Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 079-17RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 Ordinance No. 79-17 Passed , 20 AN ORDINANCE REZONING 25 PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 5.04 ACRES FROM BSD -HC® BRIDGE STREET HISTORIC CORE DISTRICT TO BSD -HS, BRIDGE STREET HISTORIC SOUTH DISTRICT (CASE 17-074Z). WHEREAS, it is consistent with the Dublin Community Plan and the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, of its elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273-000074, 273- 0000851 273-000063, 273-000075, 273-000034, 273-002075, 273-000259, 273-000070, 273-000097, 273-000014, 273-000005, 273-0000861 273-000094, 273-000066, 273- 000104, 273-000035, 273-0000431 273-000092, 273-000087, 273-0000521 273-000007, 273-000061, 273-000093, 273-001978, and 273-000105 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSD -HS, Bridge Street Historic South District, and shall be subject to the regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2. That the application includes the list of affected property owners, the rezoning map and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Section 3. That this 0Hance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earlycsst period allowed law. ssed this day of , 2017. Mahror - Presi¢ling Officer ATTEST: Clerk of Council Office of the City Manager 5200 Fmerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1090 Czt� of Dublill Phoney 614.410-4400 •Fax; 614-410-4490 Memo To: Members of Dublin City Council u From: Dana L, McDaniel, City Manao" Date: November 2, 2017 Initiated By: Vincent A, Papsidero, FAICP, Director of Planning Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Manager Nichole MR Martin, Planner I Re: Ordinance 79-17 — Rezoning 25 parcels from BSD Historic Core District to BSD Historic South District (Case 17.0742 - Historic Dublin Zoning Rezoning), Summary Ordinance 79.17 is a request to rezone 25 parcels from BSD Historic Core District to BSD Historic South District within 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, A proposed amendment to Bridge Street Code is proposed to create a new zoning district within Bridge Street Code with associated zoning requirements, In conjunction with the proposed Code amendment, an amendment to the Zoning Map is proposed for 25 parcels to be rezoned to the new Historic District South District, Proposal The proposal is for the rezoning of 25 parcels from BSD Historic Core District to BSD Historic South District within the Historic Dublin, Permitted and Conditional Uses The Bridge Street Historic South District allows numerous residential, commercial, civic, public and institutional uses, such as office, eating and drinking, schools, and government services, Community Plan -- Future Land Use Plan The Future Land Use Plan of the Dublin Community Plan was updated and adopted by City Council on July 1, 2013. The Future Land Use Map identifies the portions of the Bridge Street District west of the Scioto River as Mixed Use Village Center and includes targeted areas near arterials or major collectors that are intended to provide daily retail, major grocers and other conveniences to serve the Dublin community within a three to five -mile radius. Village Centers Memo re. Ord, 79-17 - BSD — Rezoning 25 parcels from BSD Historic Core to BSD Historic South District November 2, 2017 Page 2 of 3 incorporate moderately-sized nodes of commercial activity with a target size of 120,000 square feet of gross leasable area, Mixed Residential Uses are encouraged and should be integrated to facilitate pedestrian activity and to provide support for commercial uses. The Future Land Use Plan includes two Village Center areas. Historic Dublin is targeted for preservation and compatible infill development as Dublin's founding core. Community Plan — Special Area plan Much of the area included in the proposed Zoning Map amendment is set within the "Historic Dublin District" character neighborhood, which the area plan notes is that "which has opportunity to grow and carefully intensify while preserving historic character and protecting existing 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 sites, Historic Dublin has become one of the prime inspirations for the Bridge Street Corridor Vision ---due to its tradition as a walkable district of mixed retail, residential, office and cultural/civic uses and to the fact that it constitutes Dublin's center of community, The emergence of Historic Dublin as a destination for dining and locally -based retail has heightened the District's role as the center of community, This is also the district where future growth faces the most Planning and Zoning Commission Review 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, Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission On August 10, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed Zoning Map amendment to City Council, Recommendation Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 19-11 at the second reading/public hearing on November 20, 2011, 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 L 1 t Bridge Street District Zoning Map J _ l Legend M 1 1 1 BSD Stud Area �1.1.1S y City of Dublin W WYI CM I 1.1.1.1.1'. Community Commercial BSD -Office BSD -Indian Run Neighborhood N [ Restricted Suburban Residential BSD -Commercial BSD -Scioto Center Neighborhood Rural BSD -Historic Residential BSD -Scioto River Neighborhood BSD -Residential BSD -Historic Core BSD -Public 0 500 1,000 2,000 BSD -Office Residential BSD -Historic Transition Neighborhood BSD -Historic South Feet October 2017 Bridge Street District Zoning Map As Adopted by Dublin City Council Effective Date: September 24, 2014 Legend Oj W UL Proposed Road Alignment Bridge Street District Zoning Districts BSC Indian Run Neighborhood - BSC Office /IM.la Lr�rr Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) -BSC Historic Core -BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood BSC Office Residential City of Dublin BSC Historic Residential - BSC Scioto River Neighborhood - BSC Public - BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood BSC Residential Restricted Suburban Residential 0 1 - BSC Commercial E MARTIN N 500 1,000 2,000 A Feet September 2014 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: 6. Historic Dublin —Zoning Map Amendment Historic Dublin 17-074Z Rezoning Proposal: An amendment to the Zoning Map for 25 parcels to establish Bridge Street District - Historic South as a new zoning district. Location: Parcels adjacent to S. High Street, south of Spring Hill and north of John Wright Lane. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Dana McDaniel, City Manager. Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, Planner I. Contact Information: (614) 410-4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us Case Information: htto://dublinohiousa.goy/arb/17-074 MOTION: Mr. Brown moved, Mr. Miller seconded to approve this Rezoning to amend the Zoning Map for the inclusion of the Historic South District, that City Council move forward with the Map Amendment to working with the neighborhood and Architectural Review Board to further study setbacks, height restrictions and connectors. VOTE: 4-0. RESULT: This Rezoning 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 CERTIFICATIONS n ✓til a s'1/1%�l / 0 11� I�-�—' Nichole M. Martin Planner I PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dubiinohiousa.gov 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) '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. 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. 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