The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolution 28-21 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager Date: May 18, 2021 Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner Re: Resolution 28-21 – Acceptance of Historic Design Guidelines replacing the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines applicable to Historic Dublin and outlying historic properties identified in Appendix G (Case #18-037ADM) Summary This is a request for acceptance of a Historic Design Guidelines replacing 2005 Historic Dublin Design Guidelines that were originally adopted in 1999. The Guidelines are a companion document to the Architectural Review District Zoning Code amendments (Ord. 03-21) and Historic District Rezoning (Ord. 04-21), which were approved by City Council at the February 22, 2021 meeting and effective on March 23, 2021. Case History The Code, Rezoning, and Guidelines are the result of a multi-year stakeholder committee, public engagement, and Board and Commission review process. The resulting documents align with community values and address current challenges and opportunities facing the Historic District. In 2018, the Historic Dublin Stakeholder Committee met four times (June 14, July 12, August 2, and August 30, 2018) to identify opportunities for revisions to the Historic District Zoning Code and Guidelines. In addition, staff held two public meeting at the Dublin Community Church on October 9, 2018 and August 15, 2019, as well as, office hours for two hours each Wednesday in August 2019 (August 7, 14, 21 and 28) to provide an additional method of communication and input for the public. In detail, the ARB has conducted seven reviews of the documents on July 10, July 24, November 20, 2019, and June 17, July 29, November 18, 2020, and February 24, 2021. The PZC reviewed the documents and provided comments four times July 11, 2019, September 5, 2019, March 4, 2021, and May 6, 2021. The ARB and PZC are recommending acceptance of the document to City Council. Details The Guidelines provide direction on how to successfully apply the zoning regulations while the Zoning Code establishes qualitative and quantitative standards for development. Both the Zoning Code and Guidelines are of equal weight when modifications, rehabilitation, new construction, and signs are under consideration within Historic Dublin and outlying historic properties identified on Appendix G. The proposed Guidelines provide an overview of the applicability, cultural landscape, neighborhood character, and building types and architectural styles. This information is intended to be a foundation for Staff, Board members, and the Office of the City Manager 5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090 Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo Memo – Resolution 28-21 – Historic Design Guidelines May 18, 2021 Page 2 of 2 community when proposals are brought forward. The overview is followed by directions on how to apply the Guidelines (Chapter 3). The substance of the Guidelines are provided in Chapters 4-7, which includes: rehabilitation, new construction, site design, and sign design recommendation. The intent of the updates is to ensure that the review process within the Architectural Review District as user-friendly. Recommendation of the Architectural Review Board At the February 24, 2021 meeting, the Architectural Review Board reviewed and recommended acceptance of the Historic Design Guidelines to Planning and Zoning Commission. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission At the May 6, 2021 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended acceptance of the Historic Design Guidelines to City Council. City Council Recommendation Recommendation of acceptance of Resolution 28-21 for the Historic Design Guidelines. Historic Design Guidelines DRAFT May 2021 ARB: February 24, 2021 PZC: May 6, 2021 CC: May 24, 2021 Department of Development Planning Division HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO2 DRAFT - May 2021 Acknowledgments Dublin City Council Chris Amorose-Groomes, Mayor, At-Large Cathy De Rosa, Vice Mayor, Ward 4 Greg Peterson, Ward 1 Jane Fox, Ward 2 John Reiner, Ward 3 Christina Alutto, At-Large Andrew Keeler, At-Large 2020 Dublin Architectural Review Board Kathleen Bryan, Chair Gary Alexander, Vice Chair Sean Cotter Frank Kownacki Amy Kramb 2019 Dublin Architectural Review Board Shannon Stenberg, Chair Gary Alexander, Vice Chair Rob Bailey Kathleen Bryan Andrew Keeler 2018 Stakeholder Committee Jay Eggspuehler, Commercial Property Owner Rick Gerber, Historic Dublin Business Association Tom Holton, Dublin Historical Society Kathy Lannan, Residential Property Owner Victoria Newell, Dublin Planning and Zoning Board Chair David Rinaldi, Dublin Architectural Review Board Chair Julie Seel, Residential Property Owner Richard Taylor, Business Owner Alex Vesha, Commercial Property Owner Planning Division Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner Mike Kettler, Planning Technician Julia Brooks, Planning Assistant Kenneth Ganter, Planning Assistant Richard Hansen, Planning Assistant Jimmy Hoppel, Planning Assistant Landplan Studios Daniel Phillabaum, AICP, RLA, Principal McBride Dale Clarion Greg Dale, FAICP, Principal Preservation Designs Christine Trebellas, AICP, LEED Green Associate, Principal CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 3 DRAFT - May 2021 Contents Chapter 1: Introduction Overview Background Historic District Map Outlying Historic Properties (Appendix G) Map Chapter 2: Context & Character Cultural Landscape Neighborhood Character Building Types and Architectural Styles Chapter 3: Guidelines - Users Guide Using the Guidelines Contributing vs. Non-Contributing Application of Guidelines Chapter 4: Guidelines - Rehabilitation General Maintenance and Construction Exterior Materials Architectural Details Foundations Building Colors Doors and Entrances Windows Porches Roof, Gutter, and Downspout Canopy and Awning Building Additions Outbuildings Retrofitted Access for ADA Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Commercial Storefront Design Chapter 5: Guidelines - New Construction General Building Placement Form and Mass Building Width Façade Doors and Windows Architectural Details Materials and Color Outbuildings Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Chapter 6: Guidelines - Site Design General Natural Features Landscaping Walls and Fences Access and Parking Decks and Patios Lighting Mechanical Equipment and Waste Screening Chapter 7: Guidelines - Signs General Color and Relief Materials and Lighting Avoid Context Sensitive Quality and Character Ground Signs Wall Signs Window Signs Projecting Signs Awning Signs Sandwich Board Signs 6 8 10 11 14 18 24 36 36 37 40 40 40 40 40 41 41 42 42 42 43 43 44 44 44 45 46 46 47 48 48 48 48 49 49 49 54 54 54 54 54 55 55 55 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 59 59 59 59 59 5 Chapter 1Introduction HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO6 DRAFT - May 2021 Historic Map of Dublin, 1872 1.0 Applicability The Historic Design Guidelines (Guidelines) apply to all land within the Historic District as outlined in Appendix F, as well as other outlying historic properties as specified in Appendix G of the City of Dublin’s Zoning Code. All properties located within either of these designated areas require approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for certain activities related to renovation, rehabilitation, or new construction, as provided in the Zoning Code §153.170. The Guidelines supplement the review standards contained in the code and will guide the ARB in determining if requests for approvals by the ARB will be granted in accordance with the code. 1.1 Overview The City of Dublin is a thriving community located in northwest Franklin County, southwest Delaware County, and southeast Union County, Ohio. Dublin has undergone tremendous growth in the last five decades, with the population increasing from a village of approximately 700 in 1970 to 48,647 in 2018 (Quick Facts, US Census Bureau). Still, Historic Dublin largely retains the character, scale, and feel of a traditional village. The history of Dublin and the surrounding Washington Township are closely intertwined. Before Ohio became a state in 1803, land was purchased in the area, along the Scioto River, that was to become the Village of Dublin. Peter and Benjamin Sells traveled from Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, to purchase land for their father, three brothers and themselves. The 400 acres purchased for their brother, John Sells, were located on the high west bank of the Scioto where Historic Dublin now stands. The brothers also purchased land north and south of the original village boundaries. The settlement of Dublin started slowly, with John Sells and his family settling in 1808 and his establishment of the first tavern in the area in 1809. By 1810, Sells began to survey lots to establish a town. He conferred the honor of naming the new town to his surveyor, John Shields. Shields named the future village after his birthplace, Dublin, Ireland. By 1818, Sells advertised 200 town lots for sale in the Columbus newspaper. He listed the excellent building stone, clay for brick and pottery, and an offer of three years’ credit as inducements to purchase lots in the new town. Settlement continued slowly as the community gained residences, a gristmill, a distillery, sawmills and other businesses that served the local population, as well as farmers from the surrounding area. As evidence of Dublin’s permanence as a settlement, a post office was established in 1820. As the community and the township grew, better transportation became a necessity. Lacking a railroad, INTRODUCTION Overview CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 7 DRAFT - May 2021 INTRODUCTION Overview which spurred development in many Ohio communities in the 19th century, Dublin was dependent on its system of roads. The need for a bridge to span the Scioto River became critical for Dublin so that it could be physically connected to Worthington and Columbus to the east. The first bridge in 1840 was a wooden covered bridge. It was later replaced with a steel span bridge in 1880, and the present Works Progress Administration (WPA) concrete arch bridge was completed in 1935. An effort was made in 1855 to incorporate the village and establish a local government, but the idea was rejected. The issue was revisited in 1881, and in September of that year the Village of Dublin was incorporated. With local government, public improvements became possible. Among those undertaken in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were the installation of gas street lamps in 1888, followed by carbide lights in 1907 and finally electric lights in 1920. By the early 20th century, the local economy was largely based on agriculture and quarrying, and Dublin businesses were largely dependent on the local population. Dublin maintained a relatively stable population, with very little growth during the first seven decades of the 20th century. This changed abruptly in the early 1970s with the construction of Interstate 270 around Columbus and the development of Muirfield Golf Club and Muirfield Village by golf champion Jack Nicklaus. This innovative planned community was located about four miles north of the village core. During the last five decades, the City has grown to fill in the land between the historic center of Dublin and Muirfield Village, as well as expanding to the south, east and west. The current boundaries of Dublin encompass approximately 26 square miles. In spite of the tremendous growth that has taken place in recent decades, the physical form of Historic Dublin is distinctive and clearly reflects the early history of the community. The form is still very much in evidence today. The major north-south road, High Street (also known as SR 745), runs parallel to the river on a high bluff with another parallel road, Riverview Street, running along the Scioto River. The main intersection is High and Bridge Streets, as it was historically, and the bridge crossing the Scioto still connects east and west Dublin. Dublin residents and public officials have long appreciated the special character of Historic Dublin. A part of the district and individual properties, as well as other historic properties in Washington Township, were listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1979, based on both architectural and historic significance. The City of Dublin took further steps to protect and preserve the historic core of the community HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO8 DRAFT - May 2021 INTRODUCTION Background as well as other historic sites throughout the community in 1970 through the establishment of the ARB. Credit for the preservation of Historic Dublin’s special character must also be given to the stewardship of generations of Dublin property owners who have maintained and improved the buildings and their physical environment. Historic Dublin continues as the historic heart of the community and a walkable, thriving mixed-use neighborhood with residences concentrated along Riverview and Franklin Streets and retail, cultural/civic, and residential uses intermingled along High and Bridge Streets. Outlying historic properties exist throughout Dublin as examples of the City’s rich agricultural history. 1.2 Background There are significant economic and social benefits in preserving historic areas and properties. Dublin’s efforts to promote the preservation of Dublin, while promoting historically appropriate development and investment began over 50 years ago. Success requires a partnership among the City, land owners, residents, business owners, and stakeholders. Dublin has recognized the importance of preservation in a number of policy documents, including the City’s Community Plan, which details the unique character of Historic Dublin and many outlying historic properties. The plan provides many recommendations about preservation and enhancement of the historic district’s character. The Plan also recommends further efforts to identify and recognize historic properties outside the district. In 2016, the City conducted a Historic and Cultural Assessment of the built resources, landscape features, and archaeological sites throughout Dublin. The goal of the assessment was to gain a greater understanding of the historic resources that exist and how those resources contribute to the City’s sense of place. The assessment produced a detailed inventory of over 900 properties considered to be relevant, an assessment of the contributing and non-contributing status, strategies and recommendations to encourage and fund historic preservation efforts. Additionally, the City has taken the initiative to revise and update the Zoning Code on a series of occasions to ensure new development and redevelopment meet the desired character by the community and its stakeholders. The Zoning Code requirements, these Guidelines, and the applicable policy documents collectively contribute to protecting the character of Dublin’s historic places. Dublin Community Church, 81 West Bridge Street, 1930s (Constructed in 1877) Home of Isaac Walter, 37 South Riverview Street, 1842 Dublin Firehouse, 37 West Bridge Street, 1945 CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 DRAFT - May 2021 Mansfield Buggy Co. & Post Office, SW Corner - Bridge Street at High Street, 1890s Christie Methodist Church, South High Street, 1870s (Built in 1838 and Destroyed by Tornado in 1912) 32 South High Street, 1932, (Built in 1830s and Operated until 1972) NE Corner - Bridge Street at High Street, 1880s Coffman’s Corner, SW Corner - Bridge Street at High Street, 1879 Washington Local School, 75 North High Street, 1871 INTRODUCTION Background HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO10 DRAFT - May 2021 INTRODUCTION Historic District Map Architectural Review District Boundary CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 11 DRAFT - May 2021 INTRODUCTION Outlying Historic Properties (Appendix G) Map Appendix G Properties 1. Brand, Asher Residence – 5281 Brand Road 2. Coffman, Fletcher House – 6659 Coffman Road 3. Cramer Homestead – 5927 Rings Road 4. Davis, James Barn & Farm – 5707 Dublin Road 5. Dun, John Homestead – 8055 Dublin-Bellepoint Road 6. Gelpi Residence (Dublin Arts Council) – 7125 Riverside Drive 7. Holder-Wright Earthworks – 6985 Emerald Parkway 8. Llewellyn Farms Barn – 4845 Belfield Drive 9. Maroa Wilcox Memorial – Norn Street & Woerner- Temple Road (PID 273009779) 10. Mitchell Barn (Earlington Park) – 5585 Brand Road 11. Mitchell Cemetery (on Cardinal Health Campus) – Emerald Parkway (PID 273011174) 12. Mt. Zion Cemetery – Kinross Court and Memorial Drive (PID 273000448) 13. Rings Farm – 6665 Shier Rings Road 14. St. John’s Lutheran Cemetery – Avery Road (PID 274000024) 15. St. John’s Lutheran Church & Sandy Corners Cemetery – Rings Road (PID 274000155 and 274000031) 16. Summit View Farm – 8115 Conine Drive 17. Tuller Barn – Brand and Ashbaugh Roads 18. Washington Township School (Graham Residence) – 4915 Brand Road 19. Brown-Harris Cemetery – Lot 6, University Boulevard - Phase II Final Plat (Resolution 43-20) 20. Ferris Cemetery – SR 257 (Riverside Drive) and Bright Road 1313 Chapter 2Context & Character HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO14 DRAFT - May 2021 CONTEXT & CHARACTER Cultural Landscape 2.1 Background Historic Dublin possesses a strong sense of place. The combination of its eclectic architecture, intimate village scale, pedestrian scale streets, and natural features create an authentic environment worth preserving, protecting, and celebrating. Historic Dublin’s unique character is in part due to the very gradual growth of the community up until the late 20th century. Much of what was built in the 19th century still defines the physical environment today. 2.2 Cultural Landscape The Historic District’s unique visual character is attributable to the beauty of its extensive natural landscape including the striking topography and cultural sites that have been shaped by previous generations. The Dublin Community Plan calls for the protection of these valued natural and historic landscape assets within Dublin, which contribute to the cultural landscape of Historic Dublin. The character defining topography and the numerous historic landscape assets within the historic district embody a “soul and sense of place”, creating a legacy that reveals our past and the people that shaped and lived on our land. The extraordinary and extensive landscape within Dublin’s Historic District provides scenic, economic, ecological, social, recreational, and educational opportunities, and the preservation and protection of these unique landforms provides an enriched quality of life for the community. Among the valued natural assets that require sensitive protection are: the distinctive topography, the Scioto River, the Indian Run Ravine and Falls, the Dublin Spring, abundant view sheds and vistas, natural ravines, caves and outcroppings, native flora and fauna, wetlands and vernal pools, hardwood forests, and landmark trees and woodlands. The distinctive historic cultural sites that have been influenced by the imprint of past generations include among others: dry laid stone walls, stone quarries, historic cemeteries, the West Bridge Street Bridge, Native American archaeological sites, and appurtenances such as hitching posts, stone carriage steps, stone work and retaining walls, artwork and memorials. These defining historic landscape assets are the canvas of our past and require dedicated preservation and maintenance. The following guidelines provide direction in protecting Dublin’s historic cultural landscape for the benefit of our community and future generations. Scioto River Stone Bridge, 1935 Indian Run Falls, 1899 CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 15 DRAFT - May 2021 Topography One of the most dramatic feature is the topography of the area. John Sells selected the area for the settlement of a town, since it was on the high west bank of the Scioto River, protected from flooding. The change in elevation between High Street and Riverview Street is considerable, with a further dramatic drop to the Scioto River. This change of elevation leads to steep, sloping yards. Due to the varied topography not all areas are easily suited to development, which has led to the preservation of natural vistas and views of the river and valley. Scioto River The Scioto River is the most prominent natural feature providing a strong physical and visual connection to the Dublin’s early history. The Scioto River corridor is unique due to its a shallow river bed with a wide floodway. In many locations the edge of the floodplain is defined by small limestone outcroppings. The wide floodway has an extensive native deciduous tree canopy. Seasonal flooding of the river often makes areas of the floodway inaccessible. Due to its shallow depth, the river water is typically brown. Several tributaries feed the Scioto River as it flows through Dublin. Typically, these streams are narrow slivers carving ravines down to the river. Ravines and Springs The wooded ravines, Indian Run to the north and Cosgray Ditch to the south, in conjunction with the Scioto River form natural boundaries for Historic Dublin. The Indian Run Falls, located within the Indian Run Ravine, is a pristine waterfall once home to members of the Wyandot tribe and later home to settlers of Dublin. The Falls remain an important cultural resource today. Natural flows of fresh water throughout the area form springs. The Dublin Spring is located along the Scioto River where Dublin’s founders drew clean drinking water. In the winter, the weeps from underground springs leak water through the stone and create beautiful ice patterns along the riverbanks. CONTEXT & CHARACTER Cultural Landscape 1900s Historic Stone Wall, 2000 Scioto River, 2015 HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO16 DRAFT - May 2021 CONTEXT & CHARACTER Flora and Fauna Dublin is ecologically diverse particularly along the river corridor. Native plant species include Rock Cress, Drummond’s Aster, Rattlesnake Fern, and Marsh Marigold. Historically, Rock Cress has been found growing along the Scioto River although can be overtaken by invasive plants such as Honeysuckle and Garlic Mustard. Sycamore trees, know for their large stature, white bark, and long life, are prominent along the riverbanks. A number of animals thrive in the area including birds, beavers, bats, chipmunks, deer, ducks, geese, skunks, squirrels, turtles, and woodchucks. Earthworks Archaeological resources impress on the Dublin’s landscape today. The Holder-Wright Earthworks, located within Ferris-Wright Park, are significant to the Hopewell people. Earthworks were places for ceremony, marriages, to honor relatives and neighbors who died, to make alliances, for celebration, feasting, and sacred games. Three earthworks exist at the site, two circles and a square, and five burial mounds. The tallest mound once stood five feet tall and the others were approximately three feet tall. The earthworks at Ferris-Wright Park are the northernmost earthworks in the Scioto Valley. Many tribes are represented at this site, with the oldest dating back to Clovis times, or about 12,000 years ago. Quarries At the southern end of Historic Dublin adjacent to the Scioto River is a former stone quarry, which played an important role in the physical development of Dublin and Washington Township as evidenced by the extensive use of limestone for building purposes. The limestone in this region is characterized by a prevalence of Devonian Period fossils. The limestone, known as Columbus Limestone, is highly fossilized, which gives it a rough texture that is distinctive when used either in its natural state or as cut and finished building stone. The extensive use of limestone in the construction of dry-laid low stone walls, foundations, stoops, and entire buildings is a distinguishing feature of Historic Dublin and many other central Ohio communities. Stone Walls Similar to other central Ohio communities, due to the ready supply of limestone, Dublin possesses an abundance of limestone in various applications including a number of low, dry-laid stone walls. Many date from the early 19th century, although even the more recent examples contribute to the character of the area. These walls are a significant historic Butterflyweed (Asclepias Tuberosa) at Dublin Cemetery, 2017 Holder-Wright Earthworks 2020 Cultural Landscape CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 17 DRAFT - May 2021 Daily Chores by Michael Tizzano, 2012 Indian Run Cemetery, 2015 element in the community’s past and present physical environment. Cemeteries Historic Dublin contains two cemeteries, the Indian Run Cemetery and the Dublin Cemetery. The Indian Run Cemetery, established in 1814, was the first burial ground in Dublin. It is located in the northern portion of the Historic District, along the Indian Run ravine, adjacent to the Grounds of Remembrance. The Indian Run Cemetery was active for over 40 years, until the Dublin Cemetery was established in 1858. The Dublin Cemetery is located at the western entrance into the Historic District and remains active today. Both cemeteries are located within a park-like setting where the community can visit and pay their respects to those interned, which include a number of Dublin’s historic families. Historic Details Remnants of historic life remain today as a reminder of the past and can be seen throughout Historic Dublin. Hitching posts and carriage stones are located along High Street and provide a reminder of the way of life in years past. Public Art Art in public spaces contribute to the sense of place. Art may invoke an emotion, a question or an interaction. A number of art pieces are located within the Historic District and provide a lens into the past. Dublin’s historic water pump, originally located at the intersection of High and Bridge Streets, inspired Michael Tizzano’s ‘Daily Chores” bronze sculpture in 2012. The Grounds of Remembrance located within Dublin Veterans Park at the northern end of the Historic District provides recognition to Dublin’s veterans. CONTEXT & CHARACTER Cultural Landscape HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO18 DRAFT - May 2021 CONTEXT & CHARACTER Neighborhood Character 2.3 Neighborhood Character Historic Dublin contains a series of neighborhood areas that coincide with the Historic Zoning Districts outlined in the Zoning Code §153.170. While Historic Dublin is a relatively small district, it contains distinct neighborhood areas defined by historic character, architectural design, primary uses and development pattern. The historic street grid and the pattern of the blocks contribute to the established character of Historic Dublin. This development pattern results in a smaller lot size with buildings located along the street edge and vehicular access through alleys at the rear of the properties. Each neighborhood area utilizes the development pattern in various ways depending on the uses and layout of each property. The neighborhood descriptions outlined below provide background and guidance regarding the desired character for each of these distinct areas. Construction Materials Brick masonry and wood siding appear extensively throughout Historic Dublin. Brick is used as a building material as well as a paving material. Wood siding appears in a number of applications, including horizontal, vertical, shake, and shiplap siding. Wood is also used for fencing, porches, and decorative ornamentation on buildings. Wrought iron and stone fences are prevalent in landscape design. Scale and Form Perhaps the most defining characteristic of Historic Dublin is its intimate, small village scale. The buildings are located close together with shallow front yard setbacks and generally range from one to two stories in height. A majority of the buildings have a residential quality, in contrast to the centers of many other historic Ohio communities that have a continuous streetscape of commercial buildings with storefronts, cornices and shared party walls. The spaces between the buildings offer owners and tenants opportunities to create small gardens, seating areas, and open space. Street Character The streetscape character and street design are another integral element of preserving the visual character of Historic Dublin. The tight street pattern coupled with the size and scale of the buildings and their relationship to the street define Historic Dublin’s pedestrian-scaled environment. Narrower street widths, on-street parking, buildings facing the street, sidewalks and mature street trees contribute to the character of the area. The cohesive design of these elements contribute to the success of the District, connecting the commercial and the residential uses and South Riverview Street, Historic Residential Neighborhood, 2019 South High Street, Historic South Neighborhood, 2010 CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 19 DRAFT - May 2021 providing inviting environment for residents and visitors. 2.4 Historic Core The Historic Core applies to the historic center of Dublin at the intersection of West Bridge and North High Streets. The Historic Core contains largely commercial uses within historic buildings, along with a number of new, more contemporary buildings. The area serves as a major gateway into the Historic District, setting the tone for the neighborhood character. The neighborhood layout promotes a walkable environment, while accommodating vehicular access given its proximity to a major intersection. A challenge for this neighborhood is balancing the preservation of historic buildings while providing the opportunity for infill that is sensitive to the existing scale and character of the surrounding area. General design principles for the Historic Core neighborhood include: X Connecting and enhancing the historic grid street pattern. X Promoting a walkable environment through quality streetscape design. X Preserving and rehabilitating contributing structures to maintain the historic fabric of Historic Dublin. X Allowing sensitive redevelopment consistent with surrounding character. X Providing opportunities to enhance the street edge and reinforce the building envelope. X Requiring architectural design and scale, and building materials that complement the existing historic character. X Locating buildings along the street edge with parking and access to the rear. CONTEXT & CHARACTER Neighborhood Character N High StN High StW Bridge StW Bridge St SS High St High St HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO20 DRAFT - May 2021 X Creating opportunities for connectivity throughout Historic Dublin and to adjacent development, civic uses and open space. 2.5 Historic South The Historic South district contains smaller, cottage-scale buildings located along South High Street, south of the Historic Core and surrounded by the Historic Residential neighborhood to the south, east, and west. The area contains the majority of the historic structures and sites found within Historic Dublin with a fewer number of new structures. The area includes a mix of commercial and residential uses. The buildings are consistent with the historic development pattern and support a highly walkable setting because of the proximity of buildings located close together. General design principles for the Historic South neighborhood include: X Maintaining the historic grid street pattern. X Promoting a walkable environment through quality streetscape design. X Preserving and rehabilitating contributing structures to maintain the historic fabric of Historic Dublin. X Allowing sensitive redevelopment consistent with surrounding character. X Requiring architectural design and scale, and building materials that complement the existing historic character. X Maintaining a smaller building scale and mass consistent with the development pattern of the area. X Retaining open areas at the rear of the properties, particularly adjacent to residential properties. S High StS High StPinney Hill LnPinney Hill Ln CONTEXT & CHARACTER Neighborhood Character CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 21 DRAFT - May 2021 2.6 Historic Residential The Historic Residential neighborhood surrounds the Historic South area to the east along South Riverview Street and west along Franklin Street, and south along High Street. This area supports the preservation and development of houses on existing or new lots that are comparable in size, mass, and scale, while maintaining and promoting traditional residential character of Historic Dublin. General design principles for the Historic Residential neighborhood include: X Preserving and rehabilitating contributing structures to maintain the historic fabric of Historic Dublin. X Allowing for development of new residential structures that complement the scale, mass and design of the surrounding historic residential. X Encouraging comparable building height and lot coverages, similar to the surrounding historic structures. X Encouraging new residential structures to have consistent setbacks and similar lot coverage to surrounding residential development. X Promoting rear accessed lots where feasible. X Encouraging outbuildings and detached buildings be to located at the rear of a property. X Promoting preservation of open rear yards, green space corridors, and river views throughout the neighborhood.S Riverview StS Riverview StCONTEXT & CHARACTER Neighborhood Character Franklin SFranklin SttDublin RdDublin Rd HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO22 DRAFT - May 2021 CONTEXT & CHARACTER Neighborhood Character 2.7 Public The Historic Public neighborhood contains a series of civic spaces and natural areas located throughout Historic Dublin, including Riverside Crossing Park – West, Indian Run Falls, Indian Run Cemetery, Dublin Veterans Park, Dublin Cemetery, Karrer Barn, and Dublin Springs Park. These spaces preserve the historic character and natural environment found throughout the District and serve as an amenity to residents and visitors. General design principles for the Historic Public neighborhood include: X Continuing efforts to preserve the sites and amenities. X Ensuring connectivity and access to these areas. X Providing greenway connections and access to the Scioto River. X Increasing public access to the natural amenities. CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 23 DRAFT - May 2021 2.8 Outlying Properties and Historic Farmsteads A series of sites and structures located outside of Historic Dublin contribute to the history of Dublin. These properties identified on Appendix G of the Zoning Code include historic farmsteads, barns, churches and former schoolhouses. The character of each of these sites is unique, but help tell the story of the history of Dublin. 225 South High Street, Karrer Family Barn 5600 Bristol Parkway 5623 Dublinshire Drive CONTEXT & CHARACTER Neighborhood Character HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO24 DRAFT - May 2021 2.9 Overview The architecture of Historic Dublin spans a period of over two centuries, which contributes to the architectural variety of the district. Some of the buildings possess characteristics of a specific architectural style; however the vast majority are vernacular in character and are best identified by building type. Vernacular architecture is defined as “a mode of building based on regional forms and materials” (Harris, Cyril M. Historic Architecture Sourcebook. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977). Building type is based on form, function, floor plan, configuration (shape), and stories (height). Architectural style is based on design details and ornamentation. Building type does not determine architectural style. Some architectural styles have a predominate building type; although architectural styles can include a number of building types over time. Buildings may include elements of more than one architectural style. Dublin’s historic buildings often demonstrate the original owner’s personal tastes, availability and affordability of materials, and design influences at the time of construction. While many of the same building types and architectural styles can be found elsewhere in Central Ohio, the combination of building materials, physical setting, and spatial relationships create the unique historic character of Historic Dublin. Identified as part of the Historical and Cultural Assessment, a series of building types and architectural styles are present in Dublin. The characteristics of the predominate building types and architectural styles, identified herein, are based on the A Field Guide to American Houses (McAlester, Virginia, A. Lee McAlester, Lauren Jarrett, and Juan Rodriguez-Arnaiz. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993); and, How to Complete the Ohio Historic Inventory (Gordon, Stephen C., et al. How to Complete the Ohio Historic Inventory. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Ohio Historical Society, 1992.) The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) identifies 19 building types under ‘House Types’ and 35 architectural styles found in Ohio. Many structures in Historic Dublin were constructed as residential homes. Therefore most of the building types in Dublin are represented under the ‘House Types’ category recognized by SHPO. Not all building types are present in Dublin. Similarly, many architectural styles are not found in Dublin. Many of the historic structures in Dublin are of No Academic Style – Vernacular. Academic styles are considered high style, which exemplify a particular architectural movement. Only the building types and CONTEXT & CHARACTER Building Types & Architectural Styles 109 South Riverview Street, built ca. 1827, is an example of Federal architecture. Note the Federal-style elements such as the two-story height, rectilinear form, five-bay façade composition with symmetrical window and door placement, and a side-gable roof. The Washington Township Centralized School at 150 West Bridge Street, built in 1919 in the Art Deco style. Elements of the style include the smooth wall surface and decorative concrete panels with stylized or geometric motifs. CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 25 DRAFT - May 2021 architectural styles present in Historic Dublin and the outlying historic properties (Appendix G) are included. The building types and architectural styles are arranged chronologically. Each building type and architectural style includes a general description, typical design characteristics, and a graphic example. Building Types X Hall and Parlor X I-House X Saltbox X Gabled Ell X Bungalow X Cape Cod Cottage X Ranch/Split-Level Architectural Styles X No Academic Style - Vernacular X Federal X Greek Revival X Gothic Revival X Romanesque Revival X Italianate X Queen Anne X Colonial Revival X Craftsman/Arts and Crafts X French Colonial/Norman Revival X Art Deco X Modern Movements CONTEXT & CHARACTER Building Types & Architectural Styles 167 South High Street, built 1897 in the Queen Anne style. Elements of the style include the asymmetrical massing, irregular floor plan, bay windows, decorative gable ends, wrap-around front porch with decorative spindle work, and decorative shingles in the roof. St. John Lutheran Church at 6135 (6115) Rings Road, built ca. 1860, is an example of Romanesque Revival architecture. Note the Romanesque Revival- style elements such as the masonry construction, round arches, brick corbeling, and square tower. HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO26 DRAFT - May 2021 2.10 Hall and Parlor A rectangular, two room floor plan with a side gable roof form, the Hall and Parlor building type was popular between 1800-1870. Additional characteristics include: X 1 to 1.5-stories in height X 1-room deep X Symmetrical, 3-bay wide façade X Central entry X One or two chimneys, central or at both ends CONTEXT & CHARACTER Building Types 2.11 I-House A rectangular, two room floor plan with a side gable roof form, less commonly a flat or hipped roof, the I-House building type was popular between 1820-1890. Additional characteristics include: X 2-stories in height X 1-room deep X Symmetrical, 3 or 5-bay wide façades; select 4-bay examples X Central entry X Front porch, 1 or 2-stories in height X One or two chimneys, central or at both ends 2.12 Saltbox A rectangular floor plan with an asymmetrical sloping roofline, mimicking a ‘saltbox’, the Saltbox building type was popular between 1830-1900. Additional characteristics include: X 1.5 to 2-stories in height X 3 or 4-bay wide façades X One or two chimneys, central or at both ends CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 27 DRAFT - May 2021 Caption CONTEXT & CHARACTER Building Types 2.13 Gabled Ell An irregular ‘L’ or ‘T’ floor plan with intersecting gable roof forms at the same height, the Gabled Ell building type was popular between 1865-1885. Additional characteristics include: X 1 to 2-stories in height X 1 or 2-bays wide, wing and block X Front facing entry X Front porch, 1-story in height 2.14 Bungalow A rectangular floor plan with a gabled or hipped roof form, with or without a front dormer, the Bungalow building type was popular between 1905-1930. Characteristics for a Dormer Front Bungalow include: X 1-1.5, and 2-stories in height X 3-bay wide façade X Central entry X Overhanging eaves X Full-width front porch, 1-story in height with columns X Interior or exterior chimney 2.15 Cape Cod Cottage A rectangular floor plan sometimes with an attached one- car garage. Typified by a side gable roof form, the Cape Cod Cottage building type was popular between 1925-1950 Additional characteristics include: X 1 to 1.5-stories in height X Dormer windows X Symmetrical, 3 or 5-bay wide façades X Central entry X One central chimney HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO28 DRAFT - May 2021 2.16 Ranch/Split-Level An elongated irregular floor plan with a low gabled or hipped roof and overhanging eaves, the Ranch building type was most popular between 1940-1970, although still remains relevant today. Additional characteristics include: X 1 to 1.5-stories in height X Symmetrical or asymmetrical façade X Attached garage or carport X Off-center entry, may be hidden X Large picture window The Split-Level building type, having multiple stories with at least a half story below grade, was most popular between 1940-1970. Additional characteristics include: X 1 to 2-stories in height X Symmetrical or asymmetrical façade X Attached garage X Off-center entry X Large picture window CONTEXT & CHARACTER Building Types CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 29 DRAFT - May 2021 CONTEXT & CHARACTER Architectural Styles 2.17 No Academic Style - Vernacular No Academic Style - Vernacular is by far the most prevalent style of architecture in Historic Dublin. Vernacular buildings are “influenced by the local climate, available building materials, ethnic building traditions rather than by contemporary architectural fashions and styles” (Gorden, 76). 2.18 Federal Federal architecture is a post-Colonial style that sought to stress independence from England, rejecting earlier English-based Georgian architecture, by establishing a new national style. Federal style buildings retain the symmetry of earlier architecture, stress dignity, restraint, and simple ornamentation (Walker, 96-97). Since Dublin was just being settled in the early 19th century, this is one of the first architectural styles to appear in the area. 2.19 Greek Revival Greek Revival architecture rose as a response to the Greek War of Independence from Turkey. The style became popular in public and private contexts. The style is typified by a Greek temple aesthetic with Greek columns that were carefully detailed. Everything was usually painted white to simulate the color of a Greek temple (Walker, 106-109). Regional variants of this style exist with farmhouses incorporating elements of Greek Revival style. Architectural details such as cornices with returns, moulding beneath the cornice, and front doors with rectangular transom and sidelights are common. 119 South High Street 109 South Riverview Street 63 South High Street HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO30 DRAFT - May 2021 75 South High Street 6659 Coffman Road St. John Lutheran Church, 6115/6135 Rings Road 2.20 Gothic Revival Gothic Revival architecture began in England as a revolt against classical styles and symmetry in favor of picturesque and irregular shapes. In the United States, the style is visible in rural, domestic architecture from 1840-1880. Gothic Revival style homes are often stone or brick construction transitioning to wood framing in the later 19th century. Variants of the style include Cottage Gothic, Carpenter Gothic, and Steamboat Gothic (Walker, 120-131). Fanciful or decorative ornamentation, barge boards under the gables, and pointed arches, and window crowns define the style. The Gothic Revival style can be seen in Dublin in steeply pitched gable roofs and pointed arch windows. 2.21 Romanesque Revival Romanesque Revival architecture rose in popularity in Ohio during the mid-19th century. The style is most often applied to churches, public buildings, and institutional buildings. Inspired by James Renwick’s Smithsonian Castle in Washington, DC., these buildings typically have monochromatic brick or stone walls with round-arch window and door openings and square or polygonal towers with brick corbelling (Gordon, 81). 2.22 Italianate Italianate style began in England as a revolt against classical styles and symmetry in favor of the picturesque and irregular shapes. The style emphasized rural, rambling, informal Italian farmhouses and dominated American house construction from 1850 to 1880. In Ohio, the Italianate style was among the most popular Romantic style of the 19th century, gaining favor as the state’s population nearly doubled in this time period. Early examples are square or rectangular box-shaped homes with three visual bays and tall windows, usually topped with a segmental arch or window hood. Large overhanging eaves with decorative brackets were also common (Gordon, 85). Italianate architecture in Dublin followed this trend. CONTEXT & CHARACTER Architectural Styles CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 31 DRAFT - May 2021 25 South Riverview Street 114 South High Street 56-58 North High Street 2.23 Queen Anne Queen Anne architecture first appeared in England and subsequently adapted in the United States. Blumenson’s Identifying American Architecture describes the style as the “most varied and decoratively rich style. The asymmetrical composition consists of a variety of forms, textures, materials, and colors. Architectural parts include towers, turrets, tall chimneys, projecting pavilions, porches, bays and encircling verandas. The textured wall surfaces occasionally are complimented by colored glass panels in the windows” (63). In Ohio, Queen Anne architecture was the dominant style of house construction from 1880 to 1900 (Gordon, 91). As such, there are several examples of this style in Dublin. 2.24 Colonial Revival Colonial Revival style is strictly an American movement inspired by nostalgia for the past. It started around the turn of the 20th century and includes tremendous variety in terms of scale, details, and application. Later examples, from the mid-20th century, are usually side-gable buildings with simple stylized door surrounds, cornices, or other details that allude to colonial architecture rather than replicate it. Dublin has a variety of Colonial Revival style homes ranging from the traditional Colonial Revival to Dutch Colonial Revival architecture. 2.25 Craftsman/Arts and Crafts Craftsman/Arts and Crafts architectural style was inspired by the English Arts and Crafts movement and subsequently became popular in the United States. In the United States, Craftsman-style first appeared in California at the turn of the 20th century. Craftsman homes emphasize low, horizontal lines and a design that becomes part of its natural setting. Wide projecting eaves, overhanging gables with exposed rafters, open porches with heavy square porch piers (often on top of masonry bases) give these homes a sense of solid construction. CONTEXT & CHARACTER Architectural Styles HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO32 DRAFT - May 2021 150 West Bridge Street 7125 Riverside Drive 2.27 French Colonial/Norman Revival French Colonial/Norman Revival architecture is a category of Colonial Revival architecture based on 16th and 17th century French countryside style growing in popularity post World War I (Gorden, 110). The style is typified by steeply pitched roofs, round towers with turrets, and asymmetrical entrance. 2.28 Art Deco Art Deco architecture is common in public and commercial buildings built in the 1920s and early 1930s (McAlester, 464- 466). The style rejected historical precedent in favor of modern materials and industrial-inspired design. Buildings designed in this style usually had rectilinear massing, futuristic images, stylized ornament, and polychromatic effects. Walls tended to have smooth, polychromatic surfaces of brick or concrete with rounded or angular corner windows. While Art Deco was popular among skyscrapers built in this period, the design was also applied to low-scale buildings such as schools, post offices, and apartments buildings (Gordon, 112). In Dublin, this style appears in commercial and institutional buildings such as the Washington Township Centralized School at 150 West Bridge Street, built circa 1919. CONTEXT & CHARACTER Architectural Styles 170 South Riverview Street 2.29 Modern Post World War II brings the advent of Modern architecture. The first post-war house styles to emerge were the Cape Cod and Minimal Tradition, which were based on earlier house styles of the 20th century, but with new materials and building methods developed during the war. By the1950s, these house styles were replaced by the Ranch house, which dominated American residential architecture throughout the 1960s and is still popular today. The Split-Level house style followed the ranch and retained the low-pitched roof and broad, rambling façade of the period. Less common in this period was the Mid-Century Modern architecture, which rejected traditional forms in favor of a more modern expression with wide overhanging eaves, flat or low-pitched roofs with broad, low front-facing gables, and exposed structural members such as beams or slender metal columns (McAlester, 447). All of these building styles can be seen in Dublin’s sprawling residential areas, and even in some of its commercial and institutional structures. CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 33 DRAFT - May 2021 CONTEXT & CHARACTER Building Types & Architectural Styles 83 South Riverview Street, built in1824, is an example of an I-House building type with Federal architectural style elements. The building is of stone construction with a standing seam metal roof. The former Post Office at 38 West Bridge Street, built in 1965 is in a Modernist Movement architectural style. The one-story brick and stone building has a rectilinear footprint with flat roof and a large glazed storefront window. 87 South High Street, built ca. 1840, in a Greek Revival architectural style has a rectilinear footprint with stone foundation, front gable façade clad in horizontal siding accented by a decorative frieze. 55 South Riverview Street, built ca. 1900, is an example of the Gabled Ell building type with No Academic Style. The front block and wing are identifying forms with the spindle work suggesting an increased accessibility of millwork at the turn of the century. 3535 Chapter 3Users Guide GUIDELINES HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO36 DRAFT - May 2021 3.1 Intent The Guidelines help protect the overall character of Dublin by emphasizing preservation of architectural styles, details, and streetscape elements that define the community’s unique character. They help guide appropriate rehabilitation work and alterations of existing buildings. For additions, new construction and site work, the Guidelines emphasize compatibility of new buildings or features with the district’s historic character. 3.2 Using the Guidelines The intent of the Guidelines is preservation and rehabilitation: retaining and stabilizing the significant buildings and features that define a historic building or streetscape. That is why terms such as repair, retain, maintain, and preserve are used throughout the Guidelines. Repairing, retaining, maintaining, and preserving the original or historic architectural features of a contributing structure is preferred to replacement or modification. For that reason, the rehabilitation Guidelines always begin with the most conservative approach (repair) and then move to other more intrusive treatments. The Guidelines also offer guidance to ensure new buildings align with the character of the District and building additions are compatible, and use appropriate design elements. The Guidelines are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (U.S. Department of the Interior). The purpose of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings is to provide guidance to historic building owners and building managers, preservation consultants, architects, contractors, and project reviewers prior to beginning work. It is always recommended that preservation professionals be consulted early in any project. 3.3 Contributing vs. Non-Contributing Buildings Buildings within the City have been classified as either “contributing” or “noncontributing” to the historic character of the district in the Historic and Cultural Resources Assessment (2017). This distinction is pertinent for the following reasons: X The emphasis for contributing buildings is preservation and rehabilitation. These are buildings that contribute to the historic value of the district and in fact, were important to the Federal designation of the National Register district and/or individual property listings. Maintaining or restoring the historic integrity of contributing buildings is the highest policy objective of these Guidelines. GUIDELINES Users Guide Contributing Non-Contributing Historic District Structures CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 37 DRAFT - May 2021 X Contributing buildings and cultural resources within the Historic District are defined as adding to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities, or archaeological value of the area as expressed in the Historic and Cultural Assessment. Buildings and resources are designated contributing for a variety of reasons including National Register eligibility, period of significance, and sufficient integrity. X Noncontributing buildings and cultural resources within the Historic District are those that do not add to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities, or archaeological value of the area as expressed in the Historic and Cultural Assessment. Buildings and resources are designated noncontributing for a variety of reasons including National Register ineligibility, irrelevance to the period of significance, and insufficient integrity. 3.4 Application of Guidelines Overview These Guidelines provide the ARB with guidance in reviewing applications for approvals related to modifications of existing buildings or structures and the construction of new buildings or structures. They are intended to communicate either a desired or undesired outcome or preference. As Guidelines, interpretation is discretionary on the part of the ARB within the parameters of the regulations that establish and govern the Board. The terms “should”, “should not”, and “avoid” used in the Guidelines signify a desired or undesired outcome or preference. For the purpose of applying these Guidelines by the Board, the terms “should”, “should not”, and “avoid” will include consideration by the Board of feasibility and practicality, guided by consideration of factors such as the context of the proposed improvements, availability of materials, site conditions, building conditions, and other applicable city policies and plans. In exercising discretion in applying the Guidelines the Board will consider and weigh these and other factors as circumstances require. Each project is reviewed on an individual, case-by-case basis, and there are times when more flexibility or creative solutions are needed in applying the Guidelines. When those situations occur, the Board will be clear in stating the reasons for its decision. Zoning Regulations The Design Guidelines supplement the regulations contained in the Dublin Zoning Code. In the event of a conflict between these Guidelines and zoning regulations, the zoning regulations will apply unless specifically modified through approval by the ARB as authorized by the Zoning Code. The Guidelines illustrate how the Zoning Code may be successfully applied to existing historic structures and new infill development. GUIDELINES Users Guide N o r t h S t B r i d g e P a r k A v e S p r i n g H i l l E b e r l y H i l l P i n n e y h i l l L nFra nklin StMill LnJ o h n W r i g h t L n S Blacksmith LnDarby StN Blacksmith LnT u l l e r R i d g e D r Monterey DrClover Ln S h o r t S t Waterford Dr Rock Cre s s P k w y Clover Ct Longshore StOld Spring LnStonef ence LnS Riverview StN Riverview StIndian Run Dr High School Rd W Bridge St Dublin RdE B r i d g e St S High StN High StRi ver si de Dr UV33 UV745 UV257 ¯ Proposed Zoning Districts and Boundary Changes Historic District Zoning HD-Historic Core HD-Historic South HD-Historic Residential HD-Public R-2 3939 Chapter 4Rehabilitation GUIDELINES HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO40 DRAFT - May 2021 4.0 Applicability The following Guidelines are applicable to both residential and commercial properties, except where otherwise noted, as well as are applicable to properties located in Historic Dublin and outlying historic properties. 4.1 General A. Preservation of original architectural features and materials are the first preference in rehabilitation. Such features and materials should be retained in place and/ or repaired. B. Repair of existing features (or replacement when supported by the Board) should be based on an accurate replication of the materials or features, and where possible substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures. C. If it is not practical to retain the original materials or features due to the condition, unavailability, safety, or energy efficiency of original materials, then quality contemporary substitute materials, when approved by the Board, should replicate the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Contemporary materials may be used if it is demonstrated that they have the same quality and character as historic materials. 4.2 Maintenance and Construction Following are common considerations regarding property maintenance and construction. The recommendations are not comprehensive in nature. A. Brick and stone masonry should be tuckpointed every 20 to 30 years, or when holes, gaps, or cracks form in the mortar. Pointing of masonry should be done in a way that duplicates the color, texture, and joint tooling of the building’s historic pointing. B. Foundations should be kept free of moisture retaining materials such as excess mulch, firewood, and overgrown plantings to ensure longevity. C. Avoid abrasive cleaning of historic masonry and siding specifically power washing, sandblasting, and harsh detergents. D. Flashing, gutters, and downspouts should be in good repair. Aging roofs should be replaced if there are significant bulges, dips, or gaps. GUIDELINES Rehabilitation 4.3 Exterior Materials A. Original wood siding should not be covered over. B. Wood siding should be used in one of the traditional forms as found on the building (e.g. shingle, Board-and- batten, shiplap, or beveled siding). C. Masonry walls that have not previously been painted should remain unpainted. Masonry which has been painted in the past should remain painted. D. Pointing of masonry should match the color, texture, joint tooling, and physical composition of the building’s historic pointing. E. Historically stuccoed surfaces should remain stuccoed. Stucco should not be applied to a wall which has not been previously stuccoed. 4.4 Architectural Details A. Significant architectural elements that have deteriorated should be repaired rather than replaced. B. Avoid adding cornice or frieze elements as extra ornamentation on a building if not originally present on the building. C. Original architectural elements should not be covered, especially when located on a front elevation. 4.5 Foundations A. Avoid cutting openings in foundation walls to create basement windows or doors on elevations visible from a street. B. Avoid painting or stuccoing the exterior of a foundation. C. Previously-painted or stuccoed foundations should be kept that way, as long as they do not show evidence of moisture retention. Original architectural details, 138 South High Street CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 41 DRAFT - May 2021 D. If original basement windows are to be covered, avoid filling them permanently. 4.6 Building Colors A. Colors should be selected based on documented research of a building’s original paint colors. B. If original colors cannot be identified or are unacceptable to the applicant, alternate colors should be selected according to the time-period of building construction. C. Late 19th century buildings should have a maximum of three different colors (the body color and one trim and one accent color); those from earlier and later periods should have no more than two, unless historic precedent suggests otherwise. D. The Architectural Review Board may delegate approval of colors to staff based upon a color palette approved by the Board. Original stone foundation, 167 South High Street GUIDELINES Rehabilitation 4.7 Doors and Entrances A. The functional, proportional, and decorative features of a primary entrance should be preserved. B. If interior alterations make an existing entrance redundant, the door and entrance should be left intact on the exterior. C. Color should be compatible with historically appropriate colors already on the building. D. Avoid treatments that attempt to “dress up” a door or entrance or give it a character that was never original. E. Surviving original storm doors should be retained. Original storm door, 63 South High Street Historic building color, 76-78 South High Street Historic building color, 113 South High Street HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO42 DRAFT - May 2021 G. Windows that have an original storm sash should be repaired and retained. 4.9 Porches A. Wrought or cast-iron supports should not be used to replace original porch columns unless such iron elements were part of the original design; the same is true for wrought iron railings. B. Avoid enclosing porches to create permanent interior space, particularly on front elevations. C. If a porch is proposed to replace an original, missing porch, the characteristics of original porches on similar buildings such as height, materials, roof slope, and width of original porches are preferred. D. If a porch is to be added where a porch never existed, a simple design should be used. E. Avoid ornamentation such as spindles and scrollwork unless they were traditionally used on the porches of similar buildings. 4.10 Roof, Gutter, and Downspout A. Re-roofing a building that currently has asphalt shingles should be simple in design. B. Avoid staggered-butt or other shingle patterns that try to create an older look. C. If a building does not have gutters and downspouts and is to have them installed, design and color should be compatible with the design and color of the building. D. On existing structures, avoid roofline additions such as dormers, skylights, or penthouses. However, these features may be appropriate on a new addition. If such elements are proposed, they should be placed toward F. New storm doors should be of simple design. The design should be a full-height glass section that permits viewing the main door. G. Avoid storm doors with decorative features such as scalloped window edges, strap hinges, or “crossbuck” designs. 4.8 Windows A. The position, number, and arrangement of original windows in a building should be preserved. B. If original windows are extensively deteriorated, only the deteriorated windows should be replaced. Avoid removing any that are still repairable. C. Avoid enlarging or downsizing window openings to accommodate stock replacement window sizes. D. Replacement windows should match the appearance of the historic originals in number of panes, dimensions of sash members, and profile of sash members and muntins. Windows should simulate the operating characteristics of the originals. The same material, as the original windows, usually wood, should be used. E. Real through-the-glass exterior and interior muntins with spacer bar (simulated divided lite) should be used. Windows should not use sandwiched, applied, or snap- in artificial muntins. F. Interior or exterior storm windows may be used to increase energy efficiency of existing windows. These should be either a single pane or, if they have an upper and a lower pane, the division between the two should be at the meeting rails of the original exterior windows. Storm windows should match the color of the existing window trim. Original porch, 83 South High Street Real divided lite window, 31-33 South High Street GUIDELINES Rehabilitation CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 43 DRAFT - May 2021 Figure 4.1: Appropriate Additions. Figure 4.2: Inappropriate Additions. Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines. the rear or along a rear slope where visibility is minimal. Skylights should be flat and low in profile. 4.11 Canopy and Awning A. Fabric awnings should have a matte rather than a glossy surface. B. Avoid fixed, permanent canopies unless it can be documented through research that a building had one in the past and that the canopy design is compatible with the original character of the building and the district. C. Each window or door should have its own awning, rather than a single full-width awning covering an entire façade. D. A traditional flat, sloped awning design should be used. Selection of open-end versus closed-end awnings should be historically based. E. Awning color(s) should complement the building and be compatible with historically appropriate colors used on the building but avoid overly ornate patterns and too many colors. A simple pattern using no more than two colors is preferred. 4.12 Building Additions A. Additions should be clearly distinguishable from the original structure by designing additions to be subordinate and secondary to the primary structure. If the additions or alterations were removed the essential form and integrity of the original structure should be unimpaired. B. Additions should be located to the rear of the original building so that the most significant and visible faces (e.g. front elevations) of historic properties are given priority. If space needs or lot conditions require that the addition be placed farther forward, the façade of the addition should be set back from the original façade. C. A break or reveal should be provided between the original building and the addition, so it is apparent that they are two separate structures. D. The design for additions to existing properties should not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural materials. The design should be compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. E. Avoid duplicating the original building’s architecture and design in the addition. The addition should take its major design cues such as form, massing, roof shape, Rehabilitation GUIDELINES HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO44 DRAFT - May 2021 4.14 Retrofitted Access for People with Disabilities (ADA) A. Designs should be kept simple and unobtrusive within the requirements of compliance with ADA standards. B. Ramps or lifts should be located at side or rear entrances to minimize impact on the main façade. C. The design of ramps and handrails should be simple and contemporary and should not try to mimic existing handrails. D. Materials should be the same as or similar to those used in the building. Avoid exposed treated wood that is unpainted. E. If providing access to a building’s front entrance is only a matter of overcoming a few inches difference between sidewalk and entrance, a portion of the sidewalk should be designed so that it is sloped upward to overcome the height difference to avoid a handrail. If the building entrance or sidewalk is located within the right-of-way, Engineering approval may be required. 4.15 Energy Efficiency and Sustainability A. The visual impacts of equipment as seen from the street should be minimized. B. The smallest and least obtrusive equipment necessary and available should be used. C. The equipment should be located in an area where it is not be visible along any street frontage. D. Equipment should be installed in a manner that is reversible and does not permanently alter or damage original building materials. window proportions and spacing, door types, and level and kind of ornamentation from the original building, but it should be a simplified structure. F. Materials for additions should be consistent with those identified in 4.1.C and complementary to the district, but need not match those of the original structure to which the addition is attached. Avoid materials that are not typically from the mid-19th to the early 20th century (e.g. concrete block, rough-sawn siding, or logs). Brick, stucco, and beveled siding or Board-and-batten all may be appropriate, depending upon the materials in the original building. G. Roofline additions should be placed and designed to have the least amount of visual impact. Refer to 4.9.D H. The height and roofline of the addition should be below those of the original building. 4.13 Outbuildings A. Original outbuildings such as garages, sheds, outhouses, and barns should be repaired and retained. B. When outbuildings need repair or replacement of deteriorated elements, new materials should match the old. Outbuilding repurposed for commercial use, 109 South High Street (Rear) Rear ADA ramp with masonry wall, 129 South High Street GUIDELINES Rehabilitation CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 45 DRAFT - May 2021 Commercial storefront, 14 South High Street 4.16 Commercial Storefront Design A. Designs should be consistent with the historic storefront character including window sizes and architectural features. B. Storefronts should retain ornamentation and trim consistent with the historic architectural style of the building. C. Avoid “theme” restorations (e.g. Colonial, Bavarian, Art Deco, Post Modern, etc.) unless historically true to the building. D. Materials should be consistent with the historic architectural style of the building. In appropriate designs and materials should be avoided such as diagonal wood siding, vinyl or aluminum siding, mansard roofs, and fixed metal canopies. Recessed entry and bulkheads, 52 South High Street Figure 4.3: Commercial Storefront Design Elements. Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines. Rehabilitation GUIDELINES 474747 Chapter 5New Construction GUIDELINES HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO48 DRAFT - May 2021 5.0 Applicability The following Guidelines are applicable to residential and commercial properties as well as to outlying historic properties. New construction differs from the construction of new additions to historic structures. New construction includes primary and accessory structures like houses, commercial buildings, garages, sheds, and other similar structures. 5.1 General A. New construction should not be a replica of historic buildings, but also should not be taken to the extreme of modern architecture. There are places in the City of Dublin where modern architecture is appropriate and desired, but within historic districts it is important to provide a sense of continuity and compatibility so that both a sense of historic place and historic time is respected. Continuity and compatibility are more valued than making a bold design statement. B. New construction should be similar to existing contributing buildings in the district. New buildings should be obviously new to the observer, but GUIDELINES New Construction there should be continuity and compatibility with surrounding historic structures. They should share underlying principles of design, form, mass, height, scale and lot coverage as prevails on adjacent lots. 5.2 Building Placement A. Building should be sited sensitively to the varying topography of the District and established grade of the site. B. The site should be designed to be consistent with the original block, street, and site patterns of the district in which the building is located. C. The placement of the building should be similar to the placement, orientation, and setbacks of surrounding structures. The placement should reinforce the street wall. D. The building should be sited similar to the development pattern of surrounding properties. Lot coverage should be similar to surrounding properties. Figure 5.1: Commercial Infill Development Pattern. Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines. CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 49 DRAFT - May 2021 GUIDELINES New Construction 5.3 Form and Mass A. The building should be similar in form, mass, and lot coverage; and, in proportion and scale to other surrounding buildings. B. Roof pitch and form should be similar to surrounding buildings. C. The building should reinforce a sense of human scale through the design of pedestrian entrances, porches, door and window openings, and façades. D. The form and mass of the building should be responsive to the site topography and similar in overall height to surrounding buildings. Buildings should step-down following the topography of the site. Figure 5.2: Building Height Scale and Proportion. Figure 5.3: Residential Infill Development Pattern. Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines. HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO50 DRAFT - May 2021 5.4 Building Width A. The building width should be similar to other buildings in the district. B. If a building is wider than other structures in the district, the façade should be divided into subordinate sizes that are similar to the width of other structures in the district. Sections of the wall should be stepped to further reinforce the visual impression of widths similar to other structures in the district. 5.5 Façade A. Façade proportions, including width to height ratio, should be similar to other buildings in the district. B. The primary entrance to the building should front the street. C. Avoid blank façades and monotony of materials. Avoid large surfaces of glass. D. Avoid concrete block foundations or exposed poured concrete. Foundations should be clad with brick or stone. E. Where multi-story buildings are permitted, the façade should incorporate a three-part composition including a base, a middle, and a top. 5.6 Doors and Windows A. The pattern and proportions of window and door openings should be proportional to the building façade and reflect the pattern of other buildings in the District. B. The window-to-wall ratios should be similar to other buildings in the district. C. Windows and doors should be framed in materials that are similar in scale and character with other buildings in the district. 5.7 Architectural Details A. Architectural elements such as eaves, window design and moldings, door surrounds, porches, soffits, should be modern interpretations of historic details, not replications of historic styles. B. Skylights should be flat and low in profile and placed toward the rear where visibility is minimal. Figure 5.4: Pattern and Proportions of Window/Door Openings. Finished foundation, 73 South Riverview Street Modern interpretation of historic details, not replication of historic styles/details, 113 South High Street GUIDELINES New Construction Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines. CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 51 DRAFT - May 2021 5.8 Materials and Color A. The building should use materials traditional to historic Dublin: wood, brick, and stone; although may use contemporary materials with characteristics similar to historic materials, as approved by the ARB. B. Materials that have a proven durability for the Central Ohio climate should be used. C. Colors should be similar to other buildings in the district. 5.9 Canopy and Awning A. Fabric awnings should have a matte rather than a glossy surface. B. Each window or door should have its own awning, rather than a single full-width awning covering an entire façade. C. A traditional flat, sloped awning design should be used. D. Awning color(s) should complement the building and be compatible with historically appropriate colors used on the building but avoid overly ornate patterns and too many colors. A simple pattern using no more than two colors is preferred. Materials and color traditional to the District, 31-33 South High Street 5.10 Outbuildings A. Detached garages are encouraged and should be located to the rear and side of the primary structure. B. Newly-constructed outbuildings should be compatible and subordinate in scale to the main building using design cues from contributing outbuildings and nearby structures, but especially the principal building on the site. C. Forms, massing, roof shape, roof pitch and height, materials, window and door types, and detailing similar to those found on nearby historic or traditional outbuildings should be used. 5.11 Energy Efficiency and Sustainability A. Energy generating devices, such as solar collectors should remain visually subordinate to the character of the building, and should not be visible along any street frontage. B. Buildings should incorporate elements such as operable windows for natural ventilation and light. Historic outbuilding, 83 South Riverview Street GUIDELINES New Construction 5353 Chapter 6Site Design GUIDELINES HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO54 DRAFT - May 2021 C. Foundation plantings should be provided to soften the appearance of buildings along the street. 6.4 Walls and Fences A. Original stone walls and fences should be maintained, retained, and not be modified in any way. B. Historic stone walls should be preserved on private property and City owned property. C. Where possible, degraded stone walls should be rehabilitated without compromising the integrity and character. D. Replacement of historic stone walls with new stone walls is discouraged. E. If replacement is necessary due to the condition, or a new fence is proposed, traditional fence and wall types are preferred. These should include low stone walls in the traditional and distinctive Dublin design, low picket fences, iron fences or, in backyard areas, Board fences with straight or “dog-eared” top edges, or rows of trees and shrubs. F. The design of landscaping, including walls and fences should address the public rights-of-way in a similar manner to surrounding properties in the district. G. Non-traditional materials such as concrete or “cyclone” fencing and composite wood fencing, and non- traditional wood fencing designs like basket-weave, shadow-box, or stockade fences are not appropriate. H. For fences, paint or an opaque stain should be applied to wood fencing, rather than leaving it natural. 6.5 Access and Parking A. Vehicular access should be visually complementary to the site and building design; it should be secondary to the visual appearance of the building and not dominating its design. B. Pedestrian and bicycle access and storage should be incorporated into the site design. C. Parking should be accessed from a side street or an alley rather than from the main street. Parking lots or curb cuts in front of a building at the sidewalk should be avoided. 6.0 Applicability The following Guidelines are applicable to residential and commercial properties as well as to outlying historic properties. 6.1 General A. Site design should be sensitive to the surrounding context particularly to natural features and cultural resources. B. Sites should be designed to preserve elements that contribute to the historic character of the site and District. 6.2 Natural Features A. Site topography should be preserved. Buildings should be sited in a manner that is respective to the existing topography. Regrading of sites should be limited. B. Landmark trees (over 24 caliper inches) on commercial and residential properties should be maintained in good health and preserved from harm. All trees should be preserved, whenever practicable. C. Buildings, accessory structures, and patios should be sited outside of the critical root zone of mature trees. 6.3 Landscaping A. Open green space, including landscape areas, should be preserved free of buildings, accessory structures, and patios. B. Landscape designs should provide year round interest. Plant materials should be species native to Central Ohio. Commercial landscaping, 35-39 South High Street GUIDELINES Site Design CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 55 DRAFT - May 2021 Wood fence, 35-39 South High Street Hairpin wrought iron fence, 91 South High Street GUIDELINES Site Design D. The visual impacts of service and loading areas should be minimized. They should be located to the rear of the building and screened from public rights-of-way consistent with code screening requirements. 6.6 Decks and Patios A. Decks and patios should be located to the rear or side of the building. B. Decks should be architecturally integrated and treated with paint or an opaque stain to match the color of the building or its trim. C. Railings should be traditional in character constructed of wood, metal or other similar material. Vinyl, PVC, and polyurethane should not be used as a deck or railing material. 6.7 Lighting A. Lighting should enhance the site and building design in a manner that is sensitive to surrounding properties. Light fixtures should be scaled appropriately based on the use and character of surrounding properties. B. Light fixtures should be simple in design. Subdued, soft, warm lighting should be used. Avoid large, ornate light fixtures. 6.8 Mechanical Equipment and Waste Screening A. Mechanical equipment, utility equipment, and waste facilities should be screened from view of any public right-of-way or adjacent property, and located to the rear of the building. Such equipment should be screened from view with landscaping or screen walls. B. For buildings with rooftop equipment or ventilation, the equipment should be centrally located and fully screened from view using a primary building material. Roof penetrations should be painted to match the roof. Eberly Hill Lane and South Riverview Street stone wall 5757 Chapter 7Signs GUIDELINES HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO58 DRAFT - May 2021 7.1 General A. Signs should have a minimal visual impact on the site and the district in which the building is located. B. Signs should be subordinate and complementary to the building. C. Graphics and messages should be simple. D. New signs should be pedestrian in scale (see the Zoning Code). Signs should relate more to the sidewalk than to the street and should be intended for viewing by people who are walking rather than driving. 7.2 Color and Relief A. The color scheme should be simple and unobtrusive. Accent colors or corporate identity colors or logos should be used with restraint, and such colors should not dominate a sign. B. Letter sizes and styles should be easily readable. One letter size and one type style is preferred. C. Signs should be dimensionally routed. 7.3 Materials and Lighting A. Signs should be constructed of durable natural materials consistent with material used for other signs in the district in which the building is located. B. Signs should be externally illuminated in a way that is subordinate to the design of the building. 7.4 Avoid A. Avoid many bright colors, intended to draw attention rather than add visual interest to the tenant space. B. Thin, flat signs that appear flimsy and temporary. C. Clunky “off the shelf” sign cabinets with no architectural character. D. Homemade signs and designs without professional guidance. E. Using a sign contractor that is not registered with the City of Dublin. 7.5 Context Sensitive 7.6 Quality and Character A. Signs should coordinate with the architectural character of the building and of the district. A. Signs should contribute to the character of the district by providing interest to the pedestrian realm. B. Signs should be constructed of high-quality materials and finished with attention to design details. 7.7 Ground Signs A. Ground signs should be compact and highly coordinated with their surroundings in terms of materials, architectural character, color, and details. B. Signs should have three-dimensional elements. Flat designs are discouraged. C. Sign bases should be structurally integrated and coordinate with the overall design of the sign. GUIDELINES Signs Note: Sign images are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines. CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 59 DRAFT - May 2021 7.10 Projecting Signs A. Three-dimensional elements are strongly encouraged, along with the creative use of textures and shadows to give the sign dimensionality and interest. B. The bracket or attachment device should be architecturally appropriate to the building design. Only use traditional brackets with traditional architecture. 7.11 Awning Signs A. Awning sign designs should be coordinated with the architectural character of the storefront. The use of stripes and scalloped edges should be minimized unless there is substantial evidence that the detail is historically appropriate. B. Awning signs should include simple text and logos on subdued backgrounds. 7.12 Sandwich Board Signs A. Sandwich Board signs should be constructed of a high- quality wood frame with chalkboard and white-board elements. The frame should not be constructed of plastic. B. Signs should have a clean, simple frame without a handle or additional ornamentation. C. Signs should incorporate whimsical, one-of-a-kind, artistic designs that cater to pedestrians. Graphics should be simple, bold, and symbolic. D. Sandwich Board signs should be maintained in good, working condition. Signs should be brought inside at night and during inclement weather. 7.8 Wall Signs A. Wall signs in pedestrian environments should be interesting to look at, adding vibrancy to the streetscape. B. Wall signs should be three dimensional, with routed letters. C. Letters should be individually pin-mounted or incorporated into a sign panel. Internally illuminated channel letters should be avoided. D. Signs should be illuminated in a way that is subordinate to the design of the building. External illumination is preferred. 7.9 Window Signs A. Permanent window signs should ensure visibility through the window into the tenant space beyond. B. Doors and windows should not be obscured by signs. C. Minimal colors and simple graphics are recommended. Dimensionally routed wall sign, 39 West Bridge Street Projecting and awning sign , 55 West Bridge Street Window sign, 48 South High Street GUIDELINES Signs Council Adopted Resolution XX-21 Month, Day, 2021 PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov RECORD OF ACTION Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, May 6, 2021 | 6:30 pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Historic Design Guidelines 18-037ADM Administrative Request Proposal: New Historic Design Guidelines applicable to properties locat ed within the Architectural Review District and its outlying historic properties. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council for new Historic Design Guidelines under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066. Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/18-037 MOTION: Mr. Fishman moved, Mr. Grimes seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for an Administrative Request for new Historic Design Guidelines applicable to properties located within the Architectural Review District and its outlying historic properties. VOTE: 7 – 0. RESULT: The Administrative Request for new Historic Guidelines was recommended for approval and forwarded to City Council. RECORDED VOTES: Jane Fox Yes Warren Fishman Yes Mark Supelak Yes Rebecca Call Yes Leo Grimes Yes Lance Schneier Yes Kim Way Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION _____________________________________ Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner To: Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission From: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner Date: May 6, 2021 Re: Historic Design Guidelines Update (18-037ADM) Update The Historic Design Guidelines were reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 4, 2021. The Commission tabled the request to allow for rev isions and additions to Chapter 2 regarding cultural landscapes and natural resources, and new construction materials; Chapter 4 regarding commercial storefronts ; Chapter 5 regarding new construction; Chapter 6 regarding additional of language to various site design standards; and Chapter 7 regarding signs. The proposed modifications include the following revisions within the document:  Cultural landscape and natural resources – Include a more robust background section, as well as more detailed language regarding topography, ravines and springs, flora and fauna, earthworks, cemeteries, historic features, and public art.  Commercial storefronts - Provide additional clarity for design and m aterials for rehabilitation.  New construction – Clarify the applicability standards, as well as building mass and scale and placement.  Site design – Clarify the applicability standards, as well as natural features, landscaping, walls and fences, decks and patios, lighting, and mechanical equipment.  Signs – Include minor change to the sandwich board sign section. Summary The Historic Design Guideline s are proposed in conjunction with the Architectural Review District Zoning Code amendments (Ord. 03-21) and Historic District Rezoning (Ord. 04 -21), which the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended approval to City Council of at the January 7, 2021 meeting. Council has since adopted the Code amendments and Rezoning. The effective date of the Code and Rezoning are March 23, 2021 On February 24, 2021, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed and recommended approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) for the proposed Historic Design Guidelines (HDG). A summary of the proposed Guidelines are provided below. Case History The Code, Rezoning, and Guidelines are the result of a multi-year stakeholder committee, public engagement, and Board and Commission review process. In 2018, the Historic Dublin Stakeholder Committee met four times (June 14, July 12, August 2, and August 30, 2018) to identify opportunities Division of Planning 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 Phone: 614.410.4600 • Fax: 614.410.4747 Memo Memo re. Historic Design Guidelines Update (18-037ADM) May 6, 2021 Page 2 of 2 for revisions to the Historic District Zoning Code and Guidelines. In detail, the ARB has conducted six reviews of the document s on July 10, July 24, November 20, 2019, and June 17, July 29, and November 18, 2020. In addition, staff held two public meeting at the Dublin Community Church on October 9, 2018 and August 15, 2019, as well as, office hours for two hours each Wednesday in August 2019 (August 7, 14, 21 and 28) to provide an additional method of communication and input for the public. The PZC reviewed the documents and provided comments on September 5, 2019, which had initially been introduced to the Commission on July 11, 2019. Details The Historic Design Guideline s document is a companion document to the Architectural Review District Zoning Code. The documents have been updated in tandem to ensure alignment. The Code establishes qualitative and quantitative standards for development while the Guidelines provide direction on how to successfully apply the zoning regulations. Both the Zoning Code and Guidelines are of equal weight when modifications, rehabilitation, new construction, and signs are under consideration within the Architectural Review District and outlying historic properties identified on Appendix G. The proposed Guidelines provide an overview of the applicability, natural features, neighborhood character, and building types and architectural styles. This infor mation is intended to be foundational for Staff, Board members, and the community when proposal are brought forward. The overview is followed by directions on how to apply the Guidelines. The substance of the Guidelines is provided in Chapters 3-7, which includes: rehabilitation, new construction, site design, and sign design recommendation. When the Code and Guidelines are administered in unison, it is anticipated that the review process within the Architectural Review District will be more user -friendly as recommendations align with current community values and address current challenges and opportunities facing the District. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission make a recommendation of approval to City Council with the proposed amendments . PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov RECORD OF ACTION Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, March 4, 2021 | 6:30 pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Historic Design Guidelines 18-037ADM Administrative Request Proposal: New Historic Design Guidelines applicable to properties located within the Architectural Review District and its outlying historic properties. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council on the proposed Administrative Request under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.234. Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/18-037 MOTION: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Fishman seconded a request to table the proposed Historic Design Guidelines amendment pending incorporation of the Commission’s recommendations. VOTE: 6 – 0. RESULT: The Administrative Request for new Historic Design Guidelines was tabled. RECORDED VOTES: Jane Fox Yes Warren Fishman Yes Kristina Kennedy Yes Mark Supelak Yes Rebecca Call Absent Leo Grimes Yes Lance Schneier Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION _____________________________________ Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2021 Page 2 of 8 CONSENT CASE 2. Bridge Street District - Amended Final Development Plan, 20-177ADMC, Administrative Request - Code Amendment Request for review and recommendation to City Council to amend Zoning Code Section 153.066 to add an Amended Final Development Plan review process for the Bridge Street District in alignment with other review processes. Public Comments No public comments were received for this case. Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded a recommendation of approval to City Council for the addition of an Amended Final Development Plan (AFDP) review process for the Bridge Street District. Vote: Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes. [Motion passed 6-0] NEW CASES 1. Historic Design Guidelines, 18-037ADMC, Administrative Request - Code Amendment Request for review and recommendation to City Council for new Historic Design Guidelines applicable to properties located within the Architectural Review District and its outlying historic properties. Case Presentation Ms. Martin stated that this is an administrative request for a recommendation of approval to City Council. The Historic District Code amendment, Historic District area rezoning and revised Historic Design Guidelines are the result of the work of a stakeholder committee, public engagement, and Board and Commission review process. In 2018, the Historic Dublin Stakeholder Committee met four times (June 14, July 12, August 2, and August 30, 2018) to identify potential revisions to the Historic District Zoning Code and Guidelines. Opportunities for public input were provided at two public meetings held on October 9, 2018 and August 15, 2019, as well as two-hour office hours on each Wednesday in August 2019 (August 7, 14, 21 and 28). The Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) reviewed draft revisions on July 11 and September 5, 2019. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted six reviews of draft documents on July 10, July 24 and November 20, 2019, and on June 17, July 29, and November 18, 2020. On February 24, 2021, the ARB approved a recommendation to the Planning Commission for its subsequent recommendation of approval to City Council. Overview The Historic Design Guidelines is a companion document that has been updated in alignment with a recent Code amendment approved by City Council on February 22, 2021. Ordinance 03-21 approved an amendment to the Architectural Review Board Development Requirements and Procedures and a revision to the Historic District boundaries. The boundaries of Historic Dublin would be the area of applicability for the proposed Design Guidelines, as well as any historic properties listed in Appendix G of the Zoning Code. Council also approved Ordinance 04-21, an area rezoning removing Historic Dublin from the Bridge Street District. The intent was to differentiate the regulations in the two districts. The purpose of the legislation related to the Historic District was to ensure that current community values were reflected. The primary difference between Code and Guidelines is that the Code provides regulations regarding what “shall” be applied; the Guidelines provide recommendations and best practices, which “should” be applied in conjunction with the Code. Chapters 1–3 provide an introduction, set the context and character for the District, and identify building types and predominant architectural styles in Historic Dublin. Chapters 4-7 address rehabilitation, new construction, site design, and sign design recommendations. When the Code and Guidelines are administered in unison, it is anticipated that the review process within the Architectural Review District will be more user-friendly. Staff Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2021 Page 3 of 8 and the ARB recommend that the Commission review and subsequently recommend City Council approval of the updated Historic Design Guidelines at their March 22, 2021 meeting. Commission Questions/Discussion Mr. Schneier pointed out the following items of concern: 1. On p. 46, the statement is made that, “New construction should be differentiated from existing buildings but should be compatible with the established character of the District.” Unfortunately, that statement could be interpreted in various ways; therefore, it should either be amended or eliminated. 2. On p. 48, Item 5.6d, “Doors and Windows,” indicates the “window to wall ratio should be similar to other buildings within the District.” However, on p. 49, Item 5.11a states that, “buildings should maximize window design to provide daylight.” Those two items would seem to be incompatible. 3. On p. 52, “Site Design - Applicability,” the language, which concerns landscaping, states that the Guidelines “are applicable to both residential and commercial properties…,” but Section 6.3 indicates that City Code Section 153.173-C3 states that the ARB has no jurisdiction over residential landscaping. He would recommend the above language be tightened/clarified. Ms. Martin responded that re. the third item (above), it was the intent that Section 6.3, “Landscaping,” would be recommendations for both residential and commercial properti es, specifically in regard to tree preservation. Although ARB has no jurisdiction to require that trees be preserved on residential properties, it is the Board’s desire to encourage residential property owners to preserve trees to the extent possible in order to preserve the established cultural landscaping in the District. Ms. Fox suggested that the language be modified also to clarify that the applicant is not required to submit a Landscape Design for Board review. These are simply landscape recommendations for the District. Ms. Martin referred to item two (above). The intent of Item 5.11 was to allow some flexibility, recognizing that new construction would want to employ energy-efficient and sustainable building methods, while also attempting to be sensitive to the established character of the neighborhood. Her recommendation would be to retain the Items in 5.6, Doors and Windows, and modify or eliminate Item 5.11. Ms. Fox inquired about window replacements in historic homes. Ms. Martin noted that this topic is covered in the “Rehabilitation” section, p. 40, which states, “replacement windows should match the appearan ce of historic originals in number of panes, dimension…..” The implication is that replacement should simulate the operating characteristics of the originals, but would not need to be original. Ms. Martin requested clarification of the concern in item one (above) re. new construction windows, in regard to sustainability versus character. Mr. Schneier stated that the issue is not point of view as much as it is the language/verbiage. Ms. Martin stated that she is in agreement with Mr. Schneier’s comment regarding p. 46, Section 5.1a. That phrase is not necessary, as the subject is addressed more directly in items b and c. Ms. Fox stated that the Lancaster, Ohio Historic Design Guidelines provide more definition on the items Mr. Schneier mentioned. Mr. Schneier responded that the language should not be arbitrary. If helpful language has been crafted by another entity, that could be considered. Ms. Fox read the Lancaster language related to new construction that complements the Historic District. [Discussion continued regarding new construction that complements but does not copy historic architecture.] Mr. Fishman indicated the need to discourage the use of existing architecture that was not done well as a justification for doing something similar. The language referring to “other houses” should be tightened. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2021 Page 4 of 8 Mr. Boggs suggested that the application of precedence be narrowed to require that context not be related to buildings two blocks away, but to those within the immediate vicinity. Ms. Fox suggested the following language, “New structures should look new but also take design cues from surrounding existing buildings so as to relate to historic setting. One should not attempt to replicate or mimic the historic building but work to achieve compatibility.” Mr. Schneier stated that he liked that language without the last sentence. Ms. Rauch stated that per ARB direction, the language was revised from “adjacent” to “surrounding.” Perhaps “surrounding” could be clarified. If the Board should experience difficulty with the language proposed in the Guidelines, the document can be revised again later. Mr. Supelak stated that he was supportive of the modifications suggested by Mr. Boggs and Ms. Fox. Public Comment No public comments on the case were received. Mr. Fishman noted that it is important to revise the language so that new construction does not result in another 1950s ranch. Ms. Fox stated that there is a variety of architecture on S. Riverview Street, some are considered contributing and some non-contributing, including 3 or 4 ranches. If the non-contributing structures were to be demolished, do we want to change the character of the street? The question should be if the eclectic nature of the District that has evolved is preferred, or if a certain period of history, such as 1860 to 1910, is preferred. She believes ARB is interested in leniency in their ability to allow new construction to complement without being prohibited. Mr. Fishman stated the 1950s ranches should not be demolished if they are in good shape, as they are part of the eclectic character. However, putting a 1950s ranch in the middle of S. High Street or other areas might not be appropriate. Ms. Martin noted that Franklin Street is part of Historic Dublin, and it is important to encourage preservation, not redevelopment with a mid-19ths century aesthetic. The District is eclectic, non-homogenous. Preserving that character, particularly south of Bridge Street, would be important. Mr. Fishman stated that his intent is not to encourage removal of the 1950s ranches, but to ensure that new construction blends with the surrounding character and is harmonious to the Historic District. Ms. Martin responded that staff would take another look at the document and attempt to ensure that the reference to “surrounding” is capturing the Commission’s guidance. Ms. Fox referred to Site Design - Landscaping, p. 62. She is concerned about protecting the cultural landscape. Topography is considered a protected asset. Because the Historic District is on the riverfront, there is a severe grade change from High Street to the river. The landscape along the riverfront is considered a historic asset. That area once held two stone quarries, contains historic stonewalls along the edges, and [along its northern boundary] the Indian Run Ravine with beautiful waterfalls. The National Parks Service considers old cemeteries, ponds, lakes, rivers, waterways, particular contours, and archaeological land masses, such as Indian mounds, to be cultural landscape assets. A significant amount of land mass within the Historic District falls within this category. The Guidelines provide no applications to protect this asset. She would like to see this historic element added to the Historic Guidelines. There is existing verbiage that could be used. Ms. Kennedy inquired if, at any point, this particular item was discussed as part of the review process. Ms. Martin responded that the topic of cultural landscapes and resources was raised previously. It was incorporated in a limited manner, within the Overview section, p. 16. There is an opportunity to make that section more robust in regard to meaning, and to include specific recommendations related to the treatment of Dublin’s resources. Ms. Fox stated that ARB struggles with the applications that provide one story at the street level and 4-5 stories at the rear due to the grade drop, instead of terracing the building down the side of the hill, which would provide a more attractive view from the rear. No site design guidance with respect to topography is Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2021 Page 5 of 8 provided in the Guidelines. New construction has resulted in the removal of stonewalls and older landscape features along the riverfront. If the schools on Bridge Street were ever to be moved, there are inadequate protections in place for the Indian Run Ravine. No regulations exist that prohibit the construction of a condominium along the ravine. She would like staff to look for opportunities to provide ARB with some ability to protect the cultural landscape in the District. Commission consensus was to include this ability within the Design Guidelines. Ms. Fox suggested that in the Appendix G list of historic buildings located outside the District, bold text be used for those that are City-owned to provide differentiation. Staff indicated that distinction would be made. Ms. Fox stated that in regard to Historic Storefront Rehabilitation (p. 43), the word “avoid” is used in the subpoints. She has suggested language be used that would indicate what is expected, rather than what should be avoided. Ms. Martin displayed revised language, consistent with Ms. Fox’s requests related to Storefront Rehabilitation, and in Site Design, the siting of new development related to the topography. The intent is that it refer to the surrounding buildings within the Architectural Review District. Ms. Kennedy noted that, due to the requested revisions, the document is not ready for approval at this time. Ms. Martin inquired if there would be two Commission members who would be willing to collaborate with staff and review proposed revisions prior to formal review. This approach was used successfully with the ARB review. Mr. Schneier and Ms. Fox indicated their willingness to provide collaboration. Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Fishman seconded a request to table the proposed Historic Design Guidelines amendment pending incorporation of the Commission’s recommendations. Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes. [Motion to table passed 6-0] 3. Dublin City Hall, 5555 Perimeter Drive, 21-015Z-PDP, Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Request for review and recommendation to City Council to rezone a ±5.03-acre site, located west of the intersection of Perimeter Drive and Emerald Parkway, from Suburban Office and Institutional District to Planned Unit Development District – Coffman Park. Case Presentation Ms. Martin stated that this is a request for review and a recommendation of approval of a rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan for the new City Hall building, located at 5555 Perimeter Drive, from SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District – Coffman Park, to complete the Coffman Park municipal complex. The site is located west of Emerald Parkway, south of the intersection with Perimeter Drive. The site is surrounded by other municipal facilities, including: the Justice Center immediately to the west, and to the north -- Coffman Park, the Development Building, the Coffman Homestead, and the Recreation Center. Background The Coffman Park PUD was originally established in 1994 (Ordinance 18-94), which incorporated 28 acres of parkland zoned R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, with an additional 18 acres to facilitate development of municipal facilities including the Dublin Recreation Center while also enhancing active and passive parkland opportunities in the City. In 2007, Ordinance 91-07 rezoned four additional parcels, totaling PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone: 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov BOARD ORDER Architectural Review Board Wednesday, November 18, 2020 | 6:30 pm The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 4. Architectural Review Board Zoning Code Amendment 19-007ADMC Administrative Request – Code Amendment Proposal: An amendment to Zoning Code Sections 153.002, 153.058, 153.059, 153.062, 153.063, 153.065, 153.170 through 153.180, and Appendix F & G to address the Historic Dublin Boundary and Architectural Review Board development standards and procedures. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234, and the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin Planning Contacts: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II Contact Information: 614.410.4690, jrauch@dublin.oh.us 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/arb/19-007 MOTION: Ms. Kramb moved, Mr. Cotter seconded, to recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the amendment to Zoning Code Sections 153.002, 153.058, 153.059, 153.062, 153.063, 153.065, 153.170 through 153.180, and Appendix F & G to address the Historic Dublin Boundary and Architectural Review Board development standards and procedures. VOTE: 4 – 0 RESULT: The Administrative Request was recommended for approval and forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. RECORDED VOTES: Gary Alexander Yes Kathleen Bryan Yes Amy Kramb Yes Sean Cotter Yes Frank Kownacki Absent STAFF CERTIFICATION _______________________________________ Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II DocuSign Envelope ID: 34B66058-426F-400E-83E1-3EACBBBE322C PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone: 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov BOARD ORDER Architectural Review Board Wednesday, November 18, 2020 | 6:30 pm The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 5. Historic District Rezoning 20-188Z Zoning Review Proposal: Area rezoning from the Bridge Street District (BSD) to Historic District (HD) designations in conjunction with the Architectural Review Board Zoning Code Updates. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232. Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin Planning Contacts: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II Contact Information: 614.410.4690, jrauch@dublin.oh.us 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/arb/20-188 MOTION: Ms. Kramb moved, Mr. Alexander seconded, to recommend approval with one condition to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the area rezoning from the Bridge Street District (BSD) to Historic District (HD) designations in conjunction with the Architectural Review Board Zoning Code Updates: 1) That the properties proposed to be rezoned to BSD-Scioto River Neighborhood District remain BSD-Historic Transition District. VOTE: 4 – 0 RESULT: The area Rezoning from the Bridge Street District to Historic District was recommended for approval with one condition and forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. RECORDED VOTES: Gary Alexander Yes Kathleen Bryan Yes Amy Kramb Yes Sean Cotter Yes Frank Kownacki Absent STAFF CERTIFICATION _______________________________________ Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II DocuSign Envelope ID: 34B66058-426F-400E-83E1-3EACBBBE322C PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone: 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov BOARD ORDER Architectural Review Board Wednesday, November 18, 2020 | 6:30 pm The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 6. Historic Design Guidelines 18-037ADM Administrative Request Proposal: New Historic Design Guidelines applicable to properties located within the Architectural Review District and its outlying historic properties. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the Administrative Request under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.172 Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/arb/18-037 MOTION: Ms. Kramb moved, Ms. Bryan seconded, to recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the new Historic Design Guidelines applicable to properties located within the Architectural Review District and its outlying historic properties. VOTE: 4 – 0 RESULT: The Administrative Request was recommended for approval and forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. RECORDED VOTES: Gary Alexander Yes Kathleen Bryan Yes Amy Kramb Yes Sean Cotter Yes Frank Kownacki Absent STAFF CERTIFICATION _______________________________________ Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II DocuSign Envelope ID: 34B66058-426F-400E-83E1-3EACBBBE322C Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes of November 18, 2020 Page 9 of 13 Mr. Cotter stated that the Board’s concern with the previous design is that it presented a trip hazard. Do the proposed walls have a greater height next to the sidewalk? Mr. Krawetzki stated that the concept remains the same, but there is less wall engaging with the sidewalk. Per ADA standards, an edge is necessary to prevent wheelchairs, etc. from rolling off the sidewalk. The height must be a minimum of four inches but not so high as to require guardrails. The wall will not reduce the width of the sidewalk, but will engage with its edge. Ms. Kramb stated that this design does provide opportunities now, however, where a person could step off the sidewalk and into the grassy area. With a solid wall, there would be no opportunity to move out of the way of oncoming pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Mr. Cotter inquired if there are streetlight poles all the way from the Bridge Street intersection to John Wright Lane. Mr. Krawetzcki responded that they extend to John Wright Lane and perhaps a short distance past it. Ms. Bryan inquired if staff has the Board input necessary to proceed. Mr. Krawetzki responded affirmatively. Ms. Martin explained that the Board is not requested to make a determination, because, typically, improvements within the right-of-way are not under the Board’s purview. However, members of Council thought it would be important for the ARB to provide input within the Historic District. She requested clarification of the Board’s support for the project. Ms. Bryan responded that, in general, the Board is supportive of the revised design. Members vary in their preference for elliptical or angular wall formation, and would prefer a mix of large and small tree wells. 4. Architectural Review Board Zoning Code Update, 19-007ADMC, Administrative Request – Code Amendment Ms. Bryan stated that this is a request for a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an amendment to Zoning Code Sections 153.002, 153.058, 153.059, 153.062, 153.063, 153.065, 153.170 through 153.180, and Appendices F & G to address the Historic Dublin Boundary and Architectural Review Board development standards and procedures. Board Discussion Ms. Bryan inquired if members had any other changes to request in the draft Code amendment. Ms. Kramb requested minor wording changes in the Definitions, including in the Definitions for Contributing and Non-contributing, delete the wording, “It was present during the period of significance and...” Board members indicated that they had no changes in the text or in Appendices F and G. Ms. Kramb moved, Mrs. Cotter seconded to request Planning and Zoning Commission review of the proposed Code Amendment and recommendation of approval to City Council Vote on the motion: Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Bryan, yes; Mr. Cotter, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes. [Motion carried 4-0] Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes of November 18, 2020 Page 10 of 13 5. Historic District Rezoning, 20-188Z, Zoning Review Ms. Bryan stated that this is a request for a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission for area rezoning from the Bridge Street District (BSD) to Historic District (HD) designations in conjunction with the Architectural Review Board Zoning Code Updates. Staff Presentation Ms. Rauch stated this rezoning is ultimately moving/renaming Historic District properties that had previously been included in the Bridge Street District back to Historic District designations. A list of those parcels with their previous designations and their new designations has been provided in the meeting packet, as well as a map of the related districts and boundaries. The proposed changes are as follow: HD Rezoning Changes:  The parcels that contain the development of Bridge Park West Buildings Z1 and Z2, West Plaza, CML Dublin Branch and Downtown Dublin Parking are proposed to b e rezoned from Bridge Street District - Historic Transition (BSD-HT) to Bridge Street Distri ct - Scioto River Neighborhood (BSD- SRN).  Properties remaining within the Historic District boundary and previously zoned as a Bridge Street District zoning will be rezoned into new Historic Zoning Districts: HR, Historic Residential, HC, Historic Core, HS, Historic South, and HP, Historic Public. These proposed zoning districts build upon the existing BSD districts (which had previously incorporated zoning standards from the pre-BSD historic zoning districts). This will protect existing property owners by retaining a majority of the existing use and general development standards. However, these new districts will contain certain site development restrictions and will rely heavily on the revised Historic Design Guidelines to ensure compatibility with the surrounding character and design standards within the Historic District.  The Dublin City Schools property, Dublin Cemetery, Indian Run greenway, Indian Run Cemetery, Riverside Crossing Park West, Dublin Spring Park, and the Karrer Barn property are proposed to be included in a new HD-Public District.  An updated zoning map has been created for review and an area rezoning of the properties is included with the Zoning Code amendment, which align with the new zoning districts.  The existing Architectural Review Board section of the Zoning Code has been updated to reflect these changes, as well as approval process changes and updates to the demolition section. Historic District Boundary Changes & Outlying Properties Updates  The parcels that contain the development of Bridge Park West Buildings Z1 and Z2, West Plaza, CML Dublin Branch and Downtown Dublin Parking Garage have been removed from the Historic District, and remain within the Bridge Street District and have Bridge Street District zoning. The proposed Historic District boundary has been modified to reflect this proposed change.  The eastern boundary of the Historic District has been moved to the west side of the Scioto River, with the exception of the Scioto River Bridge, which remains under the Architectural Review Board’s purview.  Appendix F in the proposed Code has been updated to reflect the proposed boundary changes.  City-owned historic properties have been added to Appendix G, the list of outlying historic properties. Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes of November 18, 2020 Page 11 of 13 Board Discussion Mr. Alexander inquired if any consideration had been given to zoning N. Riverview Street the same as the residential district across Bridge Street. As we change the zoning to provide protection for those residential properties, the fabric of the neighborhood is the same on the other side of the bridge. It does not seem appropriate that those homes are not afforded the same protection as the rezoning will provide to the other residential properties. Ms. Rauch stated that staff has discussed this and agrees, but the Board’s discussion and recommendation is necessary. Ms. Bryan stated that she agrees and would be supportive of rezoning that portion of N. Riverview Street to Historic District Residential, as well. Ms. Rauch stated that it would involve the six properties that are currently proposed as Historic Core. Ms. Bryan stated that the zoning would allow commercial development; however, there are some historic homes there. Currently, they have no protection. Mr. Cotter and Ms. Kramb expressed agreement that there is a need to address the situation for those properties. Ms. Kramb stated that she disagrees with rezoning Bridge Park West, the Library and the Garage from the BSD Historic Transition District. She prefers those st ructures remain in a Transition District than be in the Scioto River Neighborhood. If several years in the future the existing buildings were to be torn down, it would be preferable that buildings that are appropriate in a transition neighborhood replace them, not big box retail, as the Scioto River Neighborhood zoning would permit. The type of structures on the east side of the river are not what we desire to have abutting the Historic District. Consensus of all Board members was that the designated parcels should remain as they are, within the BSD Historic Transition District. No rezoning of those properties should occur. Ms. Rauch indicated that staff has no objection. That change will be included in the proposed rezoning that will be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Public Comment Garrick Daft, 21 Indian Run Drive, Dublin, OH, stated: “What is the difference between the Scioto River Neighborhood zoning and the previous Historic Transition zoning?” Ms. Rauch stated that as has been noted, it would allow for additional Building Types and potentially additional Building Height and Uses different than permitted within the Historic Transition zoning. Retaining the Historic Transition District zoning would be more compatible with a transition into the Historic District. Ms. Kramb moved, Mr. Alexander seconded to request Planning and Zoning Commission review of the proposed rezoning with the following amendments:  Newer development areas (Garage, Library, Bridge Park West) remain BSD-Historic Transition (not be rezoned to BSD-Scioto River Neighborhood). Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes of November 18, 2020 Page 12 of 13  The six (6) North Riverview Street parcels zoned BSD-Historic Core be rezoned to Historic District - Historic Residential. and recommendation of approval of City Council. Vote on the motion: Mr. Cotter, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Bryan, yes. [Motion carried 4-0] 6. Historic Design Guidelines, 18-037ADM, Administrative Request Ms. Bryan stated that this is a request for a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission for new Historic Design Guidelines applicable to properties located within the Architectural Review District and its outlying historic properties. Staff Presentation Ms. Martin stated that Planning staff, along with the consultant team have finalized a draft of the updated Historic Design Guidelines based on input from meetings with the Historic District stakeholder committee in 2018 and extensive input from the public and the Architectural Review Board. The public input includes four stakeholder meetings, six public meetings, and 11 public hearings. The Guidelines contain clearer standards that complement the proposed Zoning Code update, as well as incorporate updated graphics. Prior to the July 29, 2020 Board meeting, the ARB conducted four reviews of these initial draft documents on July 10, July 24 and November 20, 2019, and on June 17, 2020. The following is a summary of the revisions made to the Historic Design Guidelines following the July 29, 2020 meeting. Minor clerical changes were also made at the direction of the Board. Tonight’s review will focus on the Architectural Styles section. In the Guidelines, there was a discrepancy between Architectural Styles and Building Types. In staff’s interpretation, an Architectural Style is based on the elements of a building that make it identifiable to a particular period of time. These elements may include design details and ornamentation. A Building Type is based on the form, floorplan, configuration and number of stories. A Building Type does not determine the Architectural Style. Building Types of a similar form can occur under various Architectural Styles. In July, ARB reviewed the Architectural Styles and Types. She would like to point out the Folk Style, including the gabled front, gabled front wing and side gable. In July, those were identified as Architectural Styles. They are very dissimilar from other Architectural Styles, such as Greek Revival, Gothic Revival, and Queen Anne. The gabled front, gabled wing and side gable are actually a reference to the building form. With the revision to the Architectural Styles section, updates have been made to ensure consistency with the Paint Colors document and provide clarity. [reviewed changes made in Style categories.] Following discussion, Board members were not supportive of the proposed changes from the July 29 version and recommended that staff return to that version and make a few changes as noted tonight. The Board did not believe there were many issues with that version. Mr. Alexander and Ms. Kramb are available to provide input on the process before the next hearing. Ms. Kramb moved, Ms. Bryan seconded that the case be tabled. Vote: Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Bryan, yes; Mr. Cotter, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes. [Motion approved 4-0] PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov BOARD DISCUSSION Architectural Review Board Wednesday, July 29, 2020 | 6:30 pm The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 2. Historic Dublin Design Guidelines Administrative Request Proposal: Review (no vote) of revisions based on June 2020 feedback regarding comprehensive updates to the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines to revise design recommendations and address discrepancies with Zoning Code requirements. Request: Informal review, feedback, and recommendations for a future application under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.066 and 153.171. Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/special-projects/historic-dublin-guidelines-update/ RESULT: The Board reviewed and provided feedback on updates to the proposed Historic Dublin Design Guidelines for the Historic Dublin area and outlying historic properties. The Board appreciated revisions to the Neighborhood Character section and requested additional clarification on the Architectural Styles section of the Guidelines. The Board identified minor technical revisions. MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Alexander Yes Kathleen Bryan Yes Amy Kramb Yes Sean Cotter Yes Frank Kownacki Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION _______________________________________ Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II DocuSign Envelope ID: ADA1A9A4-BFB8-4066-A685-39C14E010E01 PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov BOARD DISCUSSION Architectural Review Board Wednesday, July 29, 2020 | 6:30 pm The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 1. Historic Dublin Zoning Code Amendments Administrative Request – Code Proposal: Review (no vote) of revisions based on June 2020 feedback regarding proposed Zoning District modifications, Historic Dublin boundary changes, amendments to the Zoning Code, and revisions to Appendix G . Request: Informal review, feedback, and recommendations for a future application under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/special-projects/arb-code-amendments/ RESULT: The Board reviewed and provided feedback on updates to the proposed Zoning Code Amendments for the Historic Dublin area and outlying historic properties. The Board appreciated research regarding Bed and Breakfasts and the threshold for a Minor Project. Additional direction was provided on Conference Centers, building coverage, loading zones, stonewalls/fences, and demolition. MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Alexander Yes Kathleen Bryan Yes Amy Kramb Yes Sean Cotter Yes Frank Kownacki Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION _______________________________________ Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II DocuSign Envelope ID: ADA1A9A4-BFB8-4066-A685-39C14E010E01 MEETING MINUTES Architectural Review Board Wednesday, July 29, 2020 CALL TO ORDER Ms. Bryan, Chair, called the July 29, 2020 Special Meeting of the Architectural Review Board to order at 6:30 p.m. and provided the following opening comments: “Welcome to a virtual meeting of the City of Dublin Architectural Review Board. The Ohio Legislature passed several emergency laws to address the pandemic, including the ability for public entities to have virtual meetings. We appreciate this ability to maintain our continuity of government. For the present time, we are holding our meetings online and live streaming those meetings on YouTube. You can access the live-stream on the City’s website. The meeting procedure for each case this evening will begin with staff presentation followed by Public Comment prior to Board review and discussion. No vote will be taken on this evening’s agenda items. To submit any questions or comments during the meeting, please use the form under the streaming video on the City’s website. These questions and comments will be relayed to the Board by the meeting moderator. We want to accommodate public participation and comment to the greatest extent possible and w elcome your comments on cases. Please use a valid name and address when submitting your comments, and please refrain from making any inappropriate comments.” PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ms. Bryan led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Board Members present: Mr. Alexander, Mr. Cotter, Ms. Bryan, Mr. Kownacki and Ms. Kramb Staff present: Ms. Rauch, Ms. Martin Consultant: Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS Mr. Cotter moved, Ms. Kramb seconded to accept the documents into the record. Vote on the motion: Mr. Kownacki, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Bryan, yes; Mr. Cotter, yes. [Motion carried 5-0] APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Kownacki moved, Mr. Alexander seconded to approve the June 4, 2020 joint ARB-PZC meeting minutes and the June 17, 2020 Special Meeting minutes. Vote on the motion: Ms. Bryan, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Cotter, yes; Mr. Kownacki, yes. [Motion carried 5-0] Ms. Bryan stated that the Architectural Review Board is responsible for review of construction, modification or alteration to any site in the Review District or area subject to Architectural Board Review under the provision of Zoning Code Section 153.177. The Board has the responsibility to review and make recommendations on the following two Administrative Requests. Dublin Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Minutes of July 29, 2020 Page 2 of 5 CASES: 1. Historic Dublin Zoning Code Amendments, – Historic Dublin, 19-007ADMC, Administrative Request – Code Ms. Bryan stated that this application is a request for review (no vote) of revisions based on the Board’s previous feedback regarding proposed Zoning District modifications, Historic Dublin boundary changes, amendments to the Zoning Code, and revisions to Appendix G under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. 2. Historic Dublin Design Guidelines, 18-037ADMC, Administrative Request Ms. Bryan stated that this application is a request for review (no vote) of revisions based on the Board’s previous feedback regarding comprehensive updates to the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines to revise design recommendations and address discrepancies with Zoning Code requirements under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.066 and 153.171. DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT REVIEW Mr. Dale stated that the changes the Board requested at the Jun e 17, 2020 Special Meeting have been made, and a revised draft is provided for the Board’s review and consideration this evening. There are three items in particular on which the Board’s input is requested: conference centers, loading space requirements and lot coverage. Some of the major changes made include: Zoning Map Boundary Changes City Council previously directed staff to change the Historic District boundary. However, at the June 17 meeting, some ARB members indicated that they have concerns and do not support those changes. Based on City Council’s direction, the proposed boundary changes remain in the draft map, but staff will communicate the Board’s concerns when this document is referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for their consideration. Appendix G The list identifying outlying historic properties has been updated to incorporate the Brown-Harris Cemetery and Ferris Cemetery, as requested. Uses Changes were made to the Use Table (Table 153.172A), including removing High Schools as a Permitted Use from the Historic Core (HC) and Historic South (HS) Districts; removing Hotels from the HC District; and adding Accessory Dwellings to the Historic Residential (HR) District. Conference Centers Per the Board’s request, Conference Centers as a permitted use in the HC District has been added to Table 153.172A. However, staff is seeking additional guidance regarding the use specific standards that should accompany this use. The Zoning Code defines Conference Centers as: “A facility designed to accommodate and support meetings or conferences. The facility may be either freestanding or incorporated into a hotel or office facility, and may include eating and drinking facilities but exclude overnight lodging if not part of a hotel.” “Eating and drinking facilities” include food preparation on-site. Staff requests guidance from the Board on how best to regulate Conference Centers that are appropriately scaled for the Historic Core. As a comparison, The Exchange at Bridge Park is an approximately 18,000-square-foot building on a .59-acre site and accommodates up to 500 guests. The recommended standards for Conference Centers in the HC District would be for a slightly smaller facility than The Exchange at Bridge Park. The proposed standards are: Dublin Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Minutes of July 29, 2020 Page 3 of 5  1/2-acre maximum site size; 15,000 square foot maximum building size;  Parking must be provided on site pursuant to a parking plan approved by ARB;  An access management plan must be approved by ARB demonstrating the site’s ability to accommodate vehicular traffic during peak periods;  Windows must be included on all elevations facing a public right-of-way per the Historic Design Guidelines. Board members expressed concern with the proposed square footage and lot size. Consensus of the Board was a Conference Center either could be defined as a permitted Accessory Use, size not to exceed 1,800 square feet (consistent with the existing CoHatch facility), or it could remain as a stand-alone facility but with a reduced lot size. Staff will consider those options and revise the language for the next draft. Bed and Breakfast The Board had requested that staff survey other communities to determine whether the 8-guest unit limit in the use specific standards for Bed and Breakfast use was reasonable. Other communities in Ohio and the nation were reviewed for reference, and staff determined that the unit limitation varies from 3-9 units. Because the 8-unit limit was found to be common, no changes were made. Development Standards The Board requested that a Maximum Building Footprint for Historic Residential properties be included in the Development Standards. Staff conducted a random sampling of residential building footprints throughout the District. Table 153.173A has been revised to include a Maximum Building Footprint in the Historic South (HS) District of 1,800 square feet not to exceed 3,000 square feet and in the Historic Residential (HR) District not to exceed 25%. Mr. Alexander inquired if “Maximum Building Footprint” is defined in another part of the Code, as it is not included here. He clarified that all the numbers he had provided to Mr. Dale earlier included all other buildings on the site in the calculation. Ms. Rauch responded that, currently, there is no definition; however, one would be added. Ms. Martin stated that their calculation included only the house. Ms. Kramb stated that in her earlier review, she included everything. Loading Standards The Board had requested staff to consider revising the loading space requirements in Table 153.173F to be tied to uses, instead of square footage. After study, staff recommends applicants be required to submit a loading space plan as part of the application approval process. The Board requested that clarification be provided that this requirement applies only to new construction. Minor Project Thresholds Staff noted that per the direction of the Board, the square footage thresholds for Minor Projects in Section 153.176(I) were reduced. The Board made no further modifications. Addition of New Section – Food Trucks Ms. Rauch inquired if the Board would have any objection to including in the next revision a definition and standards for permitting food trucks on a commercial property on a permanent basis. Board members had no objection to that addition. Ground Mounted Renewable Energy Mr. Cotter inquired, in regard to Item J (c) on p. 12, if “Ground Mounted Renewable Energy” equipment would count as lot coverage. Ms. Martin responded that if it is on the ground and does not allow water to percolate through it, or has a hard surface, it would count as lot coverage. In the case of a condenser unit for an air conditioning unit, the dimensions of the concrete pad on which the equipment sits are counted toward lot coverage. Dublin Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Minutes of July 29, 2020 Page 4 of 5 Archaeological/Cultural Assessment Mr. Alexander inquired if the “architectural assessment,” referred to in Item I (4) on page 75 and as a “cultural assessment” on page 77, is the same assessment currently prepared by the City’s Architectural Consultant, or is it a report to be provided by the applicant? Ms. Rauch responded that it is a new, additional report, which the applicant would be responsible for providing. Ms. Kramb requested that “cultural assessment” in this context be provided, perhaps by stating that, “a professional assessment of the cultural resources is required.” Simplification of Review Process Mr. Alexander inquired if this process has moved from a focus on making the review process less difficult. With additional, new requirements, will the process be made more difficult? Ms. Rauch responded that the intent of the amendment is to make the expectations more clear. The Board’s review is very detailed, and members have frequently expressed the need for more information and detail to be provided. The new requirements may be more onerous, but the goal is to make the process more straightforward. Mr. Dale stated that the intent with the amended regulations and guidelines is to provide more predictability. Ms. Rauch stated that a palette of recommended paint colors in the Historic District also is being developed for the Board’s consideration. Staff approval of paint projects within the District utilizing a Board-approved palette should simplify the review process. Staff also is working on simplifying/clarifying the sign approval process for small businesses. The Board requested that, consistent with the intent in the Historic District, under I (4) Stone Wall Standards, in Item (c), clarification be provided that the stacked stones should be dry laid. In this section, also provide language that clarifies that existing stone walls are a site element, and the ARB has purview over alterations or changes to architectural features of existing sites and structures. Stone walls are also addressed in the Guidelines, under Fences and Walls. DRAFT HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES REVIEW The Board reviewed the revisions that had been made to the draft Historic Design Guidelines following direction given at the June 17, 2020 meeting, including:  Neighborhood Character Description, 2.3, to emphasize preservation in lieu of development.  Architectural Styles, 2.9, to better address context and vernacular issues.  Building Additions, 4.12, to incorporate the concept of subordinate and secondary as a key requirement; a definition for subordinate was included.  Graphic Illustrations - Language was added to clarify they are merely examples of approaches that could be taken that comply with the Guidelines. Limiting architectural and site design creativity should be avoided. The Board requested minor clarifications and corrections to the Guidelines and updated names and titles under Acknowledgements. Next Steps Ms. Rauch stated that a final draft would be prepared for the ARB’s final review and recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their subsequent review and recommendation to City Council. Ms. Bryan noted that it would be advisable for one or two ARB members to be present for the PZC and Council reviews to answer any questions that might be raised. The next meetings of the ARB will be a Special Meeting on August 12, 2020 and a regular meeting on August 26, 2020. Dublin Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Minutes of July 29, 2020 Page 5 of 5 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Kathleen Bryan Chair, Architectural Review Board Judith K. Beal Deputy Clerk of Council SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Architectural Review Board Wednesday, June 17, 2020 CALL TO ORDER Ms. Bryan, Chair, called the June 17, 2020 meeting of the Architectural Review Board to order at 6:30 p.m. and provided the following opening comments: “Welcome to a virtual meeting of the City of Dublin Architectural Review Board. The Ohio Legislature passed several emergency laws to address the pandemic, including the ability for public entities to have virtual meetings. We appreciate this ability to maintain our continuity of government. For the present time, we are holding our meetings online and live streaming those meetings on YouTube. You can access the live-stream on the City’s website. The meeting procedure for each case this evening will begin with staff presentation followed by an opportunity for the applicant to make a presentation. The Board will then have the opportunity to ask clarifying questions prior to hearing public comment. Finally, the Board will deliberate on each case based on the information introduced. To submit any questions or comments during the meeting, please use the form under the streaming video on the City’s website. These questions and comments will be relayed to the Board by the meeting moderator. We want to accommodate public participation and comment to the greatest extent possible. We welcome your comments on cases. Please use a valid name and address when submitting your comments and refrain from making any inappropriate comments.” PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ms. Bryan led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Board Members present: Mr. Alexander, Mr. Cotter, Ms. Bryan, Mr. Kownacki and Ms. Kramb Staff present: Ms. Rauch, Ms. Martin Consultant: Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS Mr. Kownacki moved, Ms. Kramb seconded, to accept the documents into the record. Vote on the motion: Mr. Alexander, yes; Mr. Cotter, yes; Ms. Bryan, yes; Mr. Kownacki, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes. (Approved 5 – 0) Ms. Bryan briefly explained the rules and procedures of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and swore in any staff or member of the public who planned to address the Board during the meeting. The Board has the responsibility to review and make recommendations on the following two Administrative Requests. 1. ARB Code Amendments – Historic Dublin, 19-007ADMC, Administrative Review - Code Ms. Bryan stated that this is a request for feedback and recommendations (no vote) regarding revisions to the proposed Zoning District modifications, Historic Dublin boundary changes, amendments to the Zoning Code, and revisions to Appendix G under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Dublin Architectural Review Board Special Minutes of June 17, 2020 Page 2 of 5 2. Historic Dublin Design Guidelines, 18-037ADMC, Administrative Review Ms. Bryan stated that this is a request for feedback and recommendations (no vote) of comprehensive updates to the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines regarding design recommendations and discrepancies with Zoning Code requirements. Background Greg Dale, Consultant, McBride Dale Clarion, stated that he and Ms. Rauch would be leading the review of the draft ARB Code Amendments and Historic District Guidelines, which propose changes to the Zoning Code Land Use regulations that apply to the Historic District and the Historic District Guidelines. The Code and the Design Guidelines are separate but related documents. The Zoning Code provides the “shalls;” the Design Guidelines provides the “shoulds.” This two-year process began with the creation of a stakeholder committee with interests in the Historic District. Four stakeholder meetings were held in 2018, and six public events were held, including open houses and office hours. Much time was spent working with the citizens and stakeholders to understand the underlying goals to be achieved. The results represent the consensus of the community. This is ARB’s eighth review of the documents. It has been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), Community Development Committee (CDC) and City Council, and that input has been incorporated. Mr. Dale summarized the changes that have been made to date. DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT REVIEW The Board reviewed the draft and recommended the following revisions.  Zoning Map Boundary Changes Some members expressed concerns about the proposed zoning map boundary changes. Based on City Council’s direction, the proposed boundary changes will remain in the draft map, but staff will communicate the members’ concerns in future transmittals to the PZC and City Council.  Uses Revise Permitted Use Table 153.172A as follows: 1. Remove Highs Schools as a permitted use from the Historic Core (HC) and Historic South (HS) Districts; 2. Remove Hotels from the HC District; 3. Investigate whether the 8-guest unit limit for Bed and Breakfasts is reasonable; 4. Add Accessory Dwellings to the Historic Residential (HR) District; 5. Investigate permitting Residential in HC; 6. Add Conference Centers as a permitted use in the HC District; 7. Provide Definition for Artisan Production (HC and HS).  Accessory and Temporary Uses Under (h) Outdoor seating, revise counts toward lot coverage.  Development Standards Review and inclusion of a maximum building footprint in Table 153.173A: for Historic South -1,800 square feet, not to exceed 3,000 square feet per building, and Historic Residential – 25%. Add cross reference in Definitions to clarify measurement of Building Height.  Setbacks Provide guidance in Table 153.173B re. designation of Front Yard setback and front property line on a lot as being where the front door or postal address is located. Dublin Architectural Review Board Special Minutes of June 17, 2020 Page 3 of 5  Loading Standards Revise the loading space requirements in Table 153.173F to be tied to uses, rather than square footage.  Tree Preservation In addition to Commercial Development, add the Tree Preservation requirements to New Residential Development, 153.173(H).  Fences, Walls and Screening Revise “street” walls in Section 153.173(I-4) to “stone” walls.  Minor Project Thresholds Reduce the square footage thresholds for Minor Projects in Section 153.176(I). Public Comment Alan and Mary Szuter, 80 Franklin Street, Dublin, OH, provided the following comments: Comment #1: Please permit (P) Residential in the Historic Core. Comment #2: - Please no hotels in any of the Historic Districts. - You define "Bed & Breakfast" under the Permitted Uses chart, does that include Air BnB type uses? - Accessory Dwelling should be permitted in Historic Residential. - Why are food trucks allowed in the HR? - Use of speakers within 500 feet of residential should be required to be cut off at 9:00 PM (4-6h). - Do not change lot coverage from 50% to 45% for HR. The HR is more dense than the rest of the City. Comment #3: Continuation of comments from previous note- - Rear yard setbacks at 20% would make ours 35 feet; it is currently 25 feet. Comment #4: Continuation of comments- - Outdoor waste container storage should be required to adhere to the guidelines whenever the principal use of the building changes. [Review of Draft Code continued.]  Outdoor Waste Container Storage Containers Require Commercial uses to comply to the same regulations as Residential uses.  Signs Regarding the requirement that signs can contain three colors, provide clarification that black and white are considered colors and a corporate logo counts as one color, regardless of the number of colors incorporated in that logo.  Cultural Assessment Recommended replacing the term archeological assessment with cultural assessment (or use both terms where needed), in Section 153.175A5, and Section 153.176J5; add definitions for Cultural and for Preservation Districts in Definitions. Dublin Architectural Review Board Special Minutes of June 17, 2020 Page 4 of 5  Review Criteria Clarify that the applicant “or the applicant’s representative” must demonstrate that they have technical expertise and experience with appropriate construction methods consistent with sound historic preservation practices.  Minor Project Thresholds Reduce the square footage thresholds for Minor Projects in Section 153.176(I).  Appendix G Include the Brown-Harris Cemetery and Ferris Cemetery in the list identifying outlying historic properties. DRAFT HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES REVIEW The Board reviewed the Draft Historic Design Guidelines and recommended the following revisions:  Neighborhood Character Description Revise description in Section 2.3 to emphasize preservation rather than development, in particular the term “selective redevelopment” in the 4th item under Street Character.  Structure Due to the Historic Preservation nature of this document, revise the nomenclature from “structure” to “building.”  Architectural Styles Revise description in Section 2.9 to better address context and vernacular issues. Delete third sentence of paragraph 1, first sentence of paragraph 2, and in paragraph 3, revise second sentence from “Each building…demonstrates….” to “Each building….may demonstrate…”  Contributing vs. Non-Contributing Buildings In Section 3.3, remove second bullet item re. Non-contributing buildings; use the definition from the Consultant’s report, if desired.  Maintenance and Construction In Section 4.2, before Item A, add statement, “Following are common considerations regarding property maintenance and construction. The recommendations are not comprehensive in nature. Property owners should refer to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards with regard to appropriate maintenance and construction standards.”  Building Additions Revise guidelines for new additions in Section 4.12A to incorporate the concept of “subordinate and secondary” as a key requirement. Provide Secretary of Interior’s definition for “subordinate.” Remove requirement in 4.12H that windows be smaller than the original building’s windows, and eliminate 4.12I re. stone watertables.  Graphic Illustrations Provide language with the graphic illustrations to clarify they are simply examples of approaches to complying with the guidelines, to avoid limiting architectural and site design creativity. [Review completed.] Dublin Architectural Review Board Special Minutes of June 17, 2020 Page 5 of 5 NEXT STEPS Ms. Rauch stated that the draft ARB Code Amendments Historic Dublin Design Guidelines would be revised with redlining per the Board’s recommendations and provided for the Board’s consideration at a Special Meeting on July 29. The revised documents and additional requested documents will be provided to members on July 10 to provide ample time for their review preceding the July 29 discussion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Kathleen Bryan Chair, Architectural Review Board Judith K. Beal Deputy Clerk of Council Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes of November 20, 2019 Page 15 of 20 2) That the applicant revise the landscape design to reflect staff’s suggestions, and to decrease the square feet of gravel limestone used; 3) That the applicant work to refine and revise the window layout prior to submission of the Final Development Plan. Vote: Mr. Bailey, yes; Ms. Bryan, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Stenberg, no. (Motion passed 4-1) 5. Property at 25 North Street, 19-103ARB, Architectural Review Board Ms. Stenberg stated that this is an application for the demolition of an existing 2-story commercial building zoned Bridge Street District Historic Core. Staff Presentation Ms. Martin stated that this is a request for demolition of the existing 1.5 story structure at 25 North Street, regarding which the Board just reviewed a Preliminary Development Plan. The 4,500 sq. ft. commercial building is located to the rear of a historic structure on a 0.27-acre parcel within Historic Dublin. The site is located at the intersections of N. High Street and North Street, and N. Blacksmith Lane and North Street. The condition of the structure has deteriorated since its construction in the 1960s. It was last renovated in 1993. The applicant has provided interior photos to document the condition and extensive renovations that would be required, should the building be retained. The Historic and Cultural Assessment conducted by the City in 2017 identified the building as non- contributing. Two of the four demolition criteria must be met. Staff has found that two of the four have been met, and staff recommends approval of the demolition with one condition. There was no public comment. Board Discussion There was no Board discussion. Ms. Bryan moved, Mr. Keeler seconded to approve the demolition request with the following condition: 1) That the order to allow demolition not be issued by the City until the ARB has approved a Final Development Plan for a new structure. Vote: Mr. Alexander, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Bryan, yes; Mr. Bailey, yes; Ms. Stenberg, yes. (Motion passed 5-0) 6. Historic Dublin – ARB Code Amendments, 19-007ADMN, Administrative Request - Code Ms. Stenberg stated that this is a request for the review of development standards in the Zoning Code Amendments addressing the Historic Dublin Zoning Districts. Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes of November 20, 2019 Page 16 of 20 Staff Presentation Greg Dale, Consultant, McBride Dale Clarion, stated that this is ARB’s third review of the draft ARB Code amendments and Historic Dublin Guidelines. The amendments are being made per Council’s direction to remove the Historic District from the Bridge Street District. Since ARB’s last review, a public meeting and designated office hours were held to receive public input. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a review on September 5, 2019. There are a few remaining issues on which ARB input is desired. 1. Uses - Hotel and Multi-Family Based on the Board’s previous direction, staff is recommending that “hotel” be eliminated as a permitted use in the HS, Historic South District, but remain permitted in the HC, Historic Core District, with the addition of Use Specific Standards that target small scale, boutique hotels. Staff also recommends that “multi-family” be revised to “two-family” as a permitted use in the HS, Historic South District, and in the HC, Historic Core District. The provision would allow for attached row homes while eliminating the opportunity for large-scale condominium projects. Mr. Alexander inquired if they had looked at how economics are changing in the area and what uses would be compatible with the structures for the purpose of reuse. How does the economic return and value impact what could be located here? Mr. Keeler stated that it needs to be economically feasible for a prospective buyer to acquire a property here and renovate it to an appropriate use. Mr. Alexander stated that if the variance process provides sufficient flexibility for a hybrid of uses, it might be fine. Mr. Keeler stated that it is a prospective buyer’s responsibility to do their homework to ensure they do not overpay for the property and understand the requirements and limitations for renovating it to an appropriate use. Mr. Dale inquired if the concern is if there is sufficient flexibility of uses in these buildings. Mr. Alexander responded affirmatively. There should be a hybrid of uses for buildings that are not single-use. There is a problem because these small buildings are expensive to renovate and there are limitations on what the uses can be. If the variance process can address this question, however, perhaps it is not an issue. Ms. Bryan stated that this difficulty is reflected in the recent cases of demolition by neglect. Ms. Martin stated that in regard to the mixing of uses, there is not a better zoning mechanism than a form-based code, which permits a mix. The exception would be the Residential District, which has a narrow range of uses. An example of a different use renovation would be Co-Hatch. Mr. Dale agreed that the previous case is a good example of a new, mixed use. 2. Development Standards – Historic Residential District The Board discussed tailoring the proposed development standards (See Tables 153.173A and 153.173B) for the HR, Historic Residential District to align with the prevailing conditions. The Board’s input is requested on the following three issues: building height, lot coverage, and setbacks. Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes of November 20, 2019 Page 17 of 20 Setbacks In regard to setbacks, there is an opportunity to consolidate some of the setback requirements in Table 153.173B. Suggested is a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet; a minimum sideyard setback of 3 feet; a minimum total side yard of 12 feet; and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. Ms. Stenberg stated that she would have no objection to doing so. Mr. Keeler inquired how those numbers would have impacted some of the recent cases on South High Street, specifically the Dyas properties. Ms. Martin stated that the applications would have met these requirements. Mr. Alexander stated that the Board is interested in preventing long houses on deep lots. In many communities, the rear setback is one-quarter of the lot depth or there is a minimum setback of 40 feet. Mr. Keeler stated that recently, residents have spoken about the need to preserve the back yards. If we allow a smaller setback, we would not be addressing their concerns. At the same time, there are recent cases that would have been able to take advantage of more lot coverage than they did. Residents have stated that they purchased their homes under one set of rules, and now the City is changing its rules. In general, would the proposed numbers make the rules more liberal, not more restrictive? Ms. Martin stated that the only area where the rear yard setback would be more liberal is on Franklin Street. Mr. Dale stated that the new Code amendment also will provide the Board ability to impose conditions, based upon context, beyond the standards. Mr. Alexander stated that, looking at the Franklin Street setback, he is concerned the change could create some problems. Ms. Martin noted that the building setback would also apply to detached garages. Mr. Alexander noted that in some cities, there is a separate line item for detached garages. [Discussion continued regarding setbacks.] Mr. Dale stated that Ms. Martin has suggested a possible requirement that would tie setbacks proportionally to depth. They will work on drafting that language. Lot Coverage Mr. Dale stated that, currently, the lot coverage is 50%. In comparison, the lot coverage of other residential districts in the City is 45%. Staff’s recommendation is to leave it as is, however, because the Historic District typically has more intense uses. Ms. Bryan responded that she would prefer that it be reduced, due to recent issues with large homes being approved on these small lots. They are changing the scale and texture of this neighborhood. Ms. Stenberg stated that perhaps the requirement should be closer to 40% in the residential district. Mr. Keeler noted that recent buyers of properties would object to the rules changing after their purchase of a property. Ms. Bryan responded that there is always the ability to request a waiver. Mr. Keeler stated that there should be a mandate that realtors disclose that properties within the Historic District may have stricter guidelines. Ms. Bryan agreed that there is a need to disclose this information. New buyers to the District should be made aware of the restrictions. Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes of November 20, 2019 Page 18 of 20 Ms. Martin noted that in January 2019, the City sent postcards to every property owner in the Historic District making them aware that their property was located in the Architectural Review District and any exterior, site or paint alterations must be reviewed and approved. ARB meeting dates were provided, as well. Mr. Bailey stated that versus mandating, educating the realtors would be the best possibility. Mr. Keeler noted that if realtors know a rule exists, ethically, they are obligated to disclose it. Therefore, if the City provides the information to them, the City is doing its job. They are then relying on the realtors to do their job. Mr. Alexander stated that in looking at the list of lot coverage variations, a 10% reduction is significant. Many communities base the percentage on lot size, i.e. the percentage increases with a smaller lot size. Reducing the percentage to 40% in this District would be a concern. Mr. Dale stated that is the reason staff recommended not changing the percent from 50%. It is a baseline standard, which can be adjusted through the process. Ms. Bryan stated that she would be in favor of setting the baseline lower and allowing the applicant to request more. Mr. Dale noted that Ms. Martin has suggested a proportional lot coverage. Developing the right formula, however, could be difficult. Mr. Alexander stated that there are some communities that do this, rather than treating small lots the same as large lots. Setting the percent at 40% may result in more variance requests. In addition, granting a number of variances results in Code changes. Mr. Bailey stated that he would prefer to make it 45% universal throughout the City, or at a minimum, utilize a sliding scale. Mr. Keeler stated that he would prefer not to have a more subjective process, relying upon variances. He would prefer to leave the percentage as it is, or to have the lot percentage based upon the lot size. That process would result in fewer waivers being needed. Ms. Bryan stated that in the draft documents, only two of the 48 residential properties exceeded 50%; the remainder were less. Mr. Dale noted that the lower percentages correspond with larger lots. Ms. Bryan stated that the City is beginning to lose the diversity characteristics of the neighborhood because of the larger homes. The smaller homes are looking dwarfed and out of place. Mr. Dale stated that lot coverage is only one tool for addressing this issue. [Discussion continued regarding lot coverage.] Mr. Keeler inquired what other tools could address the issue. Mr. Dale stated that a sliding scale could be used. They could look at a potential sliding scale for small, medium and large lots with different percentages. Dealing more comprehensively than that with the issue is probably an issue for a future discussion. Ms. Martin stated that staff would provide a recommendation for lot coverage for ARB’s consideration prior to their making a formal recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes of November 20, 2019 Page 19 of 20 Building Height Mr. Dale stated that the current requirement is 35 feet. Staff’s analysis indicates that is too tall, given the area context. He noted that in the Historic South District, the maximum height is 24 feet. Perhaps that height would be appropriate for the residential district. Ms. Martin noted that accumulating accurate data on the existing building heights was difficult, particularly for truly historical buildings. Many of the buildings in the information provided were measured to the peak of the roof. The 24-foot height in the Historical South District is measured to the midpoint of the eaves -- historically, they have measured to the midpoint of the eaves. Ms. Bryan stated that the method of measuring needs to be specified. Mr. Keeler stated that, presently, there is not a sufficiently broad sampling on which to make a decision. Mr. Alexander stated that a 24-foot height requirement would not be particularly onerous. Ms. Bryan inquired if the current 35-foot requirement was to the midpoint of the eaves. Mr. Dale responded affirmatively. Mr. Alexander stated that in most residential communities, the 35-foot measurement is to the peak. Ms. Stenberg stated that the Board has always interpreted that as being to the peak, although it may have been measured differently for commercial properties. Ms. Bryan stated that it will be important to be very clear with these new documents. Mr. Dale stated that when Zoning Codes, in gene ral, establish how to measure height, they refer to measuring it at the midpoint of the gable. Historically, staff has used that definition for calculating height, which is the reason 35 feet has been considered too high. Board consensus was to change the number to 24 feet. Ms. Bryan inquired about the possibility of addressing maximum square footage of homes. Mr. Dale stated that would be one of the other tools to which he referred. It would involve some research and analysis to come up with a good number. Perhaps that possibility could be studied and the Code modified accordingly in the future. Ms. Bryan requested that staff make a note to consider that possibility for addressing concerns in the Historic Residential area. Mr. Dale stated that they have received the guidance needed from the ARB and would formulate a final draft for the Board’s consideration and recommendation. Communications Ms. Bryan inquired if the potential development of the property at 156 and 158 S. High Street was no longer under consideration. Ms. Martin stated that accordingly to her knowledge, the property owner is in search of other potential buyers interested in custom-built homes. There were no further communications. MEETING MINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, September 5, 2019 CALL TO ORDER Ms. Newell, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ms. Newell led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Commission members present: Victoria Newell, William Wilson, Mark Supelak, Rebecca Call, and Warren Fishman Commission members absent: Jane Fox and Kristina Kennedy Staff members present: Jennifer Rauch, Chase Ridge, Phil Hartmann Consultant: Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS Mr. Fishman moved, Mr. Wilson seconded to accept the documents into the record. Vote: Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Wilson (Motion passed 5-0) Ms. Newell stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory board to City Council when rezoning and platting of property is under consideration. For those cases, City Council will receive recommendations from the Commission. For other cases, the Commission has the decision- making responsibility, and anyone who wishes to address the Commission on any of the administrative cases must be sworn in. Ms. Newell stated that the agenda order is typically determined at the beginning of the meeting by the Chair. All of the cases tonight are Administrative Review and will be heard in the order in which they were published. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS Ms. Rauch requested that the two cases be considered together. 1. Historic Dublin – ARB Code Amendments, 19-007ADMN Ms. Newell stated that this case is an introduction of amendments to Zoning Code Sections 153.170 through 153.180, and Appendices F and G that include the creation of Historic Zoning Districts, associated requirements, and revisions to the procedures of the Architectural Review Board. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019 Page 2 of 14 2. Historic Dublin Design Guidelines 18-037ADMN Ms. Newell stated that this case introduces proposed amendments to the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines that govern Historic Dublin properties and properties identified on Appendix G. Staff Presentation Ms. Rauch stated that the amendments to the Code and the Design Guidelines that govern the Historic District are in response to Council’s direction to staff last year. A stakeholders committee was established to help work through the Design Guidelines. Council’s direction also was to remove the Historic District from the Bridge Street Code, ensuring that it aligns with the vision of Council and the community for the District. Council was concerned about the development pressures in that area not aligning with the scale and character that Council and the community wanted to be preserved there. In the Commission’s packet, drafts of the proposed amendments to the Code and Guidelines were provided, including potential boundary changes. The goal is to rezone these properties back to a Historic Zoning District, and attempt to retain the uses and development standards similar to what was in Bridge Street District, but remove building type tables that promoted a high-density feel and return the historic districts to traditional zoning code standards, which are more user friendly. The drafts for both documents and the Historic District boundaries are the same as were provided to the ARB, which that Board reviewed in June and July. A public review meeting was held in August and four “office hour” opportunities in the District on Wednesdays during the month of August. Following’s PZC’s review today, all feedback received will be incorporated into revised drafts for the ARB and PZC’s formal reviews and recommendation to City Council. Boundary Map Ms. Rauch described the current boundary and zoning for the Historic District. Staff is in discussions with Dublin Schools to determine if the boundary that bisects the school site should be extended further to the west or further to the east and place the 1919 Building and the Indian Run Cemetery in Appendix G and under ARB’s purview. The overall intent is to keep the boundaries close to the same. The eastern boundary was moved from the east side to the west side of the river, retaining the bridge within the boundary. Council also has directed that the library, the parking garage, the Bridge Park West Z1 and Z2 buildings, and the plaza be removed from the Historic District. The proposed boundary map shows all proposed changes except any related to the school site, while those discussions continue. With the amendments, it will be essential to rezone these properties to a Historic District zoning classification. The area that is currently Bridge Street Historic Core will become Historic District Core, Historic District South and Historic Residential. The properties that Council wanted to be removed from the Historic District would be zoned Scioto River Neighborhood, which is consistent with what is across the street. The Code amendment will establish the zoning changes. Historic Dublin – ARB Code Amendments, 19-007ADMN Mr. Dale stated that he would highlight the recommended changes in each section. To clarify, the Commission will be reviewing proposed amendments to the Historic District Code, which are part of the overall zoning regulations. The amendments will be adopted by ordinance. The Commission will also review the proposed Historic District Design Guidelines, which reside outside of the Code at the policy level, but are linked to the Code. The Design Guidelines provide guidance on how to Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019 Page 3 of 14 apply the Code. An 85-page draft of the proposed Code amendments has been provided to the Commission for their review, approximately half of which are site development standards that were carried over from the previous districts. Those pages received very little comment from the ARB or the public. [Review per section ensued.] §153.170 Historic Districts Applicability. §153.171 Historic Zoning Districts Purpose and Intent. No additional changes were recommended in the above two sections. §153.172 – Uses. Mr. Dale noted that the Use Table 153.172A, on pp. 4-5, was also pulled forward from the previous version.  Hotels – p. 5 ARB recommended that hotels be removed as a Permitted Use in the Historic South District. Hotels in the Historic Core would remain; however, use-specific standards will be added.  Schools – p.4 ARB also requested that Elementary and Middle Schools be removed as Permitted Uses in the Historic Core, Historic South and Historic Residential Districts, and permitted in the Historic Public District only (subject to School boundary determination). Ms. Call requested definition of a Hotel. Does it also include the Airbnb use? Mr. Dale responded that the City has been looking at short-term rentals as a zoning question. His assumption is that Hotels would not be defined to include that use; it will be a separate category. Ms. Call stated that most of her concern revolves around the use type and ancillary implications, such as parking structures and hours. If it is being handled as a separate item, she has no further questions on that matter. Mr. Dale responded that this is an item that use specific standards could address. Ms. Newell requested clarification as to where hotels would be permitted. Mr. Dale responded that it would only be in the Historic Core. Ms. Newell stated that she does not believe a hotel in the Historic Core is appropriate. Ms. Rauch stated that concern was also raised in a public meeting. It could be removed from that district, as well. Ms. Newell stated that a hotel is out of scale with the character of the Historic District. A hotel would dwarf most of the structures in the Historic Core or anywhere in the Historic District. Ms. Call inquired if the Code provides the Commission the ability to limit hotel structure types. She can envision a quaint, two-story bed and breakfast with an architectural historic character in the Historic District, but if a hotel could be more than that, it would not be appropriate. If the definition required a hotel to be fitting for the Historic District, she would have no objection to it there. Mr. Dale stated that it would be within the realm of the Commission’s perspective to do so. Some of the issue could be addressed by setback, building height and building scale compliance. However, if the Commission is not satisfied that type of safety net is sufficiently tight to cat ch Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019 Page 4 of 14 potential issues, a definition of a hotel with the type of character fitting to the District could be created. For instance, the use could be called an inn or a bed and breakfast establishment. It would be a separate category with a separate definition that would prohibit a structure of the scale of a national chain product. Ms. Newell stated that bed and breakfast is listed, which is the type of business that can be run in a residential home. While the first floor of a home would be eight to nine feet in height, the scale of a typical hotel is a concern. A commercial building, such as a hotel, would have a taller plate height – 12-14 feet up to the second floor level. That expands the scale of the structure and results in a height that is double that of a typical 2.0 or 1.5-story building in the Historic District. Mr. Supelak stated that if a bed and breakfast or a boutique hotel was done in a way to fit the District, it could be good. The ancillaries that go with it – porte cochere, parking spaces, etc., impact the District, as well. Ms. Newell stated that she likes the description as “boutique.” There are cases of historic structures, such as an old jail, that have been turned into exclusive places to stay while also preserving a very historic facility. She would prefer not to preclude that type of creativity. Mr. Dale stated that they could draft a provision that would permit a boutique-type hotel and include definition, height, setback and scale requirements. Ms. Call inquired if that would be handled within the zoning, or could there be separate design standards relative to that zoning to address it. Mr. Dale responded that it could be listed as a Permitted Use, and then the Design Guidelines would apply. With those, the ARB will be able to consider scale, massing, relationship with surrounding buildings, materials and compatibility issues. Ms. Call inquired if the Design Guidelines would apply based upon the zoning. Is it possible to be specific regarding in which historic districts the hotel design guidelines would apply? Mr. Dale responded that would be addressed in a use specific standards category. It would be possible to define the circumstances under which a boutique hotel would be acceptable in certain districts and not in other districts. Mr. Fishman stated that he has been in boutique hotels that are four stories high. Nothing that resembles a hotel would be appropriate in the Historic District. The composition of the ARB will be different in the future, so this definition would need to be very specific. Mr. Supelak stated that Commissioners are very concerned about possible issues with this use, but he is willing to withhold judgment until he has seen the consultant’s draft of this standard. Ms. Call stated that it would be necessary to have use-specific standards. Mr. Dale responded that if the Commission continues to see some risk after reviewing the standard, they could make the decision not to include it. There is also the option of making it a Conditional Use, which would subject it to an additional level of review. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019 Page 5 of 14 §153.172 – Site Development Standards (A) Intent (B) Applicability (C) General Development Standards Table 153.173A provides regulations for land and structures within the historic zoning districts. Generally speaking, all of the measurements in this table already are in place and have been incorporated into the amendment. Three points of concern: 1. Maximum building height – 35 feet in Historic Residential District. While that is a standard residential building height standard, there is concern that it is not appropriate in this particular district. The consensus seems to be that is too tall compared to what currently exists. 29-30 feet may be more compatible with existing buildings. 2. Maximum lot coverage – An impervious surface (buildings, driveways, etc.) of 65% in the Historic South District and 50% in the Historic Residential District. There is concern that percentage is too high in those districts. The direction they have been hearing is to reduce both the height and the maximum lot coverage. Ms. Call stated that there is a minimum lot size of 8,700 feet in the Historic District. What is the standard for the rest of the City? Ms. Rauch stated that it depends on the zoning. Mr. Dale inquired if 8,700 feet would be on the low end. Ms. Call stated that there are no huge yards in historic districts. The 50% maximum lot coverage allows for a livable structure on a smaller lot. Ms. Rauch noted that the City has many lots that are very narrow but long. There are concerns about new development in the Historic District. Fitting long houses with large footprints on these lots is out of character in the District. Although it is important to have zoning that allows people to redevelop or make appropriate additions, there is a need to ensure that it is appropriate within the district. Mr. Dale clarified the relationship between the zoning standards and the Design Guidelines. When a proposal does not meet zoning standards, a waiver can be requested. Design Guidelines address respect for context and compatibility. If in applying the Guidelines, ARB believes certain modifications should be made, they will be able to condition their approval on that modification being made. 3. Side Yard and Rear Yard Setbacks – Residents expressed concerns. What happens to the rear of their homes is a very important part of the character of that neighborhood, although the public may not see rear yards from the public right-of-way. They are continuing to work on those numbers. Mr. Wilson inquired if the maximum lot coverage numbers in the Historic South District are near the coverage that exists today. Ms. Rauch responded that staff currently is conducting an audit of the numbers. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019 Page 6 of 14 Mr. Fishman stated that in the Historic Residential District the lot coverage is 50%; however, with some of those new houses, there is actually 90% lot coverage. He observed an addition being made to a garage that impacts the neighbor’s ability to use that portion of his yard. Ms. Rauch stated that most of those large homes do meet lot coverage requirements without need for a waiver. The lots are small. If the Commission is not satisfied with the standards, they can revisit them. Mr. Fishman inquired how the requirement for 50% lot coverage would be controlled. Mr. Dale stated that they need to calibrate the numbers as closely as possible to an overall prevailing condition in the area. From block to block, they will vary. The approach is to allow the ARB the flexibility to grant waivers where the amount is exceeded or to make it more restrictive based upon surrounding context. This provides a standard for District-wide conditions. Mr. Fishman stated that suggestion would appear to exasperate the problem. He would prefer to make restrictions differently. It would seem if lots are close in proximity, the next applicant within that area should be permitted only 50% coverage. Otherwise, the greenspace will disappear in the District. Mr. Dale stated that greenspace is one of the factors that the ARB would be asked to consider. Ultimately, there need to be guidelines. ARB exists to exercise discretion, to look at the conditions and make certain choices. Ms. Call stated that he has mentioned two options, either more restrictive, not permitting waivers or to grant waivers. Is there opportunity for a hybrid, whereby a waiver could be granted up to a certain percent? For example, if they meet certain standards, ARB has the ability to flex from 50% -- perhaps even 40%, maximum lot coverage up to 60%, given those standards. Mr. Dale responded that it could be written in that manner. It could be specific to lot coverage, lot width, or by creating a limitation on the increment up to which the Board could grant waivers. Ms. Call responded that she would prefer the requirements be more restricted and grant them more flexibility up to a certain number with which we all have a comfort level. Ms. Newell stated that she likes the waiver process. There was a time when residents in the Historic District were required to come before the BZA due to simple issues, such as the fact that their homes were a couple of feet off the property line, and that was preventing them from being able to add simple decks, etc. She likes having the waiver process in the hands of the ARB, as opposed to requiring residents to go to multiple boards. Mr. Dale stated that the waiver could be limited to a certain ceiling, and granting of the waiver could be tied to context-based decisions. Mr. Fishman stated that on page one, number 3 under Historic Zoning Districts Purpose and Intent, item B-3 states that the Historical Residential District applies to the residential area of Historic Dublin and encourages the preservation and development of homes on existing or new lots that are comparable in size, mass and scale, while maintaining and promoting the traditional residential character of the Historic Dublin area. On page 3, item 5-3 under “Similar Use Determination” requires that the use will not materially impair the present or potential use of other properties within the same district or bordering districts. Certainly, we would not be abiding by the latter provision. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019 Page 7 of 14 Mr. Dale stated that the Similar Use Determination is different. It is intended to allow for the possibility of uses that did not previously exist, i.e. record stores versus CD stores. In regard to mass and scale, the core standard for the Design Guidelines is that things need to be similar in size, scale and massing. If waivers are limited to a certain percentage, and it is clear that they need to be context sensitive, the Guidelines should achieve the desired result. Ms. Newell stated that in the Historic District, each property has an individual character with buildings reflective of different architectural periods. It is important to have the flexibility to judge each property individually within context with surrounding properties. A waiver gives the ARB ability to do so. The Code for the District must not be so rigid that it prevents that opportunity. Mr. Dale stated that there are Waiver Standards and Criteria in the draft document. He is hearing that the Commission wants some limited flexibility. Ms. Call stated that there might be new architectural ideas that violate Code. If the Code is so strict that it does not allow for those type of variances, there is no other mechanism by which to consider such opportunities. Mr. Fishman inquired if it is possible to add a condition for how the proposal would affect the surrounding properties. Mr. Dale responded affirmatively. He noted that in the remainder of the section up to page 50, General Standards are addressed, such as landscaping, lighting and parking. Those regulations already exist and were carried forward into this draft. Neither the public nor ARB offered comments on those items. Ms. Call stated that new parking garages recently were added in the area immediately adjacent to these Districts. Since their addition, have there been any suggestions from ARB or the public to revisit the topic of parking? Mr. Dale responded that there has been no such suggestion. However, communities should continue to monitor their parking situation. Due to shared and autonomous vehicles, etc., parking needs will be changing substantially in the next few years. Mr. Supelak inquired if she is concerned that these are relaxed or reduced standards. Ms. Call responded that the minimum parking requirement for a historic residential property was two spaces per home. Now, many of the homes are larger. As the occupant profile per home changes, the parking profile per home changes, as well. Ms. Rauch responded that this is the parking standard for Bridge Street; it is not specific to historic structures. It is in line with the rest of the community. Mr. Wilson stated that this is the Historic District. Do we want to preserve it to continue to be historic? When waivers are issued, modernization occurs. The historic character may be lost. Most of us have visited cities in Europe where buildings have existed 200 – 300 years. Those cities have strict rules prohibiting changes to their historic buildings. Although interior changes are permitted, nothing on the façade or the foundation can be changed. They also want to preserve the existing greenspace. Dublin has other areas that can accommodate modern and larger homes. The Historic District is a very important portion of this city. Do we want to keep it the same for many years, or do we want to permit it to transform over time and lose the specific attractiveness that it has had? Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019 Page 8 of 14 Mr. Dale responded that, based on the feedback received during the committee, public and ARB review process, this is a historic preservation effort. However, it will also accommodate property owners making exterior changes to their buildings subject to tight standards that will require preservation of the historic character of the buildings. There may be instances where new structures are desired, as well. Based on their understanding of the values of this community, there is no intent that the district will be transitioning out of its historic character. § 153.174 Design Standards Mr. Dale stated that the intent was to have consistency between the Code standards and the Design Guidelines. The Code standards are the “shalls”; the Design Guidelines are the “shoulds.” ARB requested that any “shalls” be removed from the Guidelines. Essentially, numbers and other details in this section have been cleaned up. For instance, ARB requested clarification that shutters must be operable. Ms. Call inquired if there is a list of the “shall” items that were removed from the Guidelines. Mr. Dale responded that there were only two: 1. On page 53, Entrance Design – pedestrian entrances on all buildings shall be pedestrian scale. 2. Balconies, Stoops and Canopies. These items should be more character-driven than have specific numbers. Ms. Rauch stated that, currently, making any change to the color of a building in the Historic District requires ARB review. ARB has suggested compiling a color palette that the Board will approve, which would enable administrative reviews of color by staff. Mr. Fishman noted that some communities have had those in place, such as Muirfield. Over time, colors evolve and color palettes may need to change. Mr. Dale responded that, periodically, ARB could modify that color palette, if desired. Ms. Newell stated that the stakeholders committee discussed this topic at length. While on a Victorian home, five colors could be appropriate, on a vernacular building, perhaps only one color would be appropriate. It is difficult to incorporate that into guidelines. Ms. Rauch stated that the existing Guidelines do address the need for consistency with the appropriate time frame. Mr. Supelak inquired if, potentially, the approved color palettes could be incorporated into the Design Guidelines. Ms. Rauch responded that there is opportunity to include it or provide as a separate document. Mr. Dale stated that although staff would administer the color palette, an application could be referred to ARB, if the request warranted their review. J. Demolition Mr. Dale stated that the Code revision provides a set of criteria for contributing versus non- contributing buildings. The City has conducted an extensive survey of the District. They are attempting to reduce that to a simple inventory list of contributing versus non-contributing buildings. Contributing buildings must provide proof of economic hardship for their demolition request. If the building is non-contributing, the standards are less rigid. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019 Page 9 of 14 Ms. Newell inquired about the ability to address properties where the owner has intentionally permitted their historic property to decline, because they have other plans for that property. Mr. Dale responded that the term for that practice is demolition by neglect. The Zoning Code is not a maintenance document. Many communities have tried to supplement their zoning regulations with maintenance requirements. Some communities have required owners to license any empty buildings and maintain them. Additional guidelines or standards would be included to attempt to minimize that possibility; however, it is difficult to enforce. Mr. Supelak stated that under Review Criteria, item 4-d refers to, “Any evidence of self-created hardship through deliberate neglect or inadequate maintenance of the property.” Mr. Dale stated that is the pertinent section. It may be difficult to use as the basis for denial, if it is the only reason. Ms. Rauch stated that this issue also is being reviewed from a City-wide perspective. That effort will dovetail with this. Mr. Fishman stated that there are incidences where an aging homeowner passes. That individual’s home, which has declined from lack of maintenance, is purchased, and the new owner wants to tear it down with the argument that the deterioration was not due to their neglect. Mr. Dale stated that is sometimes a legitimate argument. This has been the Achilles Heel of preservation efforts. Aging historic buildings are expensive to maintain. The best direction is to supplement City standards with strong maintenance requirements. Ms. Newell stated that she likes the suggestion to provide notification when a building is vacated. Empty buildings need to have a minimum temperature inside, or mold and other issues will develop. Even a new building will deteriorate in such conditions. Mr. Fishman stated that the City of Columbus has a process to address empty buildings following a fire. Thirty days after a fire event, an inspector checks the building to see if any re-construction of the damaged building has begun or if said construction has proceeded without a license. In either case, the building owner is cited. He would assume there could be a similar inspection process for maintenance, not fire inspections. Mr. Dale stated that this would be an appropriate policy issue for the Commission to raise. There are other policy areas related to enforcement and maintenance that are important for a holistic approach. Public Comment Denise Franz King, 170 S. Riverview Street, Dublin stated that she appreciates the Commission’s emphasis on preserving the character of the open space in the Historic District. The residents appreciate that the Commission has listened to their concerns. Their primary concern is with the new, long homes being placed on the small lots in the district. There is a structure on S. Riverview that is so close to the house next door that she would have assumed the Fire Department would have considered that proximity unacceptable. She appreciates the authority being given to ARB to take context with the neighborhood into account, so that a 35-ft. house is not permitted on the south end of the street where the diminutive ranch homes are located. The scale, lot coverage and height are very important. They would request that no additional over-sized buildings be Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019 Page 10 of 14 added to their neighborhood, cutting off the sunlight and air to the adjacent properties. She invited Commission members to join her on a walk through the neighborhood. Historic Dublin Design Guidelines, 18-037ADMN Mr. Dale stated that one of the main objectives of this revision was to take the City’s existing Guidelines and turn them into a more user-friendly document. Currently, substantial language in the Guidelines is essentially background information, and within that information, there may be only two guidelines. In addition, the operative words are not consistent. They have attempted to clean up that language for clarification purposes. They also cleaned up some internal inconsistencies, eliminated duplications, etc. They did not attempt to change the Guidelines. They are sufficiently strong, but will now be more effective. The document has seven chapters. The first three chapters consist of the Introduction, History and Intent, and Context and Character. The actual Guidelines are in chapters four through seven and provide guidelines for Rehabilitation, New Construction, Site Considerations and Signs. 3.2 Using the Guidelines This item states that, “the underlying premise of the Guidelines is preservation and rehabilitation.” It is not to transition away from Historic. There has been some discussion about the relationship of these Guidelines to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. That document provides 8-9 standards for the treatment of historic properties. Although the standards are broad, guiding principles, that Office has published guidance that is more specific to each. Ms. Newell noted that there are actually a total of 10 standards. Mr. Dale stated that they are quite familiar with those standards and believe these Guidelines are consistent with those. As a local government, Dublin has the opportunity to customize its Guidelines, although they are based on the national standards. Beginning with the Overview section on page 37, additional guidance was provided in regard to the discretionary nature of the Architectural Review Board’s (ARB) decisions. The operative words used in these Guidelines are “should,” “should not” and “avoid”. 4.1 General In item 1.C, alternative materials are addressed. This item states that, “If it is not practical to retain the original materials or features due to the condition, availability, safety or energy efficiency of original materials, then quality contemporary substitute materials, when approved by the Board, should replicate the material being replaced. Those materials may be selected from a pre-approved list of alternative materials if it is demonstrated that they have the same characteristics of pre-approved materials.” New and often better materials continue to be developed. 4.11 Building Additions Items C and D address additions to an original building. The ARB requested that both items be converted to Code standards, where they would have more force. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019 Page 11 of 14 New Construction With this item, effort was extended to obtain the consensus of the community. At an earlier public meeting, residents were asked, using visual examples, to indicate their preference for new construction in the Historic District, i.e. historical replications, modern, but in scale with the area, or historically representative – similar to. The majority opinion centered between historical replication and historically representative. Residents indicated that there were other places in the City appropriate for bold architectural construction; Historical Dublin was not the place. The intent of historical representation is to be very respectful of the historical fabric, similar to, yet discernable as a new construction. In summary, the revised Design Guidelines are a cleaned-up checklist of what previously existed, which should be more user-friendly for staff and the public. Commission Discussion Ms. Call stated that she believes Signs are difficult to get right, and he has done a remarkable job on this section of the Guidelines. She appreciates the emphasis placed on respect for the historical community. Mr. Dale thanked her for the comment. Ms. Newell stated that she has a great love for historical properties. She is curious as to the reason he would not want to incorporate a reference to the Secretary of Interior’s Guidelines for Historic Preservation. They are very good standards. Mr. Dale responded that these standards are consistent with the national guidelines, but they are based upon those previously written specifically for Dublin. Although the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines are broad, they do provide other documents with more details, which offer models for community use. Those documents are much more detailed than what is proposed tonight. What they learned from all the input received is the general opinion that, for the most part, the current process works. It is not broken but simply needs to be improved. To discard what the City has and begin over with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards was not necessary. Ms. Newell stated that she was not suggesting the current standards be discarded, but there are helpful details in the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines – masonry, for example. Historic structures have historic masonry and mortar, which are very high in lime content. Historic bricks were fired at different temperatures than bricks are fired today. If contemporary mortar is used on historic and aged brick, it deteriorates the brick. The mortar will not expand and contract in the same way the original mortar did. In addition, it is possible to over tuck-point a building. There are styles of grout lines consistent with historic structures. There were grapevine-type mortar joints, and mortar joints were intentionally recessed from the face of the brick, which contribute to the character of the building. The inclination is to “butter” those joints, thinking they are inadequate, when in fact, there may be nothing wrong with masonry. This is one of the details provided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines that are not reflected in these proposed documents. Mr. Dale responded that in any community, the level of review followed is a matter of local culture and acceptance. Some communities would consider the details to which she referred too onerous to follow. They attempted to listen to the community’s input, and residents expressed satisfaction Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019 Page 12 of 14 with the level of detail in the current review system. That is a policy question, however, for the Commission to determine. Mr. Supelak stated that those details would appear to reflect technical expertise in the review. Ms. Newell responded that it relates somewhat to the maintenance of the structures. The purpose of the Secretary of Interior’s Guidelines was to provide ways to protect historic property. When federal funds are involved, the federal government can control what occurs on projects that are deemed historic properties. Some neighborhoods can fall into that classification and become protected properties. Their intent was to prevent projects that would destroy the original historic character of buildings. It does not prevent renovation of the building or accommodating new uses for the building. The goal was to preserve, not restore, to recognize and preserve the significant architectural characters that distinguish the buildings as historic. For instance, masonry sealants should never be applied to historic masonry buildings. It will seal the moisture in and the brick will deteriorate. Often, it is not appropriate to use contemporary materials on historic material, as it can be devastating to the original material. Mr. Supelak stated that reflects a need for a technical knowledge base, which has its place. It may be a different document, separate from the Design Guidelines, but made available for the ARB’s review considerations. However, including it in the Guidelines would make that information available to the public. The typical bricklayer would not be aware of such information. Mr. Fishman stated that, previously, the German Village ARB standards provided this level of specificity, i.e. the type of mortar to use, not sealing or painting the brick. Could the ARB have a set of those standards to consider when renovations are proposed? Those types of specifics are important. He has seen brick crumble because it had been sealed, painted or mortared incorrectly. Mr. Dale stated that these are maintenance standards for historic buildings. Ms. Newell stated that some of those actions could destroy the historic character of a building. If the Board cannot recognize those features in a building and know how to protect them, then those structures will be placed at risk. Mr. Dale responded that it would require the ARB and staff to administer and enforce those standards, if they were made part of the approval process. Some communities provide a historic properties maintenance guide. Ms. Newell stated that could be appropriate, if staff would incorporate it in their review. Mr. Fishman stated that while it is appropriate to provide it as maintenance information, applicants for new projects should be told that it is essential for their approval. If not, a few years hence, the brick will have deteriorated and be falling off. Ms. Rauch stated that the Guidelines originally provided maintenance standards; however, those were removed from the proposed document, as there are other guidance and reference resources available. The City can provide those resources online for users and homeowners. Ms. Newell stated that some communities will incorporate examples into their Guidelines. Mr. Fishman suggested that staff look at German Village’s Guidelines. They have done a good job in addressing the preservation of their historical brick buildings. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019 Page 13 of 14 Mr. Dale responded that German Village’s Guidelines are very similar to what has been proposed. Years ago, the City of Cincinnati published “The Old House Handbook,” which provides the type of guidance to which Mr. Fishman is referring. Perhaps that reference could be provided as a companion to the Design Guidelines. Mr. Fishman responded that the City might not be able to control the maintenance, or how a homeowner tuck-points his home. However, when applications for new projects are submitted, the Board could require it for approval of those projects. Ms. Call stated that the Zoning and Design Guidelines should have those specific areas covered, but guidance for the maintenance of historical buildings is lacking. Mr. Fishman responded that an application for restoration of a building is the opportunity to require that the brick material on the building exterior be handled in a particular way. Guidelines can be provided to the applicant on the type of mortar necessary, avoidance of sealant, etc. Ms. Rauch responded that level of guidance previously existed in the Guidelines but was removed. Ms. Newell suggested that people view the masonry on the 1919 Building, which has been very poorly tuck-pointed over the years. It is possible to remove that tuck-pointing, and the building could be restored to what it should be. Looking at the rear of that building, in particular, will provide adequate proof of the importance of providing this type of guidance. Mr. Dale stated that he would try to summarize and add that information in the Rehabilitation section. He would add a section that would essentially require the applicant or allow the ARB to review the technical nature of the rehabilitation. The applicant can be required to demonstrate that they will be using acceptable historically sensitive rehabilitation techniques. Although this discussion is focusing on masonry, the same situation can be present with a wood, shingles or foundation block. The applicant can be provided information on available guidance resources. Mr. Supelak inquired if there would be value in adding that reference in the Guidelines or in the Building Permit process, so that there is technical expertise available to the user. Mr. Fishman stated that ARB would need to be aware of the standards to require adherence to them. Mr. Dale responded that it would begin at the staff level. Mr. Wilson stated that this item could be referred to as appropriate construction methods. He participated in the Bridge Street District Code amendment. This is following a similar process. He is happy that both the Historic District Code and the Design Guidelines will be in accord. Mr. Dale responded that “Appropriate Construction Methods” would be a good title for the additional section. Ms. Newell expressed appreciation on behalf of the Commission for Mr. Dale and staff’s work on the revisions. Mr. Dale responded that the ARB has provided valuable input in their two previous reviews, and the Commission’s guidance will further improve the amendments to these documents. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019 Page 14 of 14 Next Steps Ms. Rauch stated that the Site Development Standards would be provided to the ARB for their review. Following that discussion, all of the input will be incorporated into final amended documents. Those documents will be reviewed by ARB, and they will make a recommendation for approval to the Commission. At that point, the Commission will conduct a final review and make a recommendation for approval to City Council. The goal is to complete this by year end. Ms. Newell requested that staff provide an opportunity for absent Commissioners, Ms. Fox and Ms. Kennedy, to offer comments. When developing a new Code for the City, it is important to have all Commissioners’ input. Ms. Rauch stated that she met with Ms. Fox last week. She provided some questions that were touched upon in this discussion, but they may need clarification. Staff could offer opportunity to Ms. Fox and Ms. Kennedy for additional comments. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m. _________________________________ Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission __________________________________ Deputy Clerk of Council Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes of July 24, 2019 Page 10 of 13 Ms. Martin responded affirmatively. An Administrative Appeal could be made to the Board of Zoning Appeals. She does not foresee that being necessary. The City’s Engineering Department will work with the property owner. Mr. Bailey moved, Ms. Bryan seconded approval of the Architectural Review Board application with one condition: 1) That the design be revised to use an asphalt/gravel hybrid to be reviewed by Engineering at the Building Permit stage. Vote: Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Stenberg, yes; Ms. Bryan, yes; Mr. Bailey, yes. (Approved 4-0 with one abstention) Mr. Keeler returned to the meeting. Ms. Stenberg stated that the following two agenda cases would be discussed together. 5. Historic Dublin – ARB Code Amendments, 19-007ADMN, Administrative Code Ms. Stenberg stated that this is an introduction of amendments to Zoning Code Sections 153.170 through 153.180, and Appendices F and G that include the creation of Historic Zoning Districts, associated requirements, and revisions to the procedures of the Architectural Review Board. 6. Historic Design Guidelines, 18-037ADMN, Administrative Code Ms. Stenberg stated that this is an introduction of modifications to the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines that apply to Historic Dublin properties and properties identified on Appendix G. Ms. Martin stated that at a July 10 Special Meeting, ARB reviewed the proposed amendments to the ARB Code and Historic Design Guidelines. That discussion continues tonight. Throughout August, staff will be engaging the residents, commercial property owners and business owners in the District. Postcards will be mailed to residents in the District inviting them to sign up to provide a 30-minute public input on the proposed amendments. Every Wednesday, either she or Ms. Rauch will hold office hours at the Dublin Chamber of Commerce to meet with the residents. The Board’s recommendations will be incorporated into the proposed amendments, and on August 15, 6:00- 8:00 p.m., there will be a public open house at the Dublin Community Church for discussion of this topic. Ms. Bryan inquired if the Board would receive a copy of that update to review. Ms. Martin responded affirmatively. The next steps are Board and Commission reviews. After ARB completes its reviews, PZC will also review the documents and make a recommendation to City Council. Greg Dale, Consultant, McBride Dale Clarion led the continuing review of the proposed amendments. The previous review on July 10 identified some needs for editorial corrections, which staff has made. It also identified needed refinements to some metrics within the Code development standards. Those include the height requirements in the Historic Residential District; the 50% minimum lot coverage; and varied setbacks (reflected in Table 153.17) in different locations. The team is working on proposed amendments to those requirements. Members of the public expressed concerns at the previous meeting regarding the Historic South District. It is his understanding that within the last couple of years, the City completed an extensive process to Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes of July 24, 2019 Page 11 of 13 engage the public and calibrate the standards for the Historic South area. Although that area can be revisited, it is their view the focus should be on the Historic Residential District. He requested the Board’s preference on re-studying the Historic South District. Ms. Stenberg responded that an extensive review of the Historic South District occurred in 2017, involving public meetings. There are records of those meeting discussions, which reflect the positions considered and how the decisions were made that reflected the best options. The Vine and Tap building mentioned at the June 10 Special Meeting was a topic of the Historic South District discussion in 2017. She is satisfied with the decisions made at that time. Mr. Alexander inquired if in the Historic South District, a differentiation in lot coverage is made for commercial uses versus residential uses. Ms. Martin responded that, currently, in the Historic South District, there is no differentiation in lot coverage standards for commercial versus residential uses. Most of the properties in that district are commercial properties adjacent to South High Street. Ms. Bryan stated that issue was discussed because there will be several potential new builds in that District. She would like to see a distinction between lot coverage for commercial and residential properties. Mr. Dale inquired if she is referring to the Historic South District in particular. Ms. Bryan responded affirmatively. Ms. Bryan stated another concern is that in Table 153.17-2a, page 5, it is stated that hotels are permitted. If hotels are permitted, there need to be standards; currently, there are none. Ms. Martin inquired if the Board would prefer that permission for hotels in the Historic South District be eliminated, but the bed and breakfast option be retained. Board members concurred with the suggestion. Mr. Dale offered a proposal related to the relationship between the Code and the Guidelines. At the previous meeting, language was suggested that where there was a conflict between the two, that the Zoning Standards would control. He would suggest language be added in the Code that would provide ARB the ability to place conditions on approvals that might deviate from the zoning standards. The ARB already has a mechanism for exceeding the Code, which is a waiver. Likewise, ARB should have the ability through conditions to reduce or trim the approval to make it comply with Guidelines. That would provide ARB the flexibility to make the Guidelines and the Code conform. Board members expressed agreement with that suggestion. Mr. Dale stated that they are working on recommendations that will be responsive to the other concerns raised at the July 10 meeting. Mr. Alexander stated that there were public comments about renovations of homes in the Historic Residential District evolving into long homes. Will a recommended solution be offered that would limit the lengths of the structures? Mr. Dale inquired if the concern is with length or with the width, as well. Ms. Alexander stated that there are some homes that now extend a great length from the front property line to the rear of the lot. Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes of July 24, 2019 Page 12 of 13 Ms. Martin stated that in other residential zoning districts in the City, there is the option of addressing the issue through the maximum lot coverage percentage and the maximum structure percentage. Mr. Dale responded that there are other options for addressing it, as well, such as the Guideline that additions not dominate the original building. However, there is also the accumulative effect of additions, either the width or the depth. Ms. Bryan stated that there is also a concern that on some lots, demolished structures have been replaced with new, long homes. She noted that the residents on S. Riverview Street are conducting a house-by-house assessment, documenting the lot coverages and heights so that the City can have a profile of the homes in the neighborhood. Context is critical, in view of the new building requests that will be submitted. Mr. Dale agreed that it is largely about context, so documenting that information is valuable. Public Comment Steve Rudy, 129 S. Riverview Street, Dublin, OH stated that he has begun to conduct a survey of the homes on S. Riverview Street, and has provided a preliminary draft to Ms. Rauch. The information indicates definite build lanes, which is common in subdivisions. He lives in a backyard neighborhood. He would be willing to let the Board view that vista from his backyard. He is hopeful that the revised Code language will preserve the existing backyard vista. He has seen recommendations about preserving characteristics, but those characteristics have not been defined. He believes a section in the Code should provide for consideration of shared open space and directly inquire what a proposed development would do to the surrounding properties. Unquestionably, a couple of the recent projects have had a negative impact on the neighboring properties. A number of $1 million homes in the District have been negatively impacted by recent approvals that have not reigned in the development footprint. New homes have been permitted to be wedged onto the small lots, overpowering the surrounding homes. When he purchased his home 25 years ago, the ARB requirements were provided in his closing documents for signature. Evidently, some people were not required to make a similar commitment when purchasing historic inventory. As a side note, he was late in understanding that Pat Grabill’s architectural ideas were on the architectural arc of a small, rural German town. He was trying to build small town America. He is concerned that the recent long homes being built have lower level, rear entry garages. The backyard greenspace is being replaced with views of long, tall buildings with parked cars at the rear. He would prefer side-entry garages. When he added an addition to his home, he resisted the City’s recommendation for a garage in his backyard and added a side garage, thereby preserving the shared greenspace. Ms. Stenberg stated that she appreciates Mr. Rudy’s suggestion of providing the Board access to his backyard to view that greenspace. In her visits to the District, she has had street access only. She inquired if there would be a way to provide opportunity to the residents to submit photos of their greenspace, which would make the Board aware of that greenspace character. Ms. Martin responded that perhaps Mr. Rudy could facilitate that with his neighborhood. Ms. Bryan stated that the ARB walking tour of the Historic District is due to be rescheduled. This might be the right time for that. ARB MEETING HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE UPDATE AND DESIGN GUIDELINE S Meeting Notes July 10, 2019 ARB Members: Shannon Stenberg, Gary Alexander, Kathleen Bryan, Rob Bailey Staff: Jenny Rauch, Nicki Martin Consultant: Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion Key Topics Discussed  Introduced the purpose and goal of the amendments; specifically, Council’s direction regarding the proposed amendments.  Reviewed the background of the proposed amendments, including the request for removal of the Historic District from the Bridge Street District, concerns and issues raised over time, and the reason for the update.  Reviewed the difference between the zoning code (shalls) and the design guidelines (shoulds).  Provided an overview of the memo that highlighted the general organizational changes and significant content changes to the Zoning Code and Historic Design Guidelines (HDG)  Identified the intent of the discussion was focused on ARB’s initial review comments. Public comment was permitted. Staff shared next steps would include public input sessions prior to formal public review and approval process. ARB General Comments  Supportive of proposed documents.  Supportive of retaining the level of detail found in the Code.  Minor edits to language.  Consistency in numbers spelled out v. using the number. Public Comments  Request to provide additional language is several sections to address lot coverage regarding residential development to ensure it is compatible with surrounding properties.  Similar request related to building setbacks.  Concerns raised about lot coverage for Historic South properties. Boundary Changes  Supportive of the proposed general boundary changes, removal from the BSD, and rezoning of the properties from Bridge Street District Zoning Districts to the Historic Zoning Districts.  Concerns about removing Buildings Z1 and Z2, etc. as it limits the ability to regulate the design of the sites/buildings as it transitions into the Historic District.  Discuss with schools about their plans for the site and desire to remain under ARB’s purview. ARB prefers to retain school within the boundary to ensure sensitive transition into the District. Zoning Code 153.170 - Applicability  Add ‘demolition’ to applicability section.  Add language to clarify the applicability of the Code and Historic Design Guidelines. 153.072 - Uses  Removal of Elementary or Middle School use from Historic Residential uses. 153.173 – Site Development Standards  Significant discussion about Table 153.173A, specifically related to Historic Residential and Historic South standards.  Increased side yard and rear yard setbacks, particularly if the house is larger and takes up more space on the lot in Historic Residential.  Decrease the permitted building height in Historic Residential.  Decrease the permitted building footprint in Historic Residential to ensure compatibility with existing/historic residential properties.  Review lot coverage requirements for Historic Residential and Historic South.  Staff to bring back information about existing conditions in Historic Dublin and additional standards for the ARB to review that address public comment and ARB’s concerns. 153.174 – Design Standards  Under Pitched Roof clarify the intent of numbers 2 & 3 and potentially change it to read ‘completed gable end required’.  Gambrel and mansard roof materials should include dimensional shingles.  Remove the language ‘of at least three steps and a minimum depth of five feet and width of five feet’ from entrance designs.  Shutter section should be clarified to state operable shutters are required.  Review and clarify the section regarding canopies, as new construction and rehab guidelines do not clearly align. Consider adding language to the new construction section.  Review balcony requirements allowing 40% of a façade to be made of balcony. Consider eliminating and adding clarifying language in the HDG.  Stoop dimensions are too specific. Dimensions should be eliminated from the Code and a section should be to the Guidelines to address the design intent and usability of a stoop.  Under chimneys and vents are permitted to be clad in ‘masonry’, which needs to be more clearly defined. This could occur in the exterior materials section below.  Board was supportive of approving a palette of building colors for staff to administer. 153.176 – Review Procedures  Clearly define structures identified as non-contributing and contributing to ensure it is clear to the Board and the applicant, as it relates to the demolition criteria.  Board was supportive of the more stringent demolition review criteria that is based on contributing and non-contributing.  Clarify that the text ‘property owner’ under the review criteria for the demolition should also include applicant or representative. 153.178 – Maintenance  Include additional language about how to deal with/address the topic of demolition by neglect. Potentially include language to address more stringent property maintenance standards. Guidelines General  Provide references to applicable Code Sections throughout the Guidelines.  Ensure Historic Dublin’s boundary matches on all maps throughout. Natural Features  Consider revising sections related to the uniqueness of limestone only to Dublin. Neighborhood Character  Add language to Historic Residential Neighborhood about compatibility of lot coverage with surrounding residential properties. User’s Guide  Clarify the language related to the applicability of the zoning regulations and the guidelines. Want to ensure the potential conflicting regulations and guidelines are minimized. Rehabilitation  4.5 D – Spelling of palate  4.6 B – End the sentence after “exterior.”  4.7 G – Retain only the first sentence. Delete the subsequent sentence, as is not a feasible construction method.  4.10 C and D – Add these sections to the Code.  4.11 H – Clarify that materials need to be compatible with the District, but not match the original historic structure. Cross reference with 4.1C should be provided.  4.11 K- Concerns about materials appropriate for an addition differ from materials appropriate for rehabilitation (i.e. where does fiber cement siding fit). Discussion about whether additions should be addressed under new construction in the Guidelines versus in the rehabilitation section.  4.13 D – Clarify that treated wood needs to be painted on exposed sections only. New Construction  5.1 C – Add language about compatible massing and lot coverage.  5.3 A – Add language about lot coverage compatibility and ensure the section references neighboring properties. The districtwide reference is too broad.  5.3 B - Ensure the section references neighboring properties. The districtwide reference is too broad.  Include language addressing setbacks to ensure they match adjacent properties.  Add section on canopies. Next Steps  Make revisions to Code and Guidelines based on the ARB’s comments and public comments.  Provide additional information regarding the general development standards, particularly lot coverage, residential building height, and residential setbacks.  Outline schedule and public input opportunities. Committee Development Committee Minutes – May 8, 2019 Page 7 of 9 Ms. Woodworth stated that a strong downtown is an entertainment destination for people. Retail is specialty infill. Hotel market numbers show room nights increased and revenue per available room has been maintained. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the DCVB just provided a report showing a decrease in room rate. Ms. Woodworth stated that there is a perceived need for meeting space. While not part of her study, it did come up often in interviews with businesses. In response to Ms. De Rosa, Ms. Woodworth stated that the smaller organizations did mention it as well. Hotel market prospects show about 550-870 rooms over the next 10 years. She is aware that two hotels are planned. Mr. Reiner stated that people will be drawn to Dublin for restaurants and the new bridge. Ms. Woodworth stated that the recreation market has not yet been tapped and there are many opportunities. Ms. De Rosa asked the presenters to share what other communities are doing, what Dublin should be doing and what are the cautions. Ms. Volk stated that she feels strongly that Dublin can’t stop now. There is a great foundation for a great expanded downtown. It does not impinge upon neighborhoods but enhances the neighborhoods and the rest of the City. It is providing alternatives in residential, retail offerings and the kind of office space available. Even in cities that are overall losing populations like Detroit and Baltimore, they are expanding in their core because more people are choosing to live in walkable neighborhoods. She does not see that changing significantly with the next generation – the “I-Gen.” They may be more disruptive than the millennials in terms of the changes they have made in way of life. Keeping flexibility in mind for the future is essential. In response to Ms. De Rosa’s request for a cautionary note, Ms. Woodworth stated that she would caution not to over-park. Mobility is changing and we will be in a world of automated shuttles, and transit will become cheaper. She also advised to maintain a mix of uses. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes shared hearing the CEO of Honda talk about the future of cars and transportation. The capacity of existing roadways could quadruple. He stated that the biggest losers in vehicle automation will be the major metro cities who have major investments in mass transit. Ms. Volk stated that Greenville, NC, started with commercial uses and now have a lot of residential. She often cites Dublin as an example because of Bridge Park. Ms. Woodworth stated that residential is there for the office. The different product types are important to both executives and to new talent. Historic District Code Update and Design Guidelines Ms. Rauch provided a quick overview of the Historic District projects. The boundary changes are in order. The bigger questions for staff are regarding the code updates. Council’s direction was to pull the Historic District out of Bridge Street Code and go back to the previous districts. Staff felt there are details still included from Bridge Street that are necessary to retain in the Historic District, for example, landscaping and signs. However, these details do make it more complex in the Historic District. Staff would like the feedback of the committee regarding the code update Committee Development Committee Minutes – May 8, 2019 Page 8 of 9 In response to a question from Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, Ms. Rauch stated that the Z1, the Plaza, Z2, the library and the parking garage would all be placed in the Scioto neighborhood. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she did not see any work reflected that ARB has done on this. Ms. Rauch stated that ARB has not reviewed it yet; staff wanted to check-in with Council first. ARB is aware of the work underway. Mr. Dale stated that they did meet with ARB in the process to gather their input. Ms. Rauch stated that this is the first draft. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that they had talked about renaming the Architectural Review Board. Perhaps that should be done first so the document does not have to be adjusted later. Ms. Rauch stated there are two parts of this:  Zoning regulations and new districts; and  Consolidation of the ARB section of the code (name, membership, responsibilities, etc.). Ms. Rauch stated that the name would be the Historic Preservation Commission based upon their responsibilities. In response to Ms. De Rosa, the name was brought up from staff conversation. Mr. Papsidero stated that the emphasis has been on preservation and ARB’s jurisdiction has been growing. Ms. De Rosa stated that naming can be a sensitive topic and suggesting that ARB could have suggestions for a name change. Mr. Reiner agreed that changing the name makes sense. Ms. De Rosa agreed, but wants to be sensitive to its membership. Mr. Papsidero stated that the constituency nationally is the Association of Preservation Commissions. Mr. Dale added that preservation is their charge. In response to Ms. De Rosa’s question regarding the historic boundaries around the school, Ms. Rauch stated that the map looks the way it does because they were trying to capture the 1919 building. She suggested that the 1919 building could be covered under Appendix G as a historic building outside of the district that still falls under ARB review. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that a transition area is needed and that is what this section is. It is important to keep as much as possible in the Historic District that isn’t redeveloped. In response to Ms. De Rosa’s question regarding why not put it all in, Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that it is a downzoning for the balance of that property. Ms. Rauch stated that it is not historic. The map looks this way because of trying to capture the 1919 building and follows the parcel lines. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that it could be bigger, but the key items are the cemetery and the 1919 building. Discussion followed regarding what the Schools could do. Mr. Papsidero stated that the east side of Sells Middle School would have to go to ARB, but the west side would go to ART for review. They would have to rezone for other uses as currently, only public use is allowed. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she wanted to redraw the lines so that the school building will all be reviewed by the same body. Ms. De Rosa stated it might be a worthwhile conversation with the schools. Ms. Rauch stated that the Code attempts to consolidate the ARB current section of code with the new zoning districts being removed from the BSD. It includes boundaries of the district, the uses permitted within those districts, site development standards, setbacks, parking, etc. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, September 17, 2018 Page 15 of 18 Mr. Papsidero stated that Council has expressed interest in updating the Bridge Street District Traffic Study, and Engineering is requesting funding in the 2019 CIP to complete that update. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes asked about the cost of this update, but that information was not readily available. Historic District Code and Guidelines Ms. Rauch stated that there were three tasks from the June work session, which were:  Historic District boundaries;  Historic District regulations; and  Historic District Design Guidelines. In terms of the boundary discussion, Ms. Rauch stated that staff reviewed the potential modifications to the boundary of the Historic District. She provided a map to illustrate the proposed changes, which are:  Removal of the northern area – Z1, Z2, the Plaza, and Library /Garage – and giving it a Bridge Street District designation. Ms. Rauch stated that when Z1 and Z2 were reviewed by Council as part of the basic plan, the required reviewing body designation was given to the ARB, so there will be a little clean up required with that. It would no longer be under ARB. Mr. Papsidero stated some of those items would go through ART.  Addition of a West Bridge Street area; and  Relocation of the eastern boundary. Mr. McDaniel asked for clarification on Council’s direction regarding the reviewing bodies for these areas. Mr. Papsidero stated that the way the Code is written is if 20% of a façade or frontage is affected with a change that falls under the purview of ART as a minor project. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that with the Code re-write, Council is removing the ART from being a reviewing body and being an advising body. Mr. Papsidero stated that ART is being removed as a recommending body, meaning they will not be providing recommendations to anyone, but retaining the minor project. They are reducing the number of eligible project that could go to ART. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that there are a number of properties throughout the City that are reviewed by ARB that aren’t in the Historic District -- they are designated by address. She suggested designating these properties by address and having them reviewed by ARB but out of the Historic District. Mr. Papsidero stated the properties she is referring to are historic structures and that is why they are designated in that way. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes clarified that they wouldn’t have to be historic structures to be designated to ARB. Ms. Rauch sought clarification on which reviewing body would be designated. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes suggested these properties be reviewed by ARB and added to the list of properties that are reviewed by ARB but outside the Historic District. She asked that staff provide a memo to Council about whether or not that is possible. Ms. Fox stated that not adjusting the boundaries around these buildings would leave the reviewing body as ARB simply because they are within the Historic District. Ms. Rauch stated that was true and there could be regulations about how these properties are Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, September 17, 2018 Page 16 of 18 dealt with differently. Ms. Fox stated that, going forward, there would be the protection of ARB looking at this area under their purview. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes clarified that the intent is to remove these properties from the Historic District so that other properties in the District cannot use them as examples of permissive developments throughout the Historic District. She wants to know if they can be placed on the list of ARB reviewed properties outside the District and then see what can be done from there. Mr. Reiner asked for clarification of the intent. When the area around Oscar’s is re-developed in the future, for example, that does not prevent them from building condos along the river, correct? Or is the suggestion that there are such limitations in place so that would not be allowed? Ms. Rauch stated that the Historic Core permits a variety of uses including multi-family --, it is really about the context and the height. Mr. Reiner agreed that he would like the Historic District to continue looking historic, but if someone wanted to propose a historic façade with something different behind it, that would be allowed. Ms. Rauch stated that the regulations and guidelines could be written to allow that. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes gave the example of town center one and town center two. Mr. Reiner stated he doesn’t want to be exclusionary. Ms. Rauch stated that the second bullet point relates to expanding the west boundary of the Historic District to include Shawan Falls/Corbins Mill Drive. Ms. Fox stated that she thought that the boundary was proposed to be moved to Frantz Road. She is concerned about the difference in appearance with the Kroger and the strip mall in place. Is there a way to make it feel more cohesive as you enter the City and have all of this complement each other? She wants to avoid a diverse look. Ms. Rauch stated that could be done with the larger Code update in terms of the scale and character of this area of the District in that zoning designation. Ms. De Rosa asked if would simply be included in the Historic District. Mr. Papsidero stated that the Dublin Plaza ownership has some strong objections to being subject to a historical advisory board. The same outcome can be reached through the Code because they would be reducing the height along West Bridge Street. Ms. Fox stated that ARB needs to be involved in the Dublin Plaza, but it is important that all four corners of Shawan Falls and Corbins Mill are developed with the same perspective. Ms. De Rosa asked why ARB would be the reviewing body versus Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Papsidero stated that it could be, however the suggestion from Council at the last work session was to have it all under ARB. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the Historic Transition zoning was to extend all the way to Frantz Road. She didn’t believe that had anything to do with the reviewing body. Mayor Peterson asked for more information about the resistance from the owners of Dublin Plaza to being under the historical advisory board jurisdiction. Mr. Papsidero explained that there is a different level of review with ARB versus Planning and Zoning Commission. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the area should be a Historical Transition zoning under the purview of Planning and Zoning Commission and extend to Frantz Road. Ms. De Rosa agreed. Ms. Fox stated that there are other historic transitions, so are we changing the way historic Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, September 17, 2018 Page 17 of 18 transition is reviewed for all the areas or for just this one? Mr. Papsidero stated that this can be easily addressed to match Council’s intent. Ms. Rauch moved to the third bullet point -- for clean-up purposes, staff is recommending moving the eastern boundary of the Historic District. The boundary doesn’t fully align with Riverside Crossing Park. Therefore, Planning recommends the eastern boundary of the Architectural Review District move from the east side of the Scioto River to the western side, with the exception of the Scioto River Bridge, which would remain under ARB’s purview. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes asked how many buildable lots exist in this area. Ms. Rauch stated there are none -- sometimes cases would go to ARB, sometimes to Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff is suggesting that the parkland specifically and the bridge would remain under ARB purview. The consensus of Council was agreement with this recommendation. Ms. Rauch stated they are moving away from the form-based Code and moving toward the form and scale in the guidelines. She asked if Council agreed with this direction. The consensus among Council members was agreement. Ms. Rauch moved on to the final item on the agenda, the guidelines. Earlier this summer there were a series of stakeholder committee meetings to talk through the direction given by Council. There were great discussions and great feedback came out of these meetings. The consultant did an analysis to make sure that the guidelines did indeed include guidelines. The next steps will be to hold a public meeting and obtain some feedback -- largely related to new construction. Then a document will be drafted with the goal of completing the public review process before the end of the year. Ms. Fox sought clarifications on what is meant by a minor modification. Mr. Papsidero stated that minor modifications are specific to minor projects and ART. Ms. Fox stated she would like to review the minor modification language. Mr. Papsidero commented regarding the role of ART in the Bridge Street District. ART still plays a role in approving minor projects, but for a very narrow category. He asked Council members if they concurred with ART having limited legal authority to approve projects. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that things that come up during construction where the elevation or dimensions were off by a small margin are okay for ART, but the problem occurs when a 20% of a 200,000 square foot building ends up being a very big portion of the building. The actual numbers triggering the reviewing body may be preferable than a percentage in these cases. Mr. Papsidero stated most of what is in that category are storefronts and patios. He gave an example of the new restaurant that before ART and the waiver was under PZC purview. After the issue was resolved, it did not go back to PZC. Because of the size, it remained with ART. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes suggested that perhaps it would have to come back to PZC only if it were in conflict with the Code. Mr. Papsidero stated that waivers are never before ART, those always go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Fox stated this entire process is very complex. Her desire is that the process be clear and not complicated so that PZC can make things the best they can be. PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov MEETING MINUTES Architectural Review Board Wednesday, August 22, 2018 AGENDA 1. Historic Dublin Design Guidelines - Update 18-037ADM Administrative Request – Other (Discussion Only) The Chair, David Rinaldi, called the meeting to orde r at 6:32 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Other Board Members present were: Jeffrey Leonhard, Gary Alexander, and Andrew Keeler. Shannon Stenberg was absent. City representatives were: Jennifer Rauch, Lori Burchett, and Laurie Wright. Administrative Business Motion and Vote Mr. Alexander moved, Mr. Leonhard seconded, to accept the documents into the record. The vote was as follows: Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Rinaldi, yes; Mr. Leonhard, yes; and Mr. Alexander, yes. (Approved 4 – 0) Motion and Vote Mr. Keeler moved, Mr. Alexander seconded, to approve the meeting minutes from June 27, 2018, as presented. The vote was as follows: Mr. Leonhard, yes; Mr. Rinaldi, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; and Mr. Keeler, yes. (Approved 4 – 0) 1. Historic Dublin Design Guidelines - Update 18-037ADM Administrative Request – Other The Chair, David Rinaldi, said the following proposal is a request to update the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines applicable to properties located within the Architectural Review Di strict and its outlying sites. This is a request for an introduction and discussion for proposed amendments to the Historic District Design Guidelines under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.172 and 153.174. Jennifer Rauch said she did not have a formal presentation but wanted to inform the Board of the work that has been done with the Guidelines and also provide updates about the latest work session with City Council and their direction for Staff. She said Greg Dale is the consultant and is here this evening. He will open the discussion about the Historic District Design Guidelines (HDDG) and other amendments under consideration. Staff would like to obtain the Board’s feedback before moving forward. Dublin Architectural Review Board August 22, 2018 – Minutes Page 2 of 9 Ms. Rauch reported that Council was updated on the HDDG and on the changes to the Bridge Street District Code (BSD) as a whole at the Work Session on June 20, 2018, and Council provided Staff with a direction to remove the Historic District from the Bridge Street District Code. She explained Council finds the character of the Historic District will be better maintained outside of the Bridge Street District. She said the Code would need to be updated to align with that objective. She reported Council also reviewed the boundaries of the Historic District. Ms. Rauch reported Council also reviewed the boundaries of the Historic District. She indicated Council was particularly concerned about the Z1 and Z2 Buildings in Bridge Park West, the new library, and parking garage. She reported Council did not believe those projects were in character with the Historic District and therefore should be removed from the district. That way, she explained, developers or people redeveloping properties in the Historic District do not point to those projects as precedent-setting development. She said no formal action has been taken, as of yet. She indicated when Staff meets with Council next week, they will state how far west the boundary should extend to help with the streetscape as more areas are redeveloped. As a result, the ARB may have more design control over current development in that area, which could be a significant change. She indicated there would then be a need for new requirements on the west side. Ms. Rauch said if an area is being removed from the BSD Code requirements, there is still Historic Residential, Historic Core, and Historic South Districts. She said those areas are under a form-based code so Staff and the ARB will have to create new standards or go back to some type of pre -Bridge Street Code standard and update the HDDG to ensure the character is defined. She noted Staff determined all of this is intertwined so these changes should be made simultaneously. Ms. Rauch said Staff is in the very early stages of developing the Code, using the pre -Bridge Street Code standards as a base, and the changes to the HDDG are underway but to be discussed this evening. She stated the goal is to get the pieces to fit together in a cohesive manner. She asked if the Board had any questions. David Rinaldi asked if there was a draft Code the ARB could review. Ms. Rauch said there was not one to share at this point. She said the pre-Bridge Street Code standards were like a lot of our standard districts and covered uses, setbacks, maximum building height and were very similar to the Historic Residential District. She emphasized that is the direction Council wanted. She explained that the form -based code would not be used with the very specific design requirements, and having concerns with height, density levels, and the intensity of development and redevelopment that the Bridge Street District Code allows. She said Council’s requests align with the feedback received from the public so Staff agree d it is a good direction to go. Ms. Rauch said the Zoning Code for the Historic Residential, Historic Core, Historic South, and Historic Transition Districts will need to be simplified in a way that makes sense to a user, to Staff, and the Board for reviews and the HDDG will also need to align with the new Code. Mr. Rinaldi agreed that working on the Zoning Code and the HDDG simultaneously makes sense. Ms. Rauch said since Staff started the changes for the HDDG, those changes are helping to frame the basis for the Code in terms of form, character, and scale for new and infill development because the current HDDG were lacking those elements. Gary Alexander noted that buildings Z1 and Z2 were approved before he was on the Board. He said the only hesitation he might have to that suggestion is – being in the district impacted the look of those buildings. He indicated that even though the scale may be off, the back side of those buildings should be considered and what the front could have looked like compared to the back ; the front is clearly more appropriate for the district than what the back side would have been. He said being in the district, had a positive impact on the shape of those buildings. Dublin Architectural Review Board August 22, 2018 – Minutes Page 3 of 9 Mr. Rinaldi recalled the front of buildings Z1 and Z2 looked a lot like the back when the applicant first came forward with a proposal at seven stories high. Mr. Alexander said Mr. Rinaldi reinforced his point. He suggested the City could point to the library and state it was not approved by the ARB and it was an institutional and political issue that could not be overcome. He restated to be careful with buildings Z1 and Z2; if the Board made an attempt to work within the HDDG, what is proposed on the front of those buildings should also continue within the HDDG. Ms. Rauch reported that Staff had a similar concern and outlined that very point in a memo to Council. She cited that the boundaries have not been officially determined at this point. She added the streetscape character and street level design features will have some impact. She said she would definitely make sure Mr. Alexander’s point gets relayed to Council. Ms. Rauch said, in terms of the HDDG, Council had directed Staff in the spring of 2018 to kick off the revamping and updating of the HDDG. She reported, the stakeholder group to start reviewing the HDDG and provide feedback on what they liked or did not like about the HDDG. She said the committee has been formed comprised of an ARB representative, David Rinaldi; the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) Chair, Victoria Newell; a Historic Society Representative, two residents; two business owners, and a business tenant. She reported the Committee has met three times with another meeting scheduled next week to talk about the HDDG. She indicated they have discussed what should be included, added, what is challenging with the existing guidelines, and graphics, etc. She said they completed an exercise to determine strengths and weaknesses of development versus preservation and a mapping exercise to determine what the committee thought was a good representation of the hi storic district and which sites or developments were challenging. Andrew Keeler referred to the map that had red and green notations that represented positive and negative comments the committee had about different properties within the Historic District. He asked if there was a consensus amongst the committee members. Ms. Rauch answered the committee did not go into a lot of discussion about the map but in the end, based on a lot of the conversations after the fact, it seemed there were similar concerns with the scale. For the most part, she reported, the committee was fairly aligned overall for achieving preservation with the development of the district, which is such a small area, while understanding there are development pressures, as well. Mr. Keeler said being new to the Board, he viewed the HDDG as purely helpful guidelines and the Zong Code as the Code. He asked if other cities like Boston, Philadelphia, and Alexandria for examples, offered guidelines or if they simply had a Code to work from or a combination of both. Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion, said he is the consultant working with the group, whereas he is really just getting started on this. To answer Mr. Keeler’s question, he said in terms of a “Code is a Code”, that is the law, that is t he regulation and the HDDG live outside the Code that references the HDDG. He said that is pretty common. He stated he could not answer specifically to those cities but he has worked with a lot of boards like the ARB, including those that focus on historic preservation. He said there are other communities that use a similar arrangement that is not necessarily tied to historic preservation but tied simply to architectural review. Mr. Dale noted one of the things to be discussed is the idea that inside the Code the standards are as clear and objective as they can be including typical standards found in a zoning code – uses, dimensional standards, heights, and setbacks, and the like. Adversely, he said, the standards that are the more discretionary and require more judgement would remain in the HDDG. He said the current basic arrangement this city uses is pretty common. Mr. Dale shared some high level observations he had perceived so far:  Staff, Boards, and the Commission have all done a good job at dealing with historic buildings  Problems are with infill and new construction while there is pressure for new development  The Zoning Code has not provided a lot of guidance for new construction Dublin Architectural Review Board August 22, 2018 – Minutes Page 4 of 9  Historic District Design Guidelines need to be simplified – “recommendations” are made and editorials need to be removed as they blur the standards  HDDG provided advice for maintenance very well but that should be separate from the standards  The standards should be isolated so they are easy to apply (a checklist was suggested) Mr. Alexander said the recommendations I the HDDG are dated – windows for example have not kept up with the new materials available and it calls for true divided lites, which is extremely difficult to get an insulated glass so manufacturers make an alternative to that but the current guidelines may not allow it. He said HardiePlank has been recognized but now there are all kinds of resin -based sidings available that are not vinyl. He suggested that under Doors, we could list what has been approved an d what has not been approved but again, they have to be updated. Mr. Dale agreed. He indicated a lot of communities with historic districts have wrestled with the alternative use of new materials that did not exist in the past. He suggested flexibility b e built in to the guidelines because new materials probably come out now often enough. He stated the issue of the extent to which the Board wants to consider and allow alternative materials and how guidelines are applied to those needs to be considered. Mr. Keeler recommended the durability of a product should be determined by Building Standards or someone in the Administrative Review Team (ART) because he believes this is out of the ARB’s purview and the others understand the properties of HardiePlank vs Cedar vs Redwood, for example as well as lites for windows. Mr. Keeler said he struggles with how genuine a project should be. He indicated there is a difference of opinion on the Board, which is good. He reported his house has true divided lites, original glass of which he pulled every pane and replaced old glass with old glass, and put glazing in and painted it. He said there are arguments that the windows not durable but they are genuine. If this Board is trying to preserve history, he said, did they want to get in the weeds about the details for historically appropriate materials. Mr. Rinaldi said probably two-thirds of the information in the HDDG is about maintenance and not design guidelines. He said when you drill down to the true guidelines, there is not much content. Mr. Alexander said the HDDG is very clear about restoration when restoration is possible, addressing windows specifically and is consistent with other community standards. He noted that what Mr. Keeler did on his house was restoration because it was possible. He said the HDDG also notes when restoration is not possible. He said we also have to address new construction. He indicated everyone on this Board should be updated on materials but an employee in the building department can b ring that expertise that the Board can rely on. He suggested that person could provide a list of what is approved and the reasons why. Mr. Keeler indicated new construction is an area that needs to be addressed as well as design instead of just restoration and repair. He asked if the Board would be able to hold a property to a different standard than a new build. Mr. Dale answered affirmatively. He explained the justification with a historic building is there is demonstrable public interest and being concerned about how authentic and genuine restoration is handled versus a structure or development that is new. Mr. Dale referred to the standards from the Secretary of the Interior that is addressed philosophically. “Two part rehabilitation philosophy, retention of original and historic building materials to the greatest extent possible, and avoiding the creating of a false historic appearance. “ Dublin Architectural Review Board August 22, 2018 – Minutes Page 5 of 9 Mr. Dale questioned how both is accomplished. He said the new construction standards in the back of HDDG state: “Be creative, it can look new, but conform, size, material, setbacks.” Mr. Dale stated that was the central philosophical struggle in historic preservation. He asked how the Board recognizes a non-historic building but rather a new building that appears new but it should also fit in the district. With existing, contributing historic buildings, he suggested, the Board be more concerned about authenticity. With new buildings, he said, the Board has the ability to build a new building. Mr. Alexander said he compared the Code to the HDDG and the Code states buildings should represent the spirit of time in which they are built but the approved materials do not. He referenced the HDDG for the siding and certain types of masonry that is permitted. He said that is the conflict – using the Code applying it to new buildings. He agreed buildings should look like the current spirit of time so a few years from now someone would recognize a building that was built in 2018 but the material list needs to be updated to allow for that. Mr. Dale said he is probably pointing out the obvious but this Historic District is not a homogenous district; there is a lot of diversity, building style, ages, and architectural style. He suggested a very modern and contemporary building would be jarring in the Historic District but at some point, some of the buildings that were built there 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, might have looked jarring or ahead of their time. Mr. Dale noted between the Zoning Code content and the content in the HDDG, there seems to be a disconnect at times so those differences should be explored and aligned . For example, he said both documents address demolitions. He said the Code language addresses demolitions in terms of very specific kinds of finding that need to be made but then demolition gets discussed in the HDDG. He said the information needs to be in one place or the other or the information needs to be consistent in both. He said earlier a member stated the Code is what applies and the HDDG is a g uide, an amplification in applying the Code. Mr. Keeler referred to the Zoning Code that speaks to architectural character. – The architectural style general design and general arrangement of the exterior of a building and other structure including the type of light fixtures, signs, and other associated fixtures. He stated he did not view light fixtures, signs, or other fixtures as part of the architectural character. He said he is not an architect but sees the character defined by the elements of the building, 3-dimensional hard pieces of the building. He stated the door bell, door knocker, and light fixtures should not be included in determining character and therefore, would be less restrictive to someone coming before the Board. He believes it is not the Board’s business to tell an applicant what kind of light fixtures should be used. Ms. Rauch said all those details, historically, help make up the architectural character. She explained there is a vast difference between light fixtures that were used 100 years ago vs current light fixtures. Jeff Leonard said the Board has discussed porch furniture for certain projects including materials and whether chairs should be black or brown. He said there is nothing in the HDDG about furniture to which Ms. Rauch agreed. She said that is part of this discussion – what content/information the Board would like to see in the HDDG. Mr. Rinaldi said the HDDG provides guidance for those elements because they are very prominent by the building. Mr. Keeler said there is specific guidance on signs. Mr. Rinaldi said the guidelines for signs is very restrictive in the HDDG and when the BSD Sign Guidelines were adopted the HDDG went a different Dublin Architectural Review Board August 22, 2018 – Minutes Page 6 of 9 direction. He asked the Board if they have any sense as to where they want the g uidelines for the Historic District to land. Mr. Dale said these districts are being extracted from the BSD Code so certain guidelines in the BSD Code that this Board would like to remain for the Historic Districts, need to be made known. He pointed out that right now signs are a good example. He emphasized the Historic Districts should be free-standing. He said that is what he and the Board will be going through. He said ultimately, the decision is up to City Council. To address the question of what is in the Code and what is in the HDDG are the key issues, he emphasized. Mr. Keeler reported that he Googled architectural character because he is not an architect but he was not able to find anything that defines character beyond structural type elements li ke brackets and windows, etc. Mr. Rinaldi said he disagreed with Mr. Keeler because he believed the exterior elements were important. He said if there was an application for a historic commercial building on High Street and they want to put a Chihuly glass structure on the front, that would not be appropriate, and he would not approve it. He explained that sort of modern element would distract from the historic character. He indicated he would like to have some guidance/standards that state if the guidelin es are met, the applicant would not need to come before the Board. He said he does not know how to define that . Mr. Dale asked if there are certain additional applications that Staff could sign off on. Ms. Rauch answered the applications would be more that dealt with maintenance. She said if an applicant is replacing something with like-for-like materials (color, material, design) then they are not required to go before the ARB. She said if an applicant has a yellow building and want to paint it green, the applicant needs to come before this Board or if the applicant would like to replace a door with something that looks different, they would also need the Board’s approval. Mr. Leonhard asked if there were pre-approved paint colors to choose from. Ms. Rauch answered there were not but the guidelines and standards can be changed now. She said for a historic structure there are appropriate colors, tones, and color combinations. Mr. Rinaldi interjected that what colors might have been appropriate for one period of time might not have been appropriate for another. Mr. Alexander added some communities allow Staff to determine if a paint color is appropriate and can approve it without addressing the Board. Mr. Dale asked the Board to consider additional standards/requirement that could be delegated for Staff/Administrative Approval. Mr. Rinaldi said it might be helpful to state at each meeting the actions that were taken by Staff. Lori Burchett asked if there would be a difference between residential and commercial requirements. Mr. Dale answered those are possibilities. Ms. Rauch indicated that some people do not want to come before the Board because the process is cumbersome and if someone is in the Historic District, there is a higher level of scrutiny but they should expect that. She said balancing that might be challenging. She agreed and reported Staff works hard to minimize the inertia before it comes before the Board because they want to uphold the standards but at the same time, trying to be somewhat practical when possible. Mr. Alexander said if there were clear cut requirements someone could follow to make decisions early to meet the application deadline, the applicant gets on the agenda and can get it done. He thought that would definitely help. Dublin Architectural Review Board August 22, 2018 – Minutes Page 7 of 9 Mr. Leonhard said he joined the Board to understand the process of making changes on his own home. He reported his house was remodeled in 2008 – the person that owned it at that time was on the ARB and there is not a single divided lite pane window in his entire house. Mr. Rinaldi asked if the Board should consider residential off of High Street because it is such an important core that needs the same level of scrutiny that other buildings have on High Street that may be the ones behind and particularly those that are deemed historic and maybe there should be a different approach. He gave the example of a 1968 ranch home versus an 1800 commercial building on High Street. Ms. Rauch said we need to account for properties that are actually historic but are newer. She said they all should be held to the same scrutiny. Mr. Dale asked if guidelines should be distinguished geographically. He admitted the process of updating these documents should not be too complicated but properties off of High Street versus those that are on High Street might need to be treated differently. Mr. Leonhard said what is visible from High Street is one thing but what is on the back could be another story. He cited the property the Tackett’s just proposed to renovate as an example. He asked what boundaries would be changed. Ms. Rauch said that still needed to be determined. Mr. Dale said there needs to be guidelines for new construction so it is designed to fit within the fabric of the Historic District. He said clues will need to be taken from the historic fabric that exists. Mr. Keeler referred to Zoning Code Section 153.176A(1) Demolition – a structure contains no features of architectural or historical significance in the character of the area in which it is located. He asked if t he City can exempt certain properties so you already know going in that one is taken care of. Ms. Rauch said a Historic and Cultural Assessment was completed and determined what structures and properties were contributing and what is not contributing so there is a better baseline for that now. Before the assessment of all the properties, she explained it was challenging to understand what should be considered historic. She stipulated the historic nature was determined only from the outside. She said that is one of the four criteria an applicant would have to meet. She said the burden i s on the property owner to demonstrate that. Mr. Keeler asked if the assessment just applied to properties within the Historic District. Ms. Rauch answered this is part of the discussion because the assessment also applied to properties on Appendix G, which are outside the district. Mr. Keeler asked how someone would prove that and demonstrate criteria #1. Mr. Dale clarified that two of the four criteria have to be met. Ms. Burchett said Staff will run through the criteria with the applicant to identify areas that staff feels the applicant will need to make a case, etc. Ms. Rauch said the role of the ARB is largely the preservation of the district, so the goal is not to make it simpler for people to demolish their structures. Mr. Keeler surmised there is probably a 1960s or 70s house with a bad roof, cinder block construction, in very poor condition but since it is in the Historic District that applicant would have to spend a half hour explaining to the Board why the structure needs to be demolished. Ms. Burchett indicated that typically what is typically seen with the demolition requests are like a garage that was on the rear of the property built with a block foundation, elements had been removed from it, there were no historical features based on potential age and that is where the applicant demonstrate d there were no historic architectural features. She said if Staff has evidence that there were historic architectural features to be preserved, Staff could then provide that information. Dublin Architectural Review Board August 22, 2018 – Minutes Page 8 of 9 Ms. Burchett said the Board has the discretion to form their own opinion to approve a demolition even if Staff may have determined the applicant did not meet any of the criteria; the Board may have a different opinion. Mr. Keeler inquired about the condition of imposing a waiting period on an applicant and what situation would cause such a provision. Ms. Burchett said Staff may not want to see something demolished ; they may ask the applicant to take more time to see what can be done to save the structure. Staff also does not want something demolished without something going into its place so typically Staff would see a demolition request paired with a new development request. Mr. Dale said where he has seen that come into play is when someone comes in making the economic argument – they state they have run the numbers, cannot afford the cost of renovation, will not be able to get a reasonable economic return or it is so deteriorating they cannot renovate. He said he has seen instances where Boards conclude – the applicant was making a good case but it was a borderline call and the Board would determine to give the owner more time to see if there are other alternatives. He said he has witnessed preservation organizations that try and purchase property or someone coming in and saying they could help the applicant with their economic analysis. He explained the waiting period is basically a cooling off period in the hopes someone will come up wit h something to save the building, coming in with an idea or provide assistance. Mr. Dale gave an example of an applicant that claimed their building was unsafe, it had deteriorated through no fault of his own, it was not demolition by neglect, and the applicant can demonstrate they meet all the criteria but he has no idea what he wants to do with the property as he is not ready, and not in a financial position to have a reuse plan but he needs to remove the building. Mr. Alexander asked if that would be a building Code issue if the chief building official had determined it was a public hazard. Mr. Dale said issues of health, safety, and welfare usually override all preservation issues so t hat would be something to check into. Mr. Rinaldi said the Board needs to see the structure inside and out in a demolition request. Mr. Dale said typically with these types of demolition requirements like the City has, where someone is literally trying to claim the economically viable use part that gets into a very techni cal kind of set of issues. He said a structural engineer study can be requested so the applicant can really demonstrate to the Board that not just exterior but the mechanical systems and the structural integrity of the building. He said it is a high level of proof to come in and say that the building cannot be reused in an economically feasible manner. Mr. Rinaldi recalled a case where the Board was not permitted inside the house and had to make a judgement call from what was visible from the outside and there was an engineer’s report but the applicant hired the engineer and he would like to be able to see for himself what the engineer is talking about versus just relying on the written document from someone the applicant hired. Mr. Dale emphasized the Board is entitled to request adequate information before a decision is made. Ms. Burchett said, specifically for contributing structures. Ms. Rauch recalled after that happened, the City decided to hire a third-party consultant to help with future cases. She said as a Board, they have discussed what level of detail they would like to see, what the burden of proof was, and what the applicant had to provide to make the Board feel comfortable reviewing a demolition request. Mr. Rinaldi stated this Board needs to understand they serve all of Dublin, not just the Historic District. Mr. Dale asked the Board to focus in on Zoning Code Section 174, the actual standards of a review. He said those standards need to tie to these guidelines a little more clearly. Ms. Rauch said Staff will continue to work with the committee on guidelines while simultaneously working on the other elements that City Council had directed them to do. She noted there is a Work Session Dublin Architectural Review Board August 22, 2018 – Minutes Page 9 of 9 planned with City Council to talk about each of these pieces and where we are with that and get further direction from them, particularly as it relates to the boundary because that then impacts our zoning and the map, etc. She said they will review some draft guideline pieces with the committee and digest those into the three sections, which will eventually evolve into a draft guideline but that will also need to align with the Zoning Code. The Board and Mr. Dale discussed the best way to approach revisions for the HDDG and the Zoning Code. Mr. Dale suggested the Board determine what the categories are, what they are trying to achieve, and then determine what really goes in the Code and what really needs to go in the HDDG. He recommended any editorial comments should be eliminated. The Chair asked the Board if they had any further comments. [There were none.] Communications The Chair requested communications. [There were none.] Adjournment With no communications to share, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 7:52 pm. As approved by the Architectural Review Board on September 26, 2018.