18 feet to the eave within 50 feet of the rear lot line. • A reduction in the footprint of any individual building to 1,800 square feet to ensure scale is consistent with the existing character of the sub -district (individual buildings on the same parcel can be connected via an "enclosed connection" or hallway). • Maximum building coverage is limited to 50 percent of a site and maximum impervious coverage has been reduced to 65 percent (from the earlier proposal of 75 percent). • On-site parking cannot be visible from High Street; it must be located behind buildings. D. Criteria Analysis 1. Review Considerations The Zoning Code does not provide for specific review standards for Zoning Code text amendments. However, there are certain considerations that are appropriate when considering an application for these amendments. These are provided below, along with relevant analysis. The Planning and Zoning Commission is not limited to these City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 17-052ADMC I Historic Dublin Code Amendment Thursday, August 10, 2017 1 Page 5 of 5 considerations, and may choose to give each its own weight as part of the deliberations for a recommendation to City Council. Zoning Code Amendment Analysis 1) Intent and Purpose: Whether the amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Chapter and the Community Plan. Intent met. The proposed amendment is consistent with the planning goals identified in the Community Plan. 2) Error or Omission: Whether the change is the result of an error or omission in the original text. Not applicable. The change is not based on an error or omission of language in the Code. 3) Area Effects: The potential effects on areas that are most likely to be directly affected by the change. Intent met. By adopting the language, the form of new buildings is required to be consistent with the form of existing traditional "cottage -style" structures in Historic Dublin south of Spring Hill and north of John Wright Lane, realizing that history cannot be recreated, but complimented through the construction of sensitive new development over time. 4) Creation of Nonconformities: Whether the change might result in the creation of significant nonconformities on properties in the city. Intent met. The amendments may create instances of buildings not in conformance with the permitted building types, particularly more recently constructed buildings. Such nonconformities are addressed within the City of Dublin Zoning Code and subject to ARB review relative to future modifications or changes. E. Recommendation A recommendation of approval to City Council is recommended by the Architectural Review Board and Planning Staff to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an amendment to the Zoning Map for the inclusion of the Historic South District with one condition. The condition was to address an undetected error and has been updated prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission's review: 1) The Use Table be updated to reflect that Parking Structures are not permitted or conditional as an Accessory Use in the Historic South District. 'citv of Dublin OHIO. USA Planning and Zoning Commission August 10, 2017 17-074Z - HISTORIC DUBLIN ZONING MAI Reviewing Board Summary Planning and Zoning Commission An amendment to the Zoning Map for 25 parcels to Site Location establish Bridge Street District - Historic South as a new Parcels adjacent to S. High Street, south of Spring zoning district. Hill and north of John Wright Lane. Zoning Map Proposal Zoning Map Amendment (Z) Zoning BSD -HC, Bridge Street District, Historic Core District Property Owners Varies Applicant/ Representative Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin Applicable Land Use Regulations Zoning Code Section 153.232 & 153.234 ARB Recommendation At the July 26, 2017 meeting, ARB recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an amendment to the Zoning Map for the inclusion of the Historic South Zoning District. Staff Recommendation Approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an amendment to the Zoning Map for the inclusion of the Historic South Zoning District. Contents A. Context Map.................................................2 B. Overview......................................................3 C. Details.........................................................3 D. Criteria Analysis............................................4 E. Recommendation..........................................5 Case Manager Nichole M. Martin, Planner I (614)410-4635 nmartin@dublin.oh.us Next Steps Upon a recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission the zoning map amendment will be forwarded to City Council for review and approval. The rezoning will require two readings before City Council with the rezoning in effect after the 30 -day referendum period after the second reading. PLANNING 5800 Shier Ring Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.474 dublinohiousa.gov l � T AIL Indian Rung, N Wing Hill Elementary N N ^� E Bridge St W`.grdge St N U3 Dublin. Community ,..� Church ! Scioto 1 �.:. z SITE N N N rt -Historic -District- s L'n John Wright' - N fi 0 0 7 A � aDr A kot e Short St City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 17-074Z I Historic South Rezoning Thursday, August 10, 2017 1 Page 3 of 5 B. Overview 1. Case Summary The area rezoning is intended to align the zoning designations for properties in the southern Historic District with proposed amendments to the Bridge Street District (BSD) Code, and is intended to be consistent with the objectives defined in the 2010 Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report as incorporated into the Dublin Community Plan (Bridge Street District Plan). The City of Dublin is sponsoring this application to rezone 25 parcels (and portions of parcels) to the new BSD Historic South District (refer to the Planning Report for case 17- 052ADMC, Zoning Code Amendment, for additional information about the new zoning district). 2. Background In October 2016, staff initiated a major update to the BSD Code. As directed by City Council, the prioritized tasks included amendments for the Historic Dublin core in response to development pressures. The City engaged Clarion Associates and CodaMetrics to revise the regulations to ensure development is consistent with the neighborhood character of the Historic District south of Bridge Street. In coordination with CodaMetrics, Planning engaged the community in two public workshops: October 2016, and December 2016. The first workshop offered four stations addressing the following topics: transitional zoning, building character, parking and infill development. The second workshop built on the outcomes of the first by surveying residents, business owners, and land owners to determine appropriate zoning district boundaries and development standards. Subsequently in March 2017, an ARB work session was held to review the outcomes of the public meetings and provide preliminary direction to the consultant regarding revisions. In June 2017, a public open house and special ARB meeting was held to gain feedback regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. At the July 26, 2017 ARB meeting, the Board formally reviewed the request for an amendment to the BSD zoning map, and considered public comment on the proposal. The Board determined the proposed rezoning is consistent with the directive from Council and major issues raised throughout the public process dating back to October 2016. The ARB recommended approval with one condition to address and undetected error. Both the Administrative Review Team and Planning Staff recommended approval to the ARB for this application to preserve the existing residential character south of Spring Hill while still preserving the opportunity to continue building along W. Bridge Street. C. Details 1. Process Code Section 153.066(B)(2) provides the Administrative Review Team with "other powers and duties" which includes making recommendations to the Architectural Review Board for amendments to the Zoning Code. The proposed amendment were forwarded to the ARB for its consideration and a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council for the proposed amendment. City of Dublin Planing and Zoning counion Casa 17C74Z l Historic South P¢onmg Thursday, Argues 10.20171 Page 4 of 2. Proposal The new BSD Historic South District will be applied to land generally along South High Street, south of Spring HIII and north of John NtrightLane (show to theright). D. Criteria Malysis 1. Review Considerations JheZoning Code does not provide for specific review standards for Zoning Map amendments. However, there are certain conslderabons that are appropriate when reviewing an appllcabon for there amendments. Thea are provided below, along with relevant aralyAs. 11 -he Planning and Zoning Commission Is not limited to there conslderabons, and may choose to give each Its own weight as part of the dellberabons for a recommendabon to GN Council. 1) Future Land Use Intent met. JheFuture Land Use map of the Dublin Community Plan was updated and adopted by GN Council on July 1, 2013. The Future Land Use map Identfies the podons of the Bridge Street Dlstict west of the Scioto River as Mixed Use Village Center and Include targeted areas near arterials or major collectors that are Intended to provide dally retail, major grocers and other conveniences to serve the Dublin community within a 3 to 5- mlle radius. Village Centers Incorporate moderately-sized nodes of commercial acfivity with a Larger size of 125,000 square feet of grog leasable space. Integrated office uses are encouraged In a manner appropriate to the overall area. Mixed Resldental uses are encouraged and should be Integrated to facilitate Sensation acbmty and to provide support for commercial uses. The Land Use Plan Includes two Village Center areas. Historic Dublin Is targeted for Srepervabon and compabbie Infill development as Dublin's founding core. 2) Bridge Street District Special Area Plan Intent met. Much of the area Included In the proposed Zoning Map amendment isset within the "Historic Dublin District" character neighborhood, which the area plan notes Is "which has opportunity to grow and carefully intensify while preserving historic character and protecfing edshng neighborhoods. This can occur through strategic Infill development, Improved pedestrian access and parking, Increased focus on the Scioto River and Indian Run Creek, and most significantly, long-term redevelopment of the Indian Run Elementary and/or Sells Middle School Ates. Historic Dublin has become one of the pri rte Insplrabons for the Bridge Street Corridor Vlslon�ue to Its traditon as a walkable disk at of mixed retail, residental, office and cultural/civic uses and to the fact that it constbutes Dublin's center of comrrunity. The emergence of Historic Dublin as a desfinabon for dining and locally based retail has heightened the District's role as the center of community, This Is also the dlstict where future growth faces the most City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 17-074Z I Historic South Rezoning Thursday, August 10, 2017 1 Page 5 of 5 significant physical constraints." The proposed Zoning Map amendment to the BSD Historic Core Neighborhood will facilitate implementation of the land use, transportation, and open space objectives of the Bridge Street District Area Plan of the Dublin Community Plan. E. Recommendations A recommendation of approval to City Council is recommended by the Architectural Review Board and Planning Staff to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an amendment to the Zoning Map for the inclusion of the Historic South District with no conditions. "'r BOARD ORDER Dublin Architectural Review Board ul^" I " Wednesday, July 26, 201716;30 pin The Architectural Review Board took the fallowing action at this meeting: Historic Dublin — BSD Code Amendment Historic Dublin 17.052ADMC Administrative Request- Code Proposal: Amendments to Sections 153.058F 153.059, and 153,062 of the Bridge Street District Zoning Code. These revisions address the structural components to the BSD Zoning Code to add a new district and to address building type requirements for the Historic Cottage Commercial building type Request Review and recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding proposed amendments under the provisions of Zoning Cale Sections 153.232, 153,234 and 153.056, and the Hatorx && Design Guy mes, Applicant Dana L McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin. Planning Contacts: Nichole M, Martin, Planner 1; and Jeri M, Rauch, AICP, Planning Manager Contact Information: (614) 4104635, nnadin@dublinoh,us; and (614) 410.4690, jrauch@dublin.oh.us MOTION: Mr. Musser moved, Mr, Rinaldi seconded, to recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an Adminlsbative Request for BSD Cade Amendments with one condition: 1) That the Use Table be updated to reflect that Parking Structures are not permitted or condAbnal as an Accessory Use in the Historic South District. VOTE; 3-1 RESULT: The request for BSD Code Amendments was recommended for approval and forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission but City Council is the hnal reviewing body. RECORDED VOTES: David Rinaldl Yes Shannon Stenberg Yes Everett Musser Yes Jeffrey Leonhard No STAFF CERTIFICATION Nkha M. Mallin, Planner I PLANNING 5800 Shier RlnpRoad Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614410,4747 dublinohluusa.gov BOARD ORDER Cky o IDblifn Architectural Review Board oeio,use Wednesday, July 26, 2017 15:30 pm The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting Historic Dublin—Zoning Map Amendment 17w074Z Historic Dublin Rezoning Proposal: An amendment to the Zoning Map to establish Bridge Street District Historic South as a new zoning district, Location: The sites are located within Historic Dublin along S, High Street, south of Spring HIII and north of John Wright Lane, Request: Review and recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a Standard District Rezoning under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232, 153.234 and 153066, Applicant Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin, Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, Planner 1 Contact Information: (614) 4104635, nmaningdublln,ch,us MOTION; Mr, Rlnaldl moved, Ms, Stenberg seconded, W recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the modl0ed zoning map with no conditions. VOTE: 3-1 RESULT: The request for a Standard District Rezoning was recommended for approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission to permit a new zoning d'strid — Historic South but City Council Is the Bnal reviewing body. RECORDED VOTES: David R'inaldi Yes Shannon Stenberg Yes Everett Musser Yes Jeffrey Leonhard No STA FCERTIFICATION Nic o M. Martin, Planner 1 PUNNING 5800 Shier RingsRoad Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614,410,4600 fav 614,410,4747 dublinnhmusa.gov Dublin Architectural Review Board July 26, 2017 —Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11 u 3. Historic Dublin — BSD Code Amendment 17-052ADMC The Chair, David Rinaldi, said the following 153.059, and 153.062 of the Bridge Street structural components to the BSD Zonini requirements for the Historic Cottage Cor recommendation of approval to the Plann under the provisions of Zoning Code Sect Design Guidelines. Historic Dublin Administrative Request — Code application is a request for Amendments to Sections 153.058, District Zoning Code. He indicated these revisions address the Code to add a new district and to address building type imercial building. He said this is a request for a review and ng and Zoning Commission regarding proposed amendments ons 153.232, 153.234 and 153.066, and the Historic Dublin Nichole Martin said she has prepared a consolidated presentation of the Administrative Request for Amendments to the Zoning Code as well as Rezoning to permit a new zoning district — Historic South as one case cannot really stand without the other. The Chair introduced the other case below, which is combined with the case 17-052ADMC for purposes of review. Dublin Architectural Review Board July 26, 2017 —Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11 4. Historic Dublin — Zoning Map Amendment Historic Dublin 17-O74Z Rezoning The Chair, David Rinaldi, said the following application is a request for an amendment to the Zoning Map to establish Bridge Street District Historic South as a new zoning district. He said the sites are located within Historic Dublin along S. High Street, south of Spring Hill and north of John Wright Lane. He said this is a request for a review and recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a Standard District Rezoning under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232, 153.234 and 153.066. Ms. Martin presented a potential process/timeline dependent on the recommendation being made this evening: 7/26/17 Cases reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC). 8/10/17 Cases reviewed by the PZC to make a recommendation to City Council (CC). 8/28/17 Cases reviewed by CC and a determination made for the Code Amendments and Rezoning. Ms. Martin presented an aerial view of the boundaries of the Historic District and noted only that area will be affected within the BSD. Ms. Martin said the Code changes proposed per Section are summarized as follows: §153.058 — BSD Scope and Intent • Creation of the Historic South District and identification of the sub -district's intent. §153.059 — Uses • Identification of permitted and conditional uses for the Historic South District. • Application of use -specific standards for Eating and Drinking facilities, and Exercise and Fitness facilities. o Eating and Drinking facilities are size -limited, with limited hours of operation, and limited hours for commercial deliveries and refuse collections. The hours of operation can be modified as part of a request for a Conditional Use. o Exercise and Fitness facilities are size -limited. §153.062 — Building Types • Revisions to the building type standards for the Historic Cottage Commercial building. • Building height is limited to two stories or a maximum of 24 -feet to the eave; and one and half stories or a maximum of 18 -feet to the eave within 50 -feet of the rear lot line. • A reduction in the footprint of any individual building to 1,800 square feet to ensure scale is consistent with the existing character of the sub -district (individual buildings on the same parcel can be connected via an "enclosed connection" or hallway). • Maximum building coverage is limited to 50 percent of a site, and maximum impervious coverage has been reduced to 65 percent (from the earlier proposal of 75 percent). • On-site parking cannot be visible from High Street; it must be located behind buildings. Dublin Architectural Review Board July 26, 2017 —Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11 Ms. Martin said the Code does not identify specific criteria for reviewing Code Amendments, however, the Planning Report has outlined considerations based on the BSD Special Area Plan for the Historic District's existing character. She said Staff and the ART are supportive of these modifications, therefore, approval is recommended to this Board for the BSD Code amendments. She also stated that the ARB's recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission but City Council will then be the final reviewing body. Ms. Martin said, in some cases, there may be a creation of non -conformities, given the nature of the district as these structures have been built over time but that will be addressed in the standard section of the Code. With respect to the Rezoning portion, Ms. Martin said there are 25 parcels proposed to be rezoned, which she noted. She said that these parcels are currently identified as the BSD Historic Core District and are now being proposed to be located within the Historic South District, which will be applied to land along S. High Street, south of Spring Hill, and north of John Wright Lane. With the creation of this district, she said all of the aforementioned uses and permitted building types will now be permitted in this district but this district does not permit the Historic Mixed -Use Building type; therefore, some of the concerns about the character of development that will occur in this district is significantly limited; and, the Historic Cottage Commercial building, which is permitted in this district, has been modified to address those concerns. Ms. Martin presented the entire BSD Zoning Map as it would be proposed to Council. She said the ART is recommending the ARB recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission with no conditions for a Standard District Rezoning to permit a new zoning district — Historic South. She restated City Council will be the final reviewing body. The Chair invited the public to comment. Kathy Lannan, 37 S. Riverview Street, requested the ARB send this latest draft back for further review with the Planning Department. As a homeowner that lives north of Spring Hill, she said, she would love to see this softer touch extended behind their properties. She said there are foundations there that need tender loving care and the heavy construction is a concern. She inquired about parking structures being permitted as a conditional use in this new area; that was not in the June draft and they feel very strongly that they do not want parking structures permitted. Ms. Martin indicated parking structures being permitted as an accessory conditional use in this new area must have been an error in the July draft. The Chair clarified a parking structure is not a Conditional Use and the current version needs to be amended. Ms. Martin noted the error in the table and ensured that would be cleaned up prior to submittal to the PZC and suggested additionally, that be made a condition this evening. Ms. Lannan said she was happy to see the height restriction on the story and a half building but wondered if that went far enough to limit the size of these buildings. She asked if it would make sense to also define "the upper half story as being limited to half of the livable square footage permitted for the first floor" - somehow to limit the height. She referenced the new house on Riverview Street that she described as very beautiful. Supposedly, she said, at a height of a story and a half but it is taller than the two-story buildings around it. She emphasized she would like to see a good solid definition of a one and a half story building in the revised Code amendments. Ms. Lannan said she sees the development at 35 S. High Street and it has room additions, small buildings in the back, and incorporates parking, but it is all subordinate to the historic structure, which is an example of infill development she would like to see. Dublin Architectural Review Board July 26, 2017 —Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 11 Ms. Lannan noted the linkages proposed. She said all these buildings can be linked together as an infill project and she believes that will close up the openness that currently exists; she is looking for a small cottage development. She is concerned that we will end up with a wall of buildings that will close up the area. Denise Frantz King, 170 S. Riverview Street, said she was deputized by the leadership of the Historic District Association to come and carry the message tonight because they are on vacation. She said there has been a lot of input from residents at public input sessions offered by the City, which they appreciate and it is a credit to staff that they listen and carry the message to Council. While progress is being made, Ms. King said the revisions to the Code still need some work. She suggested that as much time that everyone has spent on this, it is worth getting it right before Council votes on it. She noted the most important feature is the historic character. She indicated portions of the Historic District have been written off with a great sense of loss so it is important to preserve this community -wide asset. The boundaries for Historic South should include all of the properties east of High Street and south of SR 161, she said, as this backs up to residents of the Historic District. She said Mill Lane, S. Blacksmith Lane, Spring Hill Lane, Eberly Hill Lane, Pinney Hill Lane, and John Wright Lane should not be considered principal or non -principal frontage streets but rather High Street should be considered a principal frontage street. Part of the definition of the BSD Code Section 163.061(D) and Section 153.060 is to preserve the character of the area that has buildings, little green spaces, trees, and parking lots; it is not just a mass of buildings along the alleys for example. She referenced Code Section 153.061(D) that states: "Alleys and service streets are very low capacity, low speed, and located near the rear lots that minimize the driveway interruptions in the pedestrian realm. Alleys and service streets provide access to parking facilities, loading facilities, and service areas for refuge and utilities." Ms. King clarified their point is - that is what the alleys and service streets should be used for. She added Section 153.060 states: "Alleys and service streets shall not be considered street frontage and shall not be subject to street frontage requirements as described in Sections 153.059 to 153.065." Ms. King said linkages between buildings need to be discouraged; linkages may be more favorably considered if the maximum building coverage on the lot is maintained at 40%. She emphasized they did not want buildings around the entire block or property with a courtyard in the middle, which will diminish the historic character and will instead take on this urbanized city block feel, which detracts from the asset that is Historic Dublin. Ms. King said the major concern of the residents is the proposal for infill density in the Historic District whose inherent character and existing physical conditions are described and protected by the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines, which states: "Perhaps the most definable characteristic of Historic Dublin is its intimate small village scale. The buildings are located close together along the sidewalk and range from one to one and a half stories in height. Nearly all the buildings have a residential quality and contrast to the centers of many other historical Ohio communities that have a continuous streetscape of commercial buildings with storefronts, cornices, and shared party walls. The spaces between the buildings offer owners and tenants an opportunity to create small gardens, seating areas, and open space. Mature trees also contribute to the character of a well-established community. The combination building materials, physical Dublin Architectural Review Board July 26, 2017 —Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11 setting, and spatial relationships among the historic buildings make Historic Dublin unique." Ms. King said this is not something new the residents are advocating, this is something that has been on all of our books and important to a lot of people in this community for over two decades, approximately. Ms. King said the residents are concerned that the Zoning Code speaks only to the physical measurements of infill and not to the character of the architecture and the new BSD Design Guidelines should define and promote historically appropriate architectural styles. She added the models in the document do not appropriately reflect what we are proposing and therefore should be altered. Ms. King inquired about principal permitted uses in Table 153.062-A. She asked why Elementary, Middle, and High Schools, as well as a library and civic building are listed under Core 2/Historic South because there is really not enough room for any of those types of building/uses. She said the residents are comfortable with Exercise and Fitness uses and Surface Parking lots. She pointed out that parking is not really addressed in these standards and both the Historic Dublin Business Association and the Resident's Association feel very strongly that this is half a plan to go forward with these revisions without specifically addressing parking. She reported that the Business Association computed that they have more employees south of SR 161 than there are parking spaces. She said they are working really hard to grow and we want them to succeed. She said their message is that with any new infill development there needs to be a requirement for enough parking onsite to support whatever is built. She reported the businesses have already complained that other business employees are parking in front of their businesses and their customers cannot park there; therefore, she asked the Board not to make the situation worse. Ms. King inquired about the limits on Eating/Drinking establishments and suggested the hours could be expanded beyond the proposed 7 am — 10 pm hours on the weekends to 11 pm. She cited that at 10:15 at night on several occasions, she has witnessed an empty Village Tavern and they even have a permit to stay open later. Ms. King indicated the residents are willing to work with the City. She had additional revisions to the table on page 14 that included the zoning conflicts with the Dublin Historic Design Guidelines. She said she would like the Guidelines to be the definitive outline for the ARB to use as a primary standard for the preservation and maintenance of buildings, landmarks, and landscapes within the Board's jurisdiction. Ms. King reported that Mayor Peterson told one of their members that he favored a sit-down with City Council - himself specifically, Staff, and residents to work out what will be presented to Council on this. She indicated she hoped she had given some food for thought to the ARB this evening and maybe the ARB could join them in this meeting, and delay it just a little bit longer to get it right. Michael B. Steele, said he owns the building at 138 S. High Street that is the southern most commercial property on the east side of Dublin Road. He said they have been there for 11 years and took a year to build it but they were pleased with the outcome. He stressed he has a tremendous amount of experience in construction and building so he understands all the details of what has been discussed this evening. Mr. Steele referred to Dublin, Ireland and said there is a tremendous range of architectural history in that city and Dublin, Ohio has a very small range. He reported the building he purchased was built in 1877 and it has had minor changes. He indicated there is a fairly good history here in this little pocket. He said even in historic cities there is still variety, change, and evolution of structures. He said he has been very pleased with the location for his business and has no desire to go elsewhere as it is wonderful. He said he likes what he sees with regard to our small little city — business district versus some others that have tried to do it and failed. Dublin Architectural Review Board July 26, 2017 —Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 11 Mr. Steele asked what triggered this rezoning proposal and evolution to this point. He agreed that we should go slow with this and not approve it until there are no revisions. He concluded he would like to see this proposed business change to be more formalized and more structured. Mr. Steele restated he has been here 11 years, 2 blocks from The Village Tavern but he has this habit of driving to lunch at the various eateries here and not once has he driven from his office and not been able to park within 50 feet of the destination at noon, two to three days per week. He said the comments about parking are overrated. He reported he has seven parking spaces available on his property for his tiny little building and the most vehicles he has ever seen in there is three. Mr. Steele said when he came to the ARB 11 years ago, something bothered him — priorities. He said the first case was for a 2 foot by 3 foot sign for a structure on the east side of Dublin Road and he recalled the ARB spent two hours and five minutes on the sign and turned it down. He said the second proposal was for additions to an existing business and that took 30 minutes to approve. He said he went next and within 15 minutes he was approved for a total 100% gut and redo of an existing structure, inside out, top to bottom. At that time, he concluded there was something wrong with that picture and it impacted him greatly. He tried to figure out what was important to the ARB and what they were trying to accomplish. He said the ARB has been outstanding through history for what it has done but asked what the purpose of this rezoning was when it is working and did this come about because a few people did not want change. The Chair closed the public portion and thanked everyone for commenting that hit on specific topics that were continuously discussed by this Board. Ms. Martin said Staff really appreciates the comments from the public. She said some of the areas that were touched on were not part of this application but they are items on-going within the larger BSD Code and Design Guidelines update. David Rinaldi thanked Staff for all the effort that has gone into this, and at the last ARB meeting, the Board Members thought they really got this down to a handful of comments and Staff has addressed the ones that this Board had, including the limitation of uses and the hours of operation. He asked if the operator would be able to request a conditional use to expand the hours or if this was cut and dry. Ms. Martin answered the use specific standard for operations is 7am — 10pm but any restaurant could request a conditional use from the PZC but the ARB would need to make a recommendation to the Commission, first. Mr. Rinaldi said he was pleased about the definitive story height because it always raised confusion amongst the public as well as a Board. Mr. Rinaldi said linkages were discussed at length the last time. He said from his perspective, there is a delicate balance here. If we make everything too restrictive, he indicated, we are not going to have anything happen here and it is not going to help the district but adversely would be detrimental to the district. He concluded he thought the Board struck a balance. Jeff Leonard asked if there is a provision for existing historic structures that grandfathers them in so if a building is not occupied and falls down, the building could be rebuilt to look exactly like it was. He said he did not think (former) Biddies for example could be rebuilt since it is a long building and that we should look at that. Mr. Leonard said he agrees with his neighbors about linkages because nothing else in Dublin, specifically the Historic District looks like that. He said he agreed with a lot of what Mr. Steele said but parking in the evening is an issue around the commercial structures for sure after 4:30 pm or 5:00 pm. Right behind where he lives, he said, there is parking for the businesses that are there and they are parking on top of Dublin Architectural Review Board July 26, 2017 —Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11 each other already and those are the lots that are potentially up for development. He suggested that if more buildings are added, he does not know where people would park. He mentioned the traffic on the alleys and suggested a traffic study be performed before more construction is permitted. He said in the morning, cars are moving at 40 mph down Blacksmith alley, not stopping at any stop signs and in the evening it is repeated in the opposite direction. He said he agreed with Ms. King in that we have half of a good plan. He agrees with protecting what is historic in the north but thought this would force people to build structures that are just not going to fit in. Shannon Stenberg explained one of the reasons for several discussions about moving that boundary was because of the Donato's building; if it were to be reconstructed, it would not fit in this historic cottage commercial, which is why the ARB did not support changing the boundary. Ms. Martin clarified the idea behind these Code amendments is not to recreate history but to allow for the development of new buildings that are consistent with the character that the residents had expressed they would like adjacent to single-family residential areas. With respect to existing structures, she stated, the ARB has purview over all demolitions so an applicant would need to demonstrate that the structure was not salvageable and meets certain criteria prior to redevelopment. Mr. Leonhard clarified that he was speaking of instances where Mother Nature was the cause or perhaps a fire, etc. He reiterated that the linkages are consistent with what is proposed but not with what is existing. Mr. Rinaldi reiterated that the building lot coverage is 50% now and so a lot could not be filled. He said the other delicate balance is that people want more parking but the impervious areas are being limited so more green space is attained but there is less parking. He stated they cut back 10% of impervious materials but there will be less room for parking on that lot. He said there are significant trade-offs. He said the overarching theme here is that the new area is being treated with a lighter touch then what is currently permitted. If the fear is more development, he said, he does not believe that is the case here at all. Ms. Stenberg said she agreed with the intention as Mr. Rinaldi just stated. She said the Board considered what would happen should a demolition request be granted for whatever reason. She said several of the comments regarding parking and traffic and the amount of people that will be coming into this area is going to be conditional on the specific building or a specific use and all of those applications will be coming to the Board. One of the changes she really did appreciate, she said, was the impervious coverage to be reduced to 65% to prevent the entire area that is left to be covered by parking. She said the Board is supporting changes but they are still ensuring that there will be green space and beautiful views of the trees as well as their shadows. She concluded this revised proposal has addressed some of the previous issues very well. Mr. Rinaldi noted that everyone likes the Donato's building but the lot coverage would not meet this Code at all and maybe we would not have that parking behind there. Mr. Leonhard indicated that the fear of the residents is - there is an empty space behind Donato's and some of the other buildings and they would not be held to the softer standards should they get developed now. Mr. Rinaldi asked if they modified somewhat what was allowed within the current Historic Core. Ms. Martin clarified that the Historic Core amendments were part of the Work Session and Open House but were not specifically part of Council's directive for this Southern Historic District Code amendment so those will come before the Board later for another review as part of the overall BSD Code update. Dublin Architectural Review Board July 26, 2017 —Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 11 Mr. Leonhard asked if the process was being done out of order. Ms. Rauch answered Staff was looking at a major Code update but because the City had had a lot of development pressure within the Historic District, Council asked Staff to move forward with addressing this area specifically. She said the request from Council was more to address the current concerns. Everett Musser stated he agreed with Mr. Rinaldi that this review is a delicate balance. He reported there have been some work sessions back to the first of the year and public input has been gathered and considered as revisions were being made. He suggested that no matter how long we have this process, we will not be able to please everyone. He said they are trying to develop some guidelines so the citizens would be happy as well as attract new business to have a viable Historic District. Right now, he said, we have done that and we will continue to work with it but it is only at a point where it does a pretty good job of protecting the citizens as well as encouraging developers and businesses to come in. As Ms. Stenberg pointed out, he said everything is going to come before the ARB where the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines are followed and historic design is considered. He concluded that these revisions should be moved forward with these proposed recommendations. Mr. Rinaldi noted that Code diagrams can look like boxes on a block but that is not our goal here as a representation of potential massing. He said the Board is very sensitive to the historic nature of what goes on in terms of architecture. He said if one attends a meeting where the Board is discussing a new proposal, there is a lot of talk about what is going on in terms of materials, scale, and massing. He said the Code tends to be pretty dry but that is not how the Board approaches these elements. They take into consideration the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines extremely and what that means for the district and how these structures look within the rest of the district. The Chair asked if there was anything with the sub -district itself that still needed to be addressed. He asked if the Board had come as close to a sweet spot as they could. He restated the Board was just down to a handful of comments the last time and believes they have since been addressed. Ms. Stenberg stated this proposal meets all of the comments and questions that the Board had. Mr. Rinaldi said he agreed with Mr. Musser in that we are not going to please everybody no matter how restrictive we make the Code. If the Code is too restrictive, he indicated, we would not be able to change anything in the district then that will not make everybody happy either. Ms. Martin said Staff has prepared the condition for the Zoning Code Amendment portion: 1) That the Use Table be updated to reflect that Parking Structures are not permitted or conditional as an Accessory Use in the Historic South District. Motion and Vote Mr. Musser moved, Mr. Rinaldi seconded, to recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an Administrative Request for BSD Code Amendments with one condition: 1) That the Use Table be updated to reflect that Parking Structures are not permitted or conditional as an Accessory Use in the Historic South District. The vote was as follows: Ms. Stenberg, yes; Mr. Leonhard, no; Mr. Rinaldi, yes; and Mr. Musser, yes. (Recommended for Approval 3 — 1) Motion and Vote Mr. Rinaldi moved, Ms. Stenberg seconded, to recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the modified zoning map with no conditions. The vote was as follows: Mr. Musser, yes; Mr. Leonhard, no; Ms. Stenberg, yes; and Mr. Rinaldi, yes. (Recommended for Approval 3 — 1) RECORD OF DETERMINATION Ciryof Dublin Administrative Review Team 111(11', 1 ISA Thursday, July 20, 2017 The Administrative Review Team made the following determinatlon at this meeting: 4, Historic Dublin — Zoning Map Amendment 17.0742 Historic Dublin Rezoning Proposal: An amendment to the Zoning Map to establish Bridge Street District Historic South as a new zoning district, Location: The related sites are located within Historic Dublin, west of the Scioto River. Request: Review and recommendation 0 approval 0 qty Council for a Standard District Rezoning under the provisions of Zoning Code Sedions 153,232 and 153,234, Applicant, Dana 1, McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin, Planning Contact: Nichola M. Martln, Planner 1; (614) 4104635, nmardn@dublin,oh,us REQUEST: Recommendation of approval to the Archltedurel Review Board for an amendment to the Zoning Map with no conditions for the inclusion of the Hbtorlc South Zoning Dlsbld. Determination: Rezoning was forwarded to the Architectural Review Board with a recommendation of approval as the next step In the approval process. STAFF CERTIFICATION Vince .rap-5idl FAICP Directopf Planning PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, 143016 phone 614,410.600 fax 614,410,4747 dublinohlousa,gov Administrative Review Team Minutes Thursday, July 20, 2017 Page 5 of 7 u u_ ■ ■ ■ UP H IM -010 1110 ■_ 11ARTf.17T.R.'RTl.�T97-T.RIsm .C�nRSS7A:7iiR�T-fRRTl-1 4. Historic Dublin — Zoning Map Amendment Historic Dublin 17-074Z Rezoning Nichole Martin said this is a proposal for an amendment to the Zoning Map to establish Bridge Street District Historic South as a new zoning district. She noted the sites are located within Historic Dublin along S. High Street, south of Spring Hill and north of John Wright Lane. She said this is a request for a review and approval of proposed Zoning Code amendments under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232, 153.234 and 153.066. Administrative Review Team Minutes Thursday, July 20, 2017 Page 6 of 7 Ms. Martin reported the City of Dublin is sponsoring this application to rezone 25 parcels (and portions of parcels) to the new BSD Historic South District. Ms. Martin presented the Proposed Zoning Map, showing the existing and proposed BSD zoning districts. She stated the new BSD Historic South District will be applied to land generally along S. High Street, south of Spring Hill and north of John Wright Lane. The proposed Zoning Map amendment to the BSD Historic Core, she said, will facilitate implementation of the land use, transportation, and open space objectives of the Bridge Street District Area Plan of the Dublin Community Plan. Ms. Martin said approval is recommended to the Architectural Review Board for an amendment to the Zoning Map for the inclusion of the Historic South Zoning District. Vince Papsidero asked if there were any questions or concerns regarding this application. [There were none.] He called for a vote, the motion carried, and the Rezoning was recommended for approval by the ART and forwarded to the Architectural Review Board for the meeting on July 26th. 14cUif Dun OHIO, USA SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Architectural Review Board Wednesday, June 14, 2017 AGENDA Work Session to review proposed amendments of the Bridge Street District Code as they relate to the Historic District. 4:T-Til:E�17�ZitR'�F7R1�IfS11T.f7Rf^.T-T-S7R.i7.T.Tl.F1'i_S'leQeli�7:7-TT.�T.f7R-77 T.R-T.S7�1R.'IC1RJ7it7R-17 u ITL61:I IC -i *moi to] 1 The Chair, David Rinaldi, said this is a work session to review proposed amendments to Sections 153.058, 153.059, and 153.062 of the Bridge Street District Code and review a proposed area rezoning. These revisions address the intent, uses, zoning districts, and building types for Historic Dublin core districts. Vince Papsidero thanked the Board for hosting the Open House prior to this meeting this evening as well as this special work session. He said Staff and the consultant have been working for a number of months on a Code update in response to issues raised by the community relative to the potential new commercial development along S. High Street in the Historic District. He said Leslie Oberholtzer, CodaMetrics, is the City's consultant who also participated in the development of the original Bridge Street Code. The intention, he said, is to get the amendments approved by the end of the summer. He stated that Ms. Oberholtzer will give a presentation and then we will take the Board's comments and questions. PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov Dublin Architectural Review Board June 14, 2017 — SPECIAL Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7 Leslie Oberholtzer, CodaMetrics, reported that revisions had begun in October 2016, and there was a public outreach workshop where Staff created a series of stations for addressing concerns and to promote in-depth discussions. She said the stations available for each participant to rotate through were as follows: • The first station introduced the potential for a new transitional zoning district between the Bridge and High Street intersection and the residential buildings on neighboring streets and the south end of High Street • The second station addressed the current Code requirements for materials and design details such as massing, windows, and roofs. • The third station provided a discussion format for parking provisions in the area, focusing on the difference between the areas north and south of Bridge Street. • The fourth station presented some design options addressing potential infill development in the rear of the lots along Blacksmith and Mill Lanes. Ms. Oberholtzer said she was instructed to look specifically at the areas south of High Street and south of Bridge Street. She said Staff was trying to figure out what could happen behind all those historic buildings up and down High Street and what would be appropriate in terms of their relationship to the residential on the other side of the lanes. She provided some images from those four stations to provide a sense of the level of effort. She reported there was a good turnout at that first workshop and a lot of input was received from the community. Ms. Oberholtzer stated the second workshop was based on the results of the first workshop to discuss details and uses that would be appropriate for this new proposed district. She reported there was some discussion about parameters for hours that eating and drinking establishments could be open. She presented an example of one of the surveys that were distributed at that second workshop. From the information obtained and discussions with Staff, she said, some revisions were drafted. She indicated the first draft of revisions is meant to engage everybody in conversation. She said the focus was on intent, which is to allow for infill since this is the demand to support a mix of uses because it is already a mixed- use area and to ensure the new development fits within the context. She indicated this is a very unique location as it has its own character, form, and materials. She said the Code should be written so everything fits within that context including the surrounding historic residential areas. Ms. Oberholtzer said four items were focused on for revising the Code. 1. To introduce a new district; 2. To revise the map based on that new district; 3. To revise the building types; and 4. To revise the uses. Ms. Oberholtzer said this is Code meant to define the building envelopes and regulations but it is not meant to take -away the ARB Historic Dublin District Guidelines. To introduce this new BSD Core II District, she stated she is editing the existing Code that lists all the different districts. She explained the revisions follow the language in the Code for the existing Historic Core but limits Core II to the smaller scale cottage feel. Ms. Oberholtzer noted on a map the location of the new Historic Core II District being proposed and highlighted the areas requiring rezoning. She said that within this new district, single-family detached and historic cottage commercial building types will be permitted, and the existing historic mixed-use building type will not be permitted. She explained the basic difference between the two is that the historic mixed- Dublin Architectural Review Board June 14, 2017 — SPECIAL Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 7 use building type has the connected street wall like the new construction at Bridge and High Streets; the cottage commercial has more space and pushback. She added the civic building type is always permitted as it is a flexible building for specific uses. Ms. Oberholtzer said there are issues with the current mixed-use building type. She said the focus is mainly to address what is happening in the back portion of the lots. She said the area along High Street remains the same with one main exception — the buildings are now limited to two stories instead of two and a half stories in height. The second exception is that an overall revision to the BSD and one of the items to be likely removed from the Code is the transparency requirement on the back and interior sides of buildings. She presented graphics to illustrate the revisions proposed from the backs of mixed-use buildings measured approximately 100 feet to the lane: Building footprint is limited to 1800 square feet; Building length is limited to 50 square feet; 18 feet should be between separate buildings in the rear; and An enclosed connection is permitted. These revisions above, she said, are to allow cottages in the rear of these lots and presented graphics. She noted the maximum 12 -foot connections between the cottages is to allow for a business to expand. She said the cottages are limited to a single story in height and required to be 15 feet back from the face of the building so the additional setback allows for more landscaping or a courtyard area. Additionally, she said coverage is limited to 50%. She said there is a maximum height of 1.5 stories in the last 50 feet so there is a swath along each lane that is limited to 1.5 stories since they would abut residential. She emphasized the series of buildings is stepping back from the 2 stories permitted along High Street to 1.5 stories in the rear 50 feet of the lot along the lanes. She summarized the building massing in the rear, height, and the amount of coverage of the lots have been focused on. She referred to a matrix, which demonstrated how the uses are managed on the lots. She noted there is only a limitation of residential uses along the principal frontage occupied space, which is a 20 -foot depth along High Street. Everett Musser inquired about parking requirements for Historic Core II to which Ms. Oberholtzer answered has not been addressed yet. Ms. Oberholtzer said the same uses are permitted for the new district with three exceptions: Banks are not permitted; Eating and drinking establishments are limited; and Surface parking lots as a principal use and parking structures are not permitted. Ms. Oberholtzer further proposed that conditional use applications would no longer go to the Planning and Zoning Commission but instead will come to the ARB for the recommendation to City Council at the same time that everything else is being reviewed by the ARB. Ms. Oberholtzer reported that the public fairly overwhelmingly said that eating and drinking establishments were desired in this district but the use needed to be limited: 3,500 square feet (already exists in the Code) Hours are 7 am to 10 pm Deliveries and refuge pick-up between the hours of 8 am — 5 pm Ms. Oberholtzer said that landscaping, parking, design guidelines in terms of materials, window, etc. will be addressed with the overall BSD revisions to move the design standards to a handbook that will contain softer language. She indicated that is already addressed with the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines so the design standards will be reviewed during a later phase of work. Dublin Architectural Review Board June 14, 2017 — SPECIAL Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 7 Ms. Oberholtzer indicated she hopes the following are discussed this evening 1. Whether or not this proposal is in character with the existing context; and 2. Height and massing The Chair invited public comment. Jeff Leonhard, 55 S. Riverview Street, said he has resided there for almost four years and the area proposed as Historic Core II is right by his house. He indicated he did not disagree with a lot of the revisions but thought it was overkill for three empty lots. He said some limitations are good for these empty spaces but he is concerned these revisions may restrict new development. He said there are so many empty buildings up there now and even in the new construction at Bridge and High there are empty spaces. He suggested that too many restrictions have already kept new businesses away and developers are trying to avoid those restrictions by building new. There are buildings that are one storm away from falling down or burning down, he said, and it has been that way since he has lived here. Steve Rudy, 129 S. Riverview Street, thanked everyone for their hard work. He said he likes the shared open space in this district, currently. He said he likes the revisions for permitting detached homes and the maximum story height but would prefer absolute height. He said the following are not being protected: topography, sight lines, or the openness. He said the Code looks great here but enforcement is a different matter so he is not confident that the infill will be built as written here so he would like to see the new development as far away from residential as possible. Michael Carrol, 190 S. High Street, said he did not understand what was just presented. He said if the intent is to get the community to say this is a good idea, then it needs to be presented in a way that looks at the big picture instead of all these little details. He said he does not know what Dublin wants the Historic District to look like or the traffic to be like; the historic buildings are not being protected. He suggested the City provide incentives so people will keep up the old buildings. He said it is not fair to ask this Board to say something cannot be demolished and then it just rots because it is not economically feasible to fix it up. He affirmed the City put a lot of time and effort into these proposed revisions but he is not certain it is a fix because he does not understand it. Christina Wentz, 54 S. High Street, said she is a business owner in the district right now. She asked that the parking minimum should be increased, especially for the areas farthest away from the public lots. She stated she is a retail establishment and she needs those parallel spots on High Street for her staff and drop in customers. With more businesses moving into the area, parking will just become worse. Garrick Daft, 21 Indian Run Drive, said he does not understand the 7 am — 10 pm eating/drinking establishment limitation. He suggested the limitation should be expanded to 6 am — 11 pm. He inquired about uses because he did not understand what type of businesses are to be attracted. He said the area is dead after the Village Tavern. He asked for clarification on some other revisions, too. Jane Fox asked if his questions could be answered. Ms. Oberholtzer said the difference between a Bed and Breakfast and eating/drinking establishments is that the B&B is for overnight stays and the breakfasts are typically served to the guests staying there; the B&B would not be open to the public unless an eating/drinking establishment was permitted in that location. She said the reason behind the exclusion of entertainment, recreation, indoor exercise and fitness use is the scale of those spaces, typically. She said potentially, the exercise and fitness could be permitted as a conditional use just like the Historic Core District. Dublin Architectural Review Board June 14, 2017 — SPECIAL Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7 Mr. Daft indicated that Harbor Yoga was an interesting place and a yoga studio would easily fit into a 3,500 -square -foot space to which Ms. Oberholtzer agreed. He said it is a beautiful area and is thankful that all this planning and attention is being paid to this area to conserve the historic nature and to also attract people. The Chair asked for anyone else from the public that wanted to speak. [Hearing none.] He closed the public portion and moved onto Board discussion. The Chair said he appreciated the comments and asked the Board if they had any opinions on the uses or other revisions proposed. He asked if this proposal has gone far enough. David Rinaldi suggested that the uses be revisited as there could be more uses permitted, potentially that would not be objectionable to this scale of buildings. Overall, he said he thought this addressed a lot of the concerns that have been voiced and the scale of what is happening behind the Historic District. He stated he liked the limitation of height on High Street, the footprint sizes, and more open space. Jane Fox said there is some improvement but she would like to see that area go all the way up to SR 161 because there is a lot of area behind Donatos that is open for development and that abuts residential. She said she liked that the floor minimum heights were decreased but the revision only brought them down one foot — from 10 feet to 9 feet. She suggested we consider a height maximum clarified in footage because the height of the building cannot always be controlled by the floor minimum heights. She liked that Ms. Oberholtzer stated the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines still apply as they have to be an overriding review standard more so than just the specifics of the Code because they state what the ARB is supposed to be doing. That, she said, is that the Historic District has a sense of place and in order to maintain that, the ARB has to look at the vernacular architecture but also at the intimate village scale and the spaces between the buildings and that is where the linkages become a problem for her. Ms. Fox noted the following have not been addressed at all • Variations in land form; • Topography; • Patterns of streets, alleys, and sidewalks; • Kind of paving materials permitted; • Stone walls; • Mature street trees; and • Other environmental features that create the visually interesting community. Ms. Fox said even though we are looking at the architectural massing details, we are not looking holistically at what we are trying to preserve here. We could approve the proposal as it stands she said but there will not be protection for historic character. She presented some photographs of examples to demonstrate. Ms. Fox asked the following question: If you imagine your favorite block or place in the Historic District and it did not exist tomorrow, would the present proposed Bridge Street District Zoning Code allow it to be rebuilt again. Ms. Fox said if we are going to change the Code, and there are particular aspects and characteristics of this Historic District that are to be preserved. She added if this Code does not allow us to maintain, preserve, protect, or recreate it, then we are missing the boat. Dublin Architectural Review Board June 14, 2017 — SPECIAL Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 7 Ms. Fox restated that she is concerned with the linkages, the lot coverage, and the density this type of infill would bring. She indicated that a 50% lot coverage is not characteristic of the Historic District. She said she is also concerned with allowing impervious material to reach a maximum of 85%. She presented several photographs to demonstrate her point. She said the Historic District has a lot of open green spaces with disconnected structures. She emphasized that the characteristics need to be made clearer and considered. She said if areas are filled in with linkages, the sightlines will be decreased and if 85% impervious is permitted there will be a lot of hardscape with no room for grass or mature trees. She stressed that the linkages do not currently exist in the Historic District and if these linkages are permitted to be chained together, the character of the District changes. She said there will no longer be as much green space, mature trees, sightlines, or vistas that everyone finds so precious down there. She emphasized this is important and needs to be addressed. Ms. Oberholtzer restated that 18 feet is required between buildings and the connections/linkages are meant to be 15 feet back and intended to create a little inset or courtyard and the building could only be a single story. She suggested that maybe the Code be revised to state the 18- by 15 -foot courtyard would have to have a certain percentage limitation of impervious material. Mr. Musser inquired further about the linkages. Ms. Oberholtzer said from an economic perspective, an 1,800 -square -foot building could be allowed to expand for the businesses by connecting buildings. On a Google map, she pointed out areas that do not have much room between buildings - it is not the proposed 18 feet but rather more like 5 or 10 feet at the most. She said the point is to offset the development in the rear of the lots. She said all of the cottages that exist up and down High Street are all very close together with the green space in the back. She proposed that maybe the linkages could exist along the High Street buildings but not in the rear buildings. Shannon Stenberg recalled a discussion whereas parcels could not be combined in the Historic District Core II. She asked if that could be added to these revisions. Ms. Oberholtzer explained that could be done but by setting the maximum width of the building that was meant to be the solution. Mr. Papsidero said Staff was responding to the concerns of the neighbors who did not want large scale buildings so that is why these limitations are proposed. Mr. Musser asked how the 50% lot coverage was determined by the consultant and if it was based on research or other historic areas. Ms. Oberholtzer explained the illustrations in the proposed Code are the same that were presented at the First Community Workshop, but simplified. She reported that during that first workshop, she presented a typical lot with the coverage, (an appropriate) space between the buildings which is about 18 feet, that included a series of cottage commercial buildings and then she removed one of them in the rear to create a green space as another option. Throughout the whole process she reported she kept requesting input from the residents and the consensus was as long as the buildings that were in the rear had that scale, reduced in height, and matched the cottage feel, the green space was not necessary. Mr. Musser stated 50% lot coverage is okay. He said he likes the revised Code, the cottage concept, and has no trouble with the linkages. He indicated he is concerned about the parking, landscaping, and materials but understands that will be addressed at a later date. Ms. Stenberg inquired about setbacks for the commercial buildings. Ms. Oberholtzer explained the zero setback was to create the street wall and the rear has a setback because the lanes are so narrow. She said there could be an issue when determining what fagade is the front and what is considered to be the rear so that should be clarified. Dublin Architectural Review Board June 14, 2017 — SPECIAL Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7 Ms. Stenberg inquired about floor height. Ms. Oberholtzer explained that 15 feet is typically desired for the ground floor height of commercial businesses (such as chain restaurants) so 12 feet is fairly low but it is more consistent with the existing buildings. Mr. Rinaldi said it might be nice to explore the uses permitted to allow more flexibility in the Historic Core II District. He noted that the 85% impervious number probably includes where some of the parking will go; if we restrict that, then parking needs to be found elsewhere. Ms. Fox indicated that if parking is an issue, then 50% lot coverage is too much and she would also like to see a limitation on overall height of buildings because they are supposed to be subordinate to contextually adjacent historic buildings. Ms. Stenberg suggested that a definition of a half -story be included in the Code. She said a half story of 12 feet versus a half story of 9 feet is a big difference. Mr. Rinaldi stated the overall height needs to be established. Ms. Fox said that even when there was a case where the proposed building met the height requirement, the subordination to existing historic buildings did not occur. She added she does not want to see the historic building become the least important building. The Chair concluded there have been some diverse comments made this evening. Mr. Musser responded to the lot coverage. He said if economic development is desired, there needs to be a certain amount of lot coverage, otherwise it is not economically feasible. He indicated there is a fine line between preserving the Historic District and inviting new economic development. Ms. Fox agreed but said even though we can see incremental improvements on these lots it has to be restricted in some ways because she does not want to see economic development placed in front of preserving a Historic District. This is a big city she emphasized and there are plenty of other places to gain taxpayer money but once the Historic District is destroyed by insensitive infill, then the Historic District is gone. She said 10% of historic structures have now been eliminated. Mr. Musser said he did not think this Code would promote insensitive infill. Ms. Fox repeated she wanted to see less density on the lots. The Chair confirmed that the consultant received all the public input desired and research completed. Mr. Papsidero said this was a very good conversation and all the comments will be evaluated. He said the intent is to come back to the Board in July with a revised proposal to start the adoption process. He said the revised Code will be posted online for the public beforehand. Notices, he said, will be sent to the same neighbors as were invited this evening. Ms. Burchett asked the audience if they had any additional comments to please put them on the comment cards and they will be collected. She said if there are further comments, please feel free to contact Planning Staff and they will forward them to Ms. Oberholtzer as well. The Chair adjourned the meeting at 8:19 pm. As approved by the Architectural Review Board on July 26, 2017 City of Dublin OHIO, USA August 25, 2017 Historic Dublin Neighborhood Association (HDNA) c/o Steven Rudy 129 S Riverview Street Dublin, OH 43017 Denise Franz King 170 S Riverview Street Dublin, OH 43017 RE: 7/26/17 ARB & 8/10/17 PZC Letters Dear HDNA Members: Thank you for your letters dated July 26 and August 10, 2017, regarding the proposed Historic Dublin code amendment and Historic Dublin zoning map amendment. As directed by City Council, these proposals are consistent with their goals to ensure new development is in keeping with the character of the southern portion of the district, which is predominantly residential. Furthermore, thank you for your participation in this year-long process that included two public workshops, an Architectural Review Board (ARB) work session, a public open house, and ARB special meeting prior to the formal review and adoption process with ARB, Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), and City Council. Your suggested modifications to the proposed code amendment and rezoning were based on the June draft of the proposal. It's important to note that some of your suggestions were incorporated in the proposal that was revised on July 10 and July 31, 2017 for ARB and PZC's review, respectively. Below, please find a staff response to each of your suggested modifications: 1) Building Height. We have not modified the proposal to limit the size and scale of the Historic Cottage Commercial building type, both in terms of number of stories and overall height. The maximum height had been reduced to 2 stories with a maximum linear height of 24 feet (it's important to clarify that throughout the code building height is measured as the midpoint between the eave and peak of a roof). Within 50 feet of a rear lot line, or in other words close to single family residential lots, Historic Cottage Commercial buildings are proposed to be limited to a maximum 1.5 stories with a maximum linear height of 18 feet (this is a significant reduction compared to the current code provisions). PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov August 25, 2017 re: 7/26/17 ARB & 8/10/17 PZC Letters 2) Interior Floor Space on the Second Floor. A successful form -based code allows for flexibility of the interior layout and design of a building, while promoting a desired character through the application of zoning standards to the site and building exterior. We believe your proposal to reduce the amount of usable space on the second floor is too restrictive, especially when combined with your proposal to further reduce building height. 3) Buildings Adjacent to Alleys. Under the code, the alleys in the district are not considered as appropriate for primary street frontage. Along with the proposed 1.5 - story building height restriction along alleys, staff has requested CodaMetrics to consider an appropriate increase in the minimum rear yard setback for buildings and parking (the five-foot setback in the code has been in place since its adoption in 2012). Regarding your comment to prohibit variances of the lot coverage requirement, the right to requesting any variance (waivers in the case of the BSD code) is legally guaranteed to all property owners and cannot be eliminated. 4) Parking. As a clarification, the code identifies parking and loading requirements in §153.065(6) based on land use, which applies to all of the Historic District. No changes are proposed to the parking standard with this code amendment. New development is required to meet parking requirements based on the combination of uses proposed. The Building Type and Use Table regulate where and what type of parking is permitted, respectively. In addition, the July 31st revision included updates to the Use Table deleting Parking Structures as permitted or conditional, primary or accessory uses in the BSD — Historic South District (this was a typographical error). Based on input from the public open house and ARB special meeting, the maximum building coverage remains at 50 percent, but maximum impervious area has been reduced to 65 percent to ensure the opportunity for greenspace and vistas at the rear of lots, as requested by the neighborhood. The axonometric renderings used to illustrate the various zoning standards are being simplified to better communicate the intent of the regulations. In addition, to clarify any confusion regarding the applicability of parking requirements, Staff has asked the consultant to prepare new illustrations that depict development types (e.g. retail, office, residential) as they would meet lot coverage, setback, open space, and parking requirements. 5) Open Space. To clarify, open space is a required site development standard as provided for in §153.064, based on land use. No changes are proposed to the open space standard with this code amendment. Please refer to item 4 regarding how the Building Type standards are addressing open space and vistas unique to the BSD — Historic South District. August 25, 2017 re: 7/26/17 ARB & 8/10/17 PZC Letters 6) Expanding the Geography of the Proposed Rezoning. The geography of this proposal is consistent with the direction provided by City Council. In addition, expansion of such boundaries would render existing development non -conforming, would introduce inappropriately scaled development standards to this key corridor, the result of which could be a negative impact on property values, and it would raise questions regarding the procedural rights of those specific property owners, given the point we are at in the rezoning process. At this time, staff does not support modifying the boundaries of the new district. 7) Civic Building. The Civic Building has been permitted in every BSD District since the code was adopted. But, staff concurs with your concern that the Civic Buildings could be out of scale and character of the sub -district. We will be modifying the proposal to eliminate the Civic Building Type from the permitted building types in Table 153.062-A. 8) Historic Dublin Guidelines. No changes to the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines are proposed with this amendment. The ARB will continue to have the purview to review applications within the District under the BSD Code and Historic Dublin Design Guidelines as they deem appropriate. 9) Limiting the Ability to Combine Tax Parcels. Lot combinations and lot splits are governed by the City of Dublin's Subdivision Regulations — Chapter 152 of the codified ordinances, as provided for in the Ohio Revised Code. Staff does not support the modification that you request to prevent owners from combining adjacent parcels. This request raises questions regarding the taking of property rights. The Law Director's Office is researching the issue and will be prepared to address Council on the matter. Again, thank you for your continued interest in the future of Historic Dublin. We look forward to working with all stakeholders in the district as this proposal continues through to adoption. Sincerely, Vincent A. Papsidero, FAICP Director of Planning C. Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager Donna Goss, Director of Development Terry Foegler, Director of Strategic Initiatives Historic Dublin Neighborhood Association August 10, 2017 Planning & Zoning Commission Members City of Dublin Planning Staff City Hall, Dublin Ohio 43017 Dear Commission Members and Staff: The Historic Dublin Neighborhood Association (HDNA) would like to thank City Council and Staff for heading our calls for a distinct set of rules to govern the Historic District South of SR 161, known as Historic District Core II/ or Bridge Street South. Without this effort, applying the BSD code to the Historic District would continue the slowly erasure the historic structures and scale from the Historic District. Preserving the Historic District with its charming architecture, cottage scale, lawns and views as a community asset is a goal we trust we all share. Members of the HDNA participated in large numbers in the two public input sessions held on the creation and content proposed HDC II or Bridge Street South code in October and December of 2016 and the ARB meetings in March and July. Attending such public input sessions is a great way to measure the pulse of the people you represent. Reflecting some of that input the staff made a number of amendments to value to area's historic cottage scale development when considering the density and scale of infill development and restorations. But the following concerns, which we have raised, still need to be addressed. We ask that you amend the HDC II Code as shown in italics below: 1. The code as presented emphasizes historic cottage style architecture which is appropriate for the area included in the new HDC Il map, but an amendment is needed to limit overall building height in feet to 22 feet. It cannot just refer to the number of stories. We have already seen applications for faux 1.5 story buildings that exceed the height of two story historic buildings. Height limits should reflect actual historic buildings in the HD Core IU Bridge Street South area, not the new builds on the corners of Bridge and High. Amendment: Under Ground Story, delete "II " feet and insert "10 "; under All other Stories, floor to floor heights, delete "II " feet and insert "10 ". Add "Maximum height of'eaveline: 13 feet. " Under 5 Roof Types add "Gabled roof with roofpitch no less that 8112." 2. The code refers to 1.5 story buildings. The second story of these buildings should be limited in floor space to on half the floor space of the first floor, so that it is what it says it is_ Amendment On page 12 tinder Historic Cottage Commercial, (b) Height, Overall Height, delete "2 " stories and insert 1.5 with the second, floor space half the ground floor area ". 3. It is critical that new buildings not front on any alleys (as shown on the bottom of page 4 "Illustration of the scale of development in the code revisions for the rear of Historic Mixed Use and Historic Cottage Commercial Building Types" and replete in the illustrations on page 13). Alleys are alleys per the BSD Zoning Code Sec 153.061 (d) and 153.060. Further, alleys and service streets shall not be considered street frontage and shall not be subject to street frontage requirements described in 153.059 — 153.065. They are one car wide and should not be re - categorized as primary streets. The term alley is recognized the Bridge Street District Code and should be respected. The neighbors do not want new construction across the alley from their living areas. This issue is linked to #4 below. Amendment: On page 12, Under Historic Cottage Commercial, 1) Building Siting, Non -Principal Frontage Street Property Line Coverage, delete "60% "and inset "50%" maximum with no variance. 4. It is critical that density and parking be recognized as the linked problem they are. For example, Biddies is empty but every day the lot behind it is nearly full. If that space or others like it are built upon there will be no place for the new tenants or customers or the employees and visitors now using the space to park. The illustration on the bottom of pages 4 and 13 cited above shows the entire block covered with buildings. The illustrations need to be revised to allow required space for parking. The reality is that no one hurrying to a meeting south of SR 161 will travel north and park in the sparkling new garage (it is assumed here that the July 26, 2017 ARB request to prohibit parking structures south of SR 161 has been incorporated into the draft Code; if not, then such an amendment is requested), cross a major intersection and walk several blocks and then apologize for their tardiness. Parking is linked to density. Every open lot cannot be built out as shown on pages 4 and 13. Adequate parking must be required on site because the street parking is already in use. The illustrations in the code must reflect this or it will mislead potential investors and back city decision -makers into a corner in the future. Amendment: On page 12 under Historic Cottage Commercial, Building Siting, 2. Buildable Area, Rear Yard Setback, delete "5 feet" and insert "25 feet". Next line, delete "Minimum Lot Width /Maximum Lot Width" and insert "100 feet, parcels may not be combined." Next line, Max Building Coverage, delete "50%" and insert "40% with maximum impervious and semi pervious coverage of 75%". Under 3 Parking Location, Loading & Access, Parking Location add "On-site parking sufficient for tenants and customers is required. " 5. Part of the appeal of the HD is the village -like appearance. Many of the HD buildings were residences. They have lawns, gardens, large trees, and views to other properties. There is a pastoral aspect that has very real appeal and draws people in and makes them want to stay. If someone wants dense urban, that is available to the north and east but dense does not belong south of Bridge Street. Amendments responsive to this concern shown in ##4 above. 6. The HD Core IP HD South map should include the SE comer of Bridge and High down to Spring Hill Alley in the HD Core II/HD South area. Like Mill Lane, the homeowners east of Blacksmith Alley should have this protection. The goal for leaving out this block of historic buildings is unclear. They should be included. Amendment; Include the historic block south of Bridge Street, East of High Street, North of Spring Hill Alley and West of Blaelawnith Alley in the Historic Core Hl Bridge Street South code. 7. A minor point: the chart of Permitted Building Types on Page 10 shows Civic Buildings (defined as elementary, middle and high schools or a library as being permitted. This must be an error as the library has been sited and school sites re larger than the entire district. Amendment, "On Page 10 under Civic Building, remove the dot. " 8. It is also suggested that the "Old Dublin Design Guidelines' be kept intact and in force. Any I ncorporation of principles from the National Trust for Historic Preservadon should strongthen protection of scale and character rather than alter the current intent of the Guidelines. 9. The proposed Code, plus the amendments identified above would be moot or less affective in achieving the desired result if historic lots were able to be combined. Amendment: Add prohibition oJoombbung lois m the appropriate section Thank you. Wc would be happy to answer any questions you may have Sioc/e/,rJely, Cc: Members of Dublin City Council Nichole N. Martin To: Vince A. Papsidero Subject: RE: Historic Core II draft -- feedback From: Vince A. Papsidero Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 12:41 PM To: srudylCcDearthlink.net Cc: Amy Salay <ASalayC@dublin.oh.us>; Chris Amorose Groomes <cagroomesC@dublin.oh.us>; dlhahm83C@yahoo.com; David & Donna Hahm <dehahm83@yahoo.com>; denisefranzkingC@yahoo.com; kmarita@gmail.com; delars@earthlink.net; sterling@sterlingcommunications.net ; lulesdublin@aol.com: Ibrudy@earthlink. net: mark@soultheater.com: iudyC@iudycontos.com; brion.ionesC@yahoo.com; kschmittC@Iincolnconstruction.com; miszuter@gmail.com; ericpickering@sbcglobal.net; kathleenbryanlC@gmail.com; WEaster843@aol.com; maks4885@aol.com; Jennifer Rauch (irauchC@dublin.oh.us) <irauchC@dublin.oh.us>; Lori Burchett (lburchettC@dublin.oh.us) <IburchettC@dublin.oh.us>; dgossC@dublin.oh.us; Dana L. McDaniel <dmcdanielC@dublin.oh.us>; Terry D. Foegler <TFoeglerC@dublin.oh.us> Subject: RE: Historic Core II draft -- feedback Steve: Thank you for the email. We appreciate the ongoing interest by the community in the project to update the zoning code for the Historic District, south of Bridge Street. Staff and the consultant have been working together to draft a proposal, building upon the comments received at our public meetings. We're more than happy to take this additional input into account. It is our expectation that a draft proposal will be presented to the ARB in June at a special meeting. Public notice will be provided and the recommendations will be posted on the web. Also, if the community holds additional meetings in the future to discuss this project, our staff is more than happy to attend as a resource. Take care. Vince Vince Papsidero, FAICP Planning Director, City of Dublin From: srudylC@earthlink.net [mailto:srudy1C@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 11:04 AM To: Vince A. Papsidero <VPapsidero@dublin.oh.us> Cc: Amy Salay <ASalayC@dublin.oh.us>; Chris Amorose Groomes <cagroomesC@dublin.oh.us>; dlhahm83C@yahoo.com; David & Donna Hahm <dehahm83@yahoo.com>; denisefranzkingC@yahoo.com; kmarita@gmail.com; delars@earthlink.net; sterling@sterlingcommunications.net ; lulesdublin@aol.com: Ibrudy@earthlink. net: mark@soultheater.com: iudyC@iudycontos.com; brion.ionesC@yahoo.com; kschmittC@Iincolnconstruction.com; miszuterC@gmail.com; ericpickeringC@sbcglobal.net; kathleenbryanlC@gmail.com; WEaster843@aol.com; maks4885@aol.com Subject: Historic Core II draft -- feedback Vince (and Council) - After meeting with residents about 6 weeks ago, I have collated the suggestions on how to guide or limit infill development within the historic district in a way that minimizes the impact on the historic district scale and character (if I missed something, I will leave it to those copied here to amend this list). We submit these ideas knowing that some City staff do not care to place any serious limits on such infill development, but hoping that greed and envy do not prevail in our successful and unique neighborhood. • Retain the laws that empanel and empower the ARB, and do not alter the "Old Dublin Design Guidelines". Though being ignored by the City and ARB of late (e.g., Biddies infill, CML 2, etc.), the letter and spirit of those remain the best defense against destruction of the historic district. • No other philosophy, including that of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, should replace that of the ARB/Guidelines. Doing so would essentially liquidate the historic district, to the benefit of outside developers and the permanent loss of the district. On the Core II draft that we reviewed, the following were suggested by participants on the roundtable: • Boundaries— The code should be applied anywhere adjacent to residential property, including all areas south of Bridge St. No resident should have to suffer structures like the approved "Biddies" extension looming over their yards and houses. • Buildingelevation— o Building story limits should be in terms of occupiable levels, and be limited to two, in keeping with the "Guidelines". o Floor -to -floor height should be limited to no more than the characteristic structures; i.e., no higher than characteristic structure (Biddies; 109 S High; 37 S Riverview; 83 S High; Donatos; Hahm residence; 109 S Riverview). o Relative height— Buildings should be compared with adjacent historic structures, not with recent infill, especially as that infill was not in conformance with existing directives for the ARB. • Building location — o Setback -- All parking or green space should be behind (not beside) infill (i.e., on rear lane) -- at least 1/3 of lot. This will allow some separation between the over -large infill (esp. East of High St.). (This rule alone would point to the second Biddies infill proposal the best of those presented to the ARB.) Rear of lot is parking or green space, since height not likely to be controlled, given excessive height of "Bri-Hi", "Biddies" and "CML2" projects, and proposals for floor -to -floor and overall height. • Building separation — • Buildings should not be linked. Sight lines (space) is an important part of the historic district. o Should be part of "descriptive dialog". Start with HD "Guidelines". Percentage of lot coverage: limit to 50% in Historic Core II (for instance, "Biddies" proposal #2 to ARB left a large buffer to the rear towards residential property). This enforces spacing between commercial and residential uses and/or between adjacent buildings. We hope that the City begins to take seriously its responsibility to defend neighborhoods rather than to strip them of protection and facilitate their takeover by outsiders. We hope the City stands on existing law that protects its small historic district and stands against radical change. Sincerely, -Steve p.s.- All, please pardon the timing of these comments. I have had business travel for 10 straight weeks. Steve Rudy 129 S. Riverview St. Dublin, OH 43017 srudylC@earthlink.net