HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 49-24RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6220S
Ordinance No. __49-24 Passed
AMENDMENTS TO ZONING CODE SECTIONS 153.170, 153.173,
153.174, AND 153.176 TO ADDRESS BACKGROUND BUILDINGS,
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS, AND WAIVER CRITERIA
(CASE 24-012ADMC)
WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to amend Dublin’s Zoning Code to
protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin, and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Zoning Code needs to be updated to provide clarity
and consistency regarding regulations to maintain the high-quality development
standards within the City, and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Board reviewed and recommended adoption on
August 28, 2024 and the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and
recommended adoption of the proposed amendment on September 19, 2024 because
it serves to improve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of
Dublin,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, Tl
of its elected members concurring, that:
Section 1. Sections 153.170, 153.173, 153.174, and 153.176 of the Codified
Ordinances of the City of Dublin is hereby amended and shall provide as attached to
this Ordinance:
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective on the earliest date permitted by law.
i Passed this__/% day of Sen Be , 2024. Le. p-&
Mayor - Presiding Officer
ATTEST: (rade Lhd Clerk bf Coyfcil
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Megan O'Callaghan, City Manager
Date: October 29, 2024
Initiated By:
Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Community Development and Planning Director
Sarah Tresouthick Holt, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner
Re: Ordinance 49-24
Amendments to Zoning Code Sections 153.170, 153.173, 153.174
and 153.176 to address background buildings, administrative
approvals and waiver criteria (Case 24-012ADMC).
Summary
Phase 1 updates to the Historic District Code were adopted in December 2023 and addressed
language about historic building designations and the era of significance. As part of these efforts, a
future Phase 2 was identified to address additional types of Administrative Approvals, provide
additional Code and Guidelines clarifications about how Background buildings should be reviewed,
and amend any additional scriveners' errors. The proposed Phase 2 amendments were reviewed
and recommended by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning and Zoning Commission
(PZC), along with a concurrent amendment to the Historic Design Guidelines, which will be
presented to City Council by resolution on November 18, 2024.
Background
Public meetings were held for district residents and property owners as part of the Phase 1
amendments on May 20, 2023, September 13, 2023, and October 11, 2023. The input provided at
these meetings identified a series of recommended amendments to the Code and Guidelines to
improve the speed and predictability of District reviews, which are outlined below.
The following Code changes are noted in the attached red-lined draft:
• Clarification that Background buildings must comply with the Code
• Inclusion of Background-building compatibility language within the Code
• Inclusion of door and garage door approval criteria for Landmark buildings, where there was
previously none
• Clarifications on which project types require ARB approval based on the expansion of the
Administrative Approvals (below)
o ARB approval is now required for repairs to historic stone walls based on previous
experience with poor repair quality and appearance
• Expansion of the Administrative Approvals to include:
o Modifications to Background buildings where no building volume/footprint increase is
requested
o Sign approvals that meet Code criteria for both Landmark and Background building
types
o Residential hardscape features less than 3 feet tall for both building types
o Replacement of existing awnings for both building types (new awnings require ARB
review)
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive
Phone: 614-410-4400 Memo
Memo re. Ord 49-24 - Historic District Code Amendments
October 29, 2024
Page 2 of 2
o Lighting for residential and commercial projects for both building types
o Commercial exterior furniture for both building types, and
o HVAC and trash screening for both building types where building architecture is not
affected.
o Procedurally, a "bump up" clause to formal ARB approval is permitted by the City or
the applicant. In the applicant's case, this would serve as an appeal.
• Addition of a timeframe extension for Final Development Plan (FDP) approvals
o This permits some flexibility under specific circumstances, where otherwise an
applicant might lose their approval through no fault of their own
• Consolidation of the Administrative Departure, Waiver, and new Variance Code sections
o Staff and Legal identified an opportunity to consolidate and simplify the
Waiver/Variance procedure, simplify the review process and remove specific unused
Code sections
Previously, three different request categories existed, depending on the
percentage of desired deviation from a numeric requirement:
• Administrative Departures for less than 10 percent.
• Waivers for less than 20 percent.
• Variances to the Board of Zoning Appeals for greater than 20 percent
Administrative Departures are no longer needed and have been removed
All requests for deviations from numerical standards are termed Waivers for
clarity
Waivers above 20 percent stay with the ARB and are still named Waivers
Additional language requires that the Waiver amount must be the minimum
required to solve the identified issue
• Corrections to scriveners' errors
Board and Commission Recommendations
The draft Phase 2 Code and Guidelines were reviewed by ARB on July 26, 2024, and the final draft
version was reviewed and recommended by the Board on August 28, 2024. The Planning and
Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the draft Code and Guidelines on
September 19, 2024, as proposed.
Recommendation
Approval of Ordinance 49-24 at the second reading scheduled for November 18, 2024.
To: Members of Dublin Architectural Review Board
From: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Community Planning & Development
Date: August 28, 2024
Initiated By:
Sarah Tresouthick Holt, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner
Re: Historic District Code and Guidelines Updates, Case 24-012ADMC
Summary
The Historic District Code updates, Phase 1, were adopted in December 2023 with goals to:
Change nomenclature of “Contributing/Non-contributing” to “Landmark/Background”
Confirm an Era of Significance, determined to be 1830-1920
Add other significant buildings to the Historic District Map
Reclassify buildings outside the Era not architecturally significant as Background, resulting in
a decrease of significant buildings, including Franklin Street and some of S. Riverview Street
Identify a Phase 2 effort
o Increase types of Administrative Approvals
o Provide additional clarifications about how Background buildings should be reviewed
o Address any additional scriveners’ errors
Phase 2 is now ready for a recommendation by this Board
Background
Public meetings during Phase 1 were held for District residents and property owners on May 20,
2023, Sept 13, 2023, and Oct 11, 2023, and a series of items was identified as possible
improvements to the speed and predictability of District reviews. An overview of these
improvements was provided to ARB in September 2023, with confirmation on Phase 2 direction
obtained in April of 2024. The following are the confirmed items and approaches from April, now
included in the attached final drafts:
Include Background building compatibility language within the Code and Guidelines as
confirmed
Expand the Administrative Approvals (AA) as directed to include:
o Modifications to Background buildings where no building volume/footprint increase is
requested
o Single sign approvals that meet Code criteria for both building types
o Residential hardscape features less than 3 feet tall for both building types
o Replacement of existing awnings for both building types (new awnings require
review)
o Lighting for residential and commercial projects for both building types
o Commercial exterior furniture for both building types, and
o HVAC and trash screening for both building types where building architecture is not
affected.
Add a timeframe extension for FDP approvals.
Community Planning and Development
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4600 • Fax: 614-410-4495 Memo
Memo re. Historic District Code/Guidelines Update Phase 2
August 28, 2024
Page 2 of 2
Address scriveners’ errors.
Consolidate the Administrative Departure, Waiver, and new Variance Code sections
o Administrative Departures are no longer needed and have been removed
o All requests for deviations from numerical standards are termed Waivers for clarity
o Waivers above 20 percent stay with the ARB
Based on confusion at the 17 and 27 N. Riverview Street Variance hearings in
May of this year
Additional language that the Waiver amount is the minimum required to solve
the identified issue
o The approach was confirmed by the Law Office
o It allows applicants to make a case before one board for very site-specific
circumstances, thus simplifying the process
The draft Code and Guidelines were delivered to the Board for extended review on the 26th of July,
with comments requested by the 9th of August. The following comments were received:
153.176(A): a suggestion to use the word “emphasis” in lieu of “consideration”. Since we
already used “emphasis” in that sentence, we kept “consideration”.
153.176(M)(1)(d): clarification of the purpose, which is to designate authority for
Administrative Approvals only, with the Director having the authority to bump a case up to
the Board.
153.176(M)(1)(d): question regarding the need of the statement to delegate authority to
the Director. This statement makes it legally clear that the Board has the authority to make
this delegation.
153.176(M)(1)(e): suggestion to simplify the language, which has been done.
153.176(M)(2)(p): question if additional windows and doors are permitted administratively
in Background buildings. Based on previous direction from the Board, only changes to
Background building volume or footprint would require Board approval.
153.176(N): question if plats can be administratively approved. Per the Law Office, these
need to remain as a recommendation by this Board, a recommendation by Planning and
Zoning Commission, and final approval by City Council.
Tables 153.173J – L: request to reinsert the reference to a specific sign section in, which
has been done.
Request
Staff requests the ARB review this memo and the attached Final Draft of the Code and Guidelines
and recommend approval of both to Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes of August 28, 2024
Page 2 of 16
Mr. Cotter stated that the Board has received a request to modify the published agenda to move
Case #24-012ADMO to the front of the agenda.
Ms. Cooper moved, Mr. Jewell seconded that Case #24-012ADMO be the first matter of business
considered on tonight’s agenda.
Vote: Ms. Patt-McDaniel, yes; Ms. Cooper, yes; Mr. Cotter, yes; Mr. Jewell, yes.
[Motion carried 4-0.]
CASE REVIEWS
Case #24-012ADMO, HD Code and Guidelines-Update – Phase II,
Recommendation
Recommendation for amendments to the Historic District Zoning Code and amendments to the
Historic Design Guidelines.
Mr. Dale provided an overview of the effort to date. He stated that Phase I of the Historic District
Code update was adopted in December 2023. The primary focus of Phase I was to change the
nomenclature of Contributing/Non-contributing Buildings to Landmark/Background buildings and to
reclassify buildings that were not architecturally significant as Background buildings. During the
course of the Phase 1 discussion, the Board identified a need for an additional Phase II update for
other clarifications and refinements. The Board identified the specific changes for the Phase II
update at the April ARB meeting. Staff prepared a draft document which the Board reviewed at its
June meeting. The additional clarifications requested by the Board have been incorporated into a
final draft, which is before the Board tonight for final review and recommendation to the Planning
and Zoning Commission (PZC) and City Council. The document proposes the following five (5)
changes:
o Expand the Administrative Approvals;
o Provide additional guidance regarding Background Buildings to clarify that the emphasis is
on scale and site design, less on architectural detail, unless adjacent to Landmark Buildings;
o Added a timeframe extension for Final Development Plan (FDP) approvals.
o Consolidate the Administrative Departure, Waiver and Variance Code sections.
[Detailed changes are listed in the staff report provided in advance of this meeting.]
Mr. Dale stated that the goal of the Phase I and Phase II changes, in addition to redefining what it
means for a building to be historic, was to improve the process in predictability, speed and efficiency.
The Law Director has reviewed the proposed changes to the waiver and variance Code language.
Unless determined not needed, the revisions suggested by the Board members at their last review
have been incorporated into this final draft. Staff recommends that the ARB approve moving on this
proposed Code amendment to PZC for recommendation to City Council.
Board Questions
Ms. Patt-McDaniel stated that p. 21 of the draft addresses building mass and scale. She inquired if
the historic character of S. Riverview Street is protected by the proposed update. There are
additional lots that will be developed, and she wants to ensure the ARB will be able to address those
applications from the desired historical character perspective.
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes of August 28, 2024
Page 3 of 16
Ms. Holt responded that the Code contains very specific language for Historic Residential that will
address that concern. The last bullet point on that page states: “promoting preservation of open
rear yards, greenspace corridors and river views throughout the neighborhood.” That is the over-
arching goal that applies to all of the Historic Residential zoning code. When reviewing applications
for individual lots, that factor will be looked at closely. We will look at actual details under “new
construction” (Chapter 5, Section 5) that addresses “when adjacent to Landmark resources.” We
will look at height, massing, setbacks, forms, fenestrations. The Code also addresses site design,
ensuring that it maintains consistent setbacks. In regard to potential lot splits, this Phase 2 update
and the preceding Phase 1 update did nothing to jeopardize or alter the lot split
opportunities/limitations that have been in place since 2021. Minimum lot sizes and lot coverage
have not changed.
Mr. Jewell stated that he has no further concerns or clarifications regarding the request.
Ms. Cooper stated that she has only one concern. In Section 153.176, (M) Administrative Approvals,
in 1(a) Purpose and Applicability, she questions if clarification should be provided that the Director
is providing an Administrative Approval of a previously approved Final Development Plan (FDP) or
Minor Project (MP).
Ms. Holt stated that this is an area in which Phase II does not provide any language changes. Staff
did not see the need, as the reference to an amendment to a FDP or MP would assume that it was
previously approved.
Ms. Damaser expressed appreciation of the quality of the draft document.
Mr. Cotter stated that he believes the Phase 2 draft addresses many of the previous public comments
about the review process.
Public Comments
There were no public comments provided for the case.
Mr. Jewell moved, Ms. Cooper seconded to recommend PZC provide a recommendation of approval
to City Council for the Historic District Code Update – Phase 2.
Vote: Ms. Damaser, yes; Mr. Cotter, yes; Ms. Patt-McDaniel, yes; Ms. Cooper, yes; Mr. Jewell,
yes.
[Motion carried 5 – 0.]
Case #24-066MPR, 38 & 50 W. Bridge Street, Minor Project Review
Proposal for a building addition, dumpster enclosure, and site improvements for two properties in
Historic Dublin. The 0.589-acre and 0.293-acre sites are zoned HD-HC, Historic Core District, located
northeast of the intersection of West Bridge Street and Franklin Street.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Mullinax stated that this is a request for a Minor Project Review (MPR) for 38 and 50 W. Bridge
Street. Both sites are located northeast of the intersection with W. Bridge Street and Franklin Street
and are zoned Historic Core. The Fox in the Snow coffee shop (38 W. Bridge Street) occupies a
Landmark building constructed in 1965, originally serving as a U.S. Post Office until 1982. The J.
Liu of Dublin restaurant (50 W. Bridge Street) occupies a Background building built in 1972. An
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes of August 28, 2024
Page 16 of 16
As this was an Informal Review, no action was taken.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Holt updated Board members re. the following:
The joint meeting of City Council-PZC-ARB-BZA previously anticipated in September has
been deferred to October. Council has availability on 10-16-24. ARB members indicated that
they had no objection to delaying their previously scheduled 10-16-24 site tour to be
available on that date. Staff will also poll PZC and BZA to confirm the availability of those
members for 10-16-24.
A survey regarding staff reports will be sent to Commission and Board members
concerning the Development Review Process analysis.
Board members were reminded to complete the Cornerstone state-mandated training
concerning fraud.
The Community Church, 81 W. Bridge Street, recently was awarded a Historic District facade
improvement grant. The church will be repairing their windows and historic lighting. Because
it is a maintenance project, it does not need to be reviewed by the Board.
The building materials for 17 N. Riverview Street have been finalized, as required by the
Condition of Approval. Revised drawings were received today, so the project should be
approved by Planning and advanced to Building Standards quickly.
The next regular ARB meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 25, 2024 at 6:30
p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m.
f
ChaitArchitectural Review Board
rk of Council
To: Members of Dublin Architectural Review Board
From: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Community Planning and Development
Date: June 26, 2024
Initiated By:
Sarah Tresouthick Holt, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner
Re: Historic District Code and Guidelines Updates Phase 2,
Case 24-012ADMC
Summary
Phase 1 of this work was approved by City Council in December of 2023: updating the
nomenclature of Contributing/Non-contributing to Landmark/Background; identifying the Era of
Significance for the district as 1830 – 1920; and subsequently coordinating the Historic District Map
in the Historic Design Guidelines. During that process, staff and Greg Dale (McBride Dale Clarion)
conducted district meetings to identify improvements to the architectural review process. A number
of good suggestions were made, which staff termed Phase 2 of the project: increase the types of
administrative approvals and create Background building guidance in the Code and Guidelines.
This memo and draft Code and Guidelines language (attached) are presented for discussion and
confirmation. ARB recommendation for adoption is anticipated in August of 2024, allowing the
Board ample time for feedback and consideration.
Background
In April of 2024, the Board agreed to expand administrative approvals for certain project types.
Please see the attached draft Code language, 153.176(N), which outlines:
Clarification that the Board may delegate various administrative projects to the Director
A clause that allows administrative projects to be “bumped up” to the Board, including the
criteria for such a decision. Bump ups are permitted by both staff and the applicant
A statement that projects not clearly administrative shall be heard by the Board
Clarifications to existing administrative projects
Additional administrative projects:
o Lighting that conforms to the regulations
o Residential hardscape less than three feet tall
o Commercial landscapes that conform to the regulations and not associated with other
requests
o Single signs that conform to the regulations
o Background building changes for windows, doors, or roofing
o Replacement awnings (new awnings require a Minor Project)
o Commercial outdoor furniture
o HVAC/equipment screening that does not materially change the architecture
Also in April, Background building guidance was confirmed as maintaining neighborhood setbacks,
roof heights, massing, and similar forms and fenestration to ensure compatibility, while allowing
Planning Division
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4600 • Fax: 614-410-4495 Memo
Memo re. Historic District Code/Guidelines Updates
September 27, 2023
Page 2 of 3
more flexibility with specific architectural details. The attached Code includes broad applicability
language for Background buildings, and the Guidelines provide parameters for Background
buildings adjacent to Landmark buildings and Background buildings that are surrounded by other
Background buildings. More specifically:
Section 3.3 discusses the importance of general design elements, such as height, setbacks,
massing, roof shape, etc., and notes that adjacency to Landmark resources warrants a
higher level of evaluation
This concept is further supported in Section 3.4
Applicability, Section 4.0, is tied back to Section 3.4 for clarity
Section 4.12 notes that Background buildings may have additions at the rear or side,
provided the basic factors (height, setbacks, roof form, etc.) are met
Section 5.0 clarifies that Background buildings focus on height, massing, setbacks, etc. as
previously noted
Section 6.0 again notes that Section 3.4 is the guiding principal. The repetition was
consciously done so that applicants who refer only to single Guideline sections will not miss
important concepts
Other substantive clarifications include:
Adding doors and garage doors into the window section, Code 153.174(D), where these
previously were not mentioned, and clarifying these apply to Landmark buildings
Clarifying that commercial landscapes require a Minor Project approval
Explaining that maintenance, repair, or adjustment of historic walls require a Minor Project
approval
Clarifying that preliminary and final plats in the Architectural Review District require a
recommendation from ARB prior to going to Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council
Relative to Table 153.176A in the Code, staff also requests the Board to consider the recent Board
of Zoning Appeals (BZA) variance requests for 17 and 27 N. Riverview Street:
https://dublinoh.new.swagit.com/videos/306675 . BZA, rightly so, are not generally aware of
Historic Dublin zoning, Code, and Guidelines: specifically that additions cannot be placed in front
of historic houses. It was challenging for them to honor both the ARB’s previously-stated support
for the variances, while weighing them against the strict interpretation of the Code. It also
required the applicant to make a separate application and go to another meeting. Staff has thus
questioned whether or not the BZA is the right body for Architectural Review District variances.
Originally, under the Bridge Street District Code and prior to 2021, ARB had singular purview over
variances, and there was no numeric limit to waivers. Staff sees three options to consider for this
Code update:
1. Keep variances above the 20 percent waivers with BZA (status quo).
2. Create a two-tiered system for the ARB, where numeric waivers up to 20 percent have the
current requirements in 153.176(L)(5), and those above 20 percent have additional
requirements, yet to be determined.
3. Remove the numeric waiver limits and let each request stand on its own merits.
Public Engagement
Since our public engagement last year, staff has held office hours at both COhatch and the
Chamber, as requested. December 2023 – March 2024 had monthly office hours, and due to
Memo re. Historic District Code/Guidelines Updates
September 27, 2023
Page 3 of 3
dwindling attendance, the frequency is now quarterly. Office hours on June 26th will be at
COhatch. This Phase 2 update will also have a social media splash in July to notify residents of our
progress.
Recommendations
Staff recommends the ARB review the proposed amendments and consider the following questions
for discussion:
1) Is the administrative approval language supported by the Board?
2) Are the Background building discussion points (Code and Guidelines) appropriate?
3) What are the Board’s thoughts about variance review:
a. Should this purview stay with BZA?
b. Consider a two-tiered system of numeric waivers, administered by Architectural
Review Board. What would the additional requirements entail?
c. Should ARB waivers not have a cap?
4) Other considerations by the Board.
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2024
Page 4 of 8
Ms. Damaser moved, Ms. Cooper seconded approval of the Minor Project with 1 condition:
1) That the applicant mount the sign bracket in the closest mortar joints, relative to
the approved location rather than drilling directly into the east stone façade in order
to preserve the historic fabric of the building.
Vote: Mr. Jewell, yes; Ms. Cooper, yes; Ms. Patt-McDaniel, yes; Mr. Cotter, yes; Ms. Damaser, yes.
[Motion carried 5-0.]
DISCUSSION ITEM
Case #24-012-ADMC - Historic District Code and Guidelines Update – Phase II
Proposal for amendments to the Historic District Zoning Code and amendments to the Historic
District Guidelines.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Holt stated that Max Merritt, McBride Dale Clarion, consultant, is present to assist with the
presentation and provide responses, if needed. Last year, Phase I of a Historic District Code and
Guidelines update was reviewed and recommended by the ARB for City Council for approval. Council
approved that Code update on December 11, 2023. During that Phase I review, the suggestion was
made to increase the types of Administrative Approvals (AAs) and to provide Background Building
guidance in the Code and Guidelines. Staff has pursued those additional changes for a subsequent
Phase 2 update of the Code and Guidelines. Preliminary draft Code and Guidelines language has
been provided to the Board for consideration tonight. This draft language will be revised to
incorporate the Board’s feedback, and the Board will review a revised draft at their July 24 meeting.
The intent is that a final draft will be provided to the Board for adoption at their August meeting.
Ms. Holt stated that at their April 2024 meeting, the Board agreed to expand AAs for certain project
types, and draft Code language, 153.176(N) has been prepared, which provides the following:
• Clarification that the Board may delegate various AAs to the Director.
• A clause that provides criteria for “bumping up” an application for review by the ARB. Either
staff or the applicant may request an application to be “bumped up.”
• A statement that projects not clearly designated for administrative review shall be heard by
the Board.
• Clarifications to existing AA reviews.
• Proposal to add the following AAs:
o Lighting that conforms to the regulations;
o Residential hardscape less than three feet tall;
o Commercial landscapes that conform to the regulations and are not
associated with other requests;
o Single signs that conform to the regulations;
o Background building changes for windows, doors, or roofing;
o Replacement awnings; new awnings require Board review of a Minor
Project;
o Commercial outdoor furniture;
o HVAC/equipment screening that does not materially change the
architecture.
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2024
Page 5 of 8
Also at that April meeting, the Board confirmed Background Building guidance should include
maintaining neighborhood setbacks, roof heights, massing, and similar forms and fenestration to
ensure compatibility, while allowing more flexibility with specific architectural details. The draft Code
includes broad applicability language for Background Buildings, and the Guidelines provide
parameters for Background Buildings adjacent to Landmark Buildings and Background Buildings that
are surrounded by other Background Buildings, specifically:
• Section 3.3 discusses the importance of general design elements, such as height, setbacks,
massing, roof shape, etc., and notes that adjacency to Landmark resources warrants a higher
level of evaluation (supported in Section 3.4).
• Section 4.12 notes that Background Buildings may have additions at the rear or side,
provided the basic factors (height, setbacks, roof form, etc.) are met.
• Section 5.0 clarifies that Background Buildings focus on height, massing, setbacks, etc. as
previously noted.
• Section 6.0 again notes that Section 3.4 is the guiding principal.
Other clarifications have been added, including:
• Adding doors and garage doors into the window section, Code 153.174(D), where these
previously were not mentioned, and clarifying these apply to Landmark Buildings.
• Clarifying that commercial landscapes require a Minor Project (MP) approval.
• Explaining that maintenance, repair, or adjustment of historic walls require a MP approval.
• Clarifying that preliminary and final plats in the Architectural Review District require a
recommendation from ARB prior to going to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) and
City Council.
Ms. Holt stated that Staff also requests the Board to consider the recent Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA) variance requests for 17 and 27 N. Riverview Street. BZA is not generally aware of Historic
Dublin Zoning Code and Guideline requirements that additions cannot be placed in front of historic
houses, and it was challenging for them to weigh the ARB’s stated support for the variances against
the strict interpretation of the Code. It also required the applicant to submit a separate application
and attend the meeting of another review Board. Staff has questioned whether BZA is the right
body for considering ARB variances. Originally, under the Bridge Street District Code and prior to
2021, ARB had sole purview over Historic District variances, and there were no numeric limits to
waivers.
She noted that the following questions have been provided to facilitate the Board’s discussion
tonight:
1) Is the administrative approval language supported by the Board?
2) Are the Background Building discussion points (Code and Guidelines) appropriate?
3) What are the Board’s thoughts about variance review:
a. Should this purview stay with BZA?
b. Consider a two-tier system of numeric waivers, administered by Architectural Review
Board. What would the additional requirements entail?
c. Should ARB waivers not have a cap?
4) Other considerations by the Board.
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2024
Page 6 of 8
Board Questions/Discussion
Ms. Patt-McDaniel inquired if a summary report of the AAs made by staff and the Director is
forwarded to the Board.
Ms. Holt responded affirmatively. Quarterly reports are provided to the Board, and the Board is
invited to share any questions or concerns with staff concerning those AAs.
Ms. Patt-McDaniel inquired if the approvals of those applications are delayed until the Board has
reviewed them.
Ms. Holt responded that they are not delayed. The AAs are provided based on staff’s reviews against
the Code and Guideline requirements. The Board receives the application materials with a cover
memo explaining the reasons for the case’s approval. The Board is encouraged to share any
concerns or comments with staff, albeit after the fact.
Ms. Damaser stated that the Board’s subsequent comments would be for the benefit of future AA
projects rather than to retrofit those already approved.
Ms. Holt stated that the current Code permits 11 AA opportunities. Staff is suggesting an increase
to 19 AA opportunities. If those opportunities were increased, the case reviewed earlier tonight
could have been reviewed and approved administratively. It is easier for all parties, enables the
volume of applications to move more efficiently, and allows the Board to focus on the larger projects.
Mr. Jewell noted that applications concerning awning replacements have been added to the list of
AAs, per an earlier suggestion by Ms. Cooper.
Ms. Cooper stated that she would be supportive of keeping any applications regarding massing with
the Board.
Ms. Holt responded that the item added to AAs would be specifically applications for “replacement”
of existing awnings for residential and commercial buildings and uses that conform to all regulations.
It is presumed existing awnings have already been approved. New awnings would be reviewed by
the Board.
Ms. Damaser stated that clarifying language that the existing awnings must conform to all
regulations is important. An application to replace any non-conforming awning should be reviewed
by the Board, not staff.
The Board had no objection to the proposed increase in AAs from 11 to 19 project types.
Board members reviewed the proposed amendments to the Background Building language in the
Code and Guidelines, which address the height, setbacks, massing, roof shape, fenestration, eaves,
and building overhangs, from the perspective of the buildings on Franklin and S. Riverview Streets
that are now classified as background.
Mr. Cotter inquired if in addition to windows and doors, language has been added to address
replacement of siding materials with like-for-like materials for Background Buildings.
Ms. Holt responded that language has been added to both the draft Code and the Guidelines
addressing the preference for replacing with historic materials, as appropriate. For Landmark
Buildings, the Code requires the use of historic material. Any proposals that would require Code
waivers must be heard by the Board.
Ms. Holt noted that the draft language is a tiered approach. It addresses potential projects on
Franklin Street, where all the buildings are now classified as Background Buildings versus S.
Riverview, where the Background Buildings exist next to Landmark Buildings.
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2024
Page 7 of 8
Mr. Cotter referred to p. 48 of the Guidelines, noting that it is preferable to provide clarity that new
buildings adjacent to Landmark Buildings will be subject to a greater degree of expectations.
Mr. Cotter requested that the Board members provide their views on variance reviews. He watched
the May BZA meeting and recognized that the Board was attempting to understand why an addition
could not be added to the front elevation of the existing building. Because BZA is not familiar with
the Historic District Code, it was a challenge for them.
Ms. Patt-McDaniel requested some background on the variance case heard by BZA.
Ms. Holt described the 17 and 27 N. Riverview Street cases, 2 City properties that were auctioned
and are now being renovated by the new owner. The applicant was requesting a greater building
footprint and lot coverage than permitted by Code. The homes are zoned HR-Historic Residential
and are surrounded on 2 sides by HC-Historic Core, which permits a greater building footprint and
lot coverage. Due to some easement issues, the applicant requested greater square footage than
the ARB is authorized to grant. Consequently, the applicant was required to submit an additional
application for a Code variance from the BZA. In anticipation of that, the ARB expressed support for
the applicant pursuing the variance from BZA. The applicant was granted the variance from the
BZA, but the BZA was not comfortable making the decision without full understanding and
independence. BZA did not believe there was sufficient clarity as to the reason the additional
variance from BZA was necessary in addition to the waiver the applicant had received for the building
footprint and lot coverage from ARB.
Ms. Patt-McDaniel requested clarity concerning the change that staff is proposing.
Ms. Holt responded that, currently, ARB can make waivers of up to 20% of the Code. The change
would require additional steps for obtaining an amount in excess of the Code allowance.
Ms. Damaser stated that the question is whether the next step should be with BZA, as it is now, or
with ARB. She inquired why there was no cap on the waiver amount that ARB could grant prior to
2021.
Ms. Holt responded that she is not aware of the reason the waiver cap was adopted. However, there
was a reason it was implemented, and we do not want to revert the situation to what it was with
the previous Code.
Ms. Damaser stated that she does not believe a 20% waiver should always be granted, only if there
is a substantial reason. Certainly, she does not believe amounts exceeding 20% should be granted
without proving need and justification, but all waivers to the Historic District Code should be granted
only by the ARB, not the BZA. The BZA is not more expert in that particular Code than the ARB.
Ms. Cooper expressed agreement. She served on the BZA for 6 years and can vouch for their
expertise in reviewing the cases; however, the Historic District is a highly specialized area. She is
not convinced a 2-tiered system of numeric waivers is the solution. The extenuating circumstances
(such as location of the house on the lot) associated with 17 and 27 N. Riverview were the reason
a waiver of a greater amount was deemed justified.
[Discussion continued regarding sample criteria for waiver amounts exceeding 20%.]
Mr. Jewell stated that the need to provide justification for a waiver exceeding 20% would not be
dissimilar from the current process for an applicant to submit an application responsive to several
criteria in order to seek permission for demolition from the ARB.
Ms. Patt-McDaniel expressed support for keeping the 20% cap. It should not be greater than 20%,
because of the potentially negative impact on the Historic District. However, for cases of extenuating
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2024
Page 8 of 8
circumstances (staff can provide examples), a request could be submitted for a greater amount.
Staff could guide an applicant to make the request only in those cases where the Board might
consider a larger amount to be justified.
Mr. Jewell stated that he is supportive of retaining the 20% cap, as that cap has worked well for
ARB in the past. He also believes consideration of waivers for greater amounts than 20% should
not be within the purview of BZA.
Mr. Cotter summarized the Board’s consensus to retain the 20% waiver cap. The Board also might
approve amounts greater than 20% (unsure if that should be identified as a waiver or a variance)
if certain criteria are met. There must be clarity as to the reasons granting it might be appropriate.
He inquired if that change could be incorporated into this Phase 2 Code revision.
Ms. Holt responded affirmatively. Draft language will be provided for the Board to consider at their
July 24 meeting.
Mr. Cotter suggested that members forward any additional comments/suggestions to staff for their
preparation for the July meeting. A recommendation of approval to Council is anticipated at the
August ARB meeting.
Ms. Cooper requested a printed copy of the draft Code language for her review.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Holt reminded Board members of the Brown-Harris Cemetery Dedication on Friday, June 28, at
11:00 am. Members of the Brown and Harris families will be present.
Mr. Jewell stated that Board members received an email from City I.T. staff informing them of a
software update necessary for City-issued devices running old software. Board members were
advised to bring their devices to the City Service desk, so they could be updated. I.T. staff did not
indicate how long the update would take.
Ms. Cooper stated that she contacted the I.T. department and was advised that board members
should relocate any documents they wish to retain, as their City devices would be “scrubbed.”
The next regular ARB meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 24, 2024, 6:30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
The vf journed at 7:50 p.m.
a
air, Architectural Review Board
edltthe & ovale
Assistapt Clerk of Council
To: Members of Dublin Architectural Review Board
From: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Community Planning & Development
Date: April 17, 2024
Initiated By:
Sarah Tresouthick Holt, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner
Re: Historic District Code and Guidelines Updates, Case 2 4-012ADMC
Summary
The Historic District Code updates, Phase 1, were adopt ed in December 2023 with the goals to
change nomenclature of “Contributing/Non-contributing” to “Landmark/Background” and to confirm
an Era of Significance, which was determined to be 1830-1920. As a part of those goals, additional
significant buildings were added to the Historic District Map to acknowledge those outside the Era
that have architectural value in the District. Likewise, those buildings outside the Era and not
deemed to be architecturally significant were re-classified as Background, resulting in a decrease of
significant buildings District-wide. Specifically, Franklin Street and some of S. Riverview Street were
re-classified as Background. As a part of the Phase 1 activities, public meetings were held to identify
additional areas of concern, which staff slated for this Phase 2 effort, now underway. These Phase 2
amendments include the opportunity to allow for additional administrative approvals, address any
additional scriveners’ errors, and provide additional clarifications about how Background buildings
should be reviewed.
Background
Public meetings during the Phase 1 process were held for District residents and property owners on
May 20, 2023, Sept 13, 2023, and Oct 11, 2023 , and series of items were identified as opportunities
for improvement regarding the speed and predictability for reviews in the District . An overview was
also provided to the Architectural Review Board in September 2023 and the Board provided initial
direction on possible improvements and modifications with the Phase 2 amendments. Additionally
staff has identified a number of items as part of their review and use of the Code and Guidelines.
The following includes a summary of the items raised and a recommended approach to address
them with the Phase 2 amendments.
Background building compatibility language within the Code and/or Guidelines based on the
new nomenclature and the identified Era of Significance.
o There is a public desire to review these buildings with much less focus on
architectural details; staff wants to ensure that compatible scale, massing, and site
design features are maintained.
o Initial discussions with the Board indicated support for Background-related projects
that do no t include an increase in volume, footprint, or height to be approved by
staff. The Board is requested to confirm this approach.
Community Planning and Development
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4600 • Fax: 614-410-4495 Memo
Memo re. Historic District Code/Guidelines Update Phase 2
April 17, 2024
Page 2 of 3
o Staff envisions a new section within Chapter 4 of the Guidelines to address
Background buildings related to scale, massing, and guidance for additions. The
Board is asked to comment on this approach.
Expansion of the Administrative Approvals (AA) (see attachment for current C ode language )
to help streamline processing and avoid overloading the Board’s agendas. Staff has noted a
dramatic increase in AAs over the p ast years: 10 in 2022, 9 in 2023, and 8 for the first third
of 2024, equating to a potential total of 32 for the year , and we want to encourage this
expeditious approach to processing where appropriate. These are presented to the Board
each quarter so that the Board can monitor AA activities and ensure transparency and trust
in staff’s approvals. The following is the suggested list for Background and Landmark AAs
including Appendix G, for consideration:
o Modifications to Background buildings where no building volume/footprint increase is
requested (materials replacement, reconstruction of decks, window replacements),
with appeals to the Board
o Single sign approvals that meet Code criteria for Background and Landmark buildings
o Residential hardscape features less than 3 feet tall (patios, low walls) for Background
and Landmark buildings
o Installation of awnings (residential and commercial) for Background and Landmark
buildings
o Lighting for residential and commercial projects, Background and Landmark
o Commercial ex terior furniture for Background and Landmark, and
o HVAC and trash screening for Background and Landmark.
Consideration of an opportunity to extend the timeframe for FDP approvals.
o Suggested is an additional one year to allow larger projects ample time to obtain
financing, develop construction drawings, and work through the permitting process .
o If the Board is interested in this option, would the Board wish to review such
requests, or could they be done administratively?
Address remaining scriveners’ errors.
Additional District Support
Since the adoption of the Phase 1 Code Update, staff has undertaken the following steps to improve
District communication and outreach:
Created a dedicated webpage on the City’s website for “all things Historic District”.
Held office hours in the D istrict for four months:
o December 23 had over two dozen attendees (COhatch)
o January 24 had 5 attendees (COhatch)
o February had no attendees (Chamber)
o March had 1 attendee (Chamber)
o Based on declining numbers, staff will hold office hours once per calendar quarter.
The next office hours will be o n June 26th at COhatch.
Engaged Greg Dale from McBride Dale Clarion as consultant for Phase 2.
Next Steps
Following the Board’s feedback on the proposed direction for the Phase 2 amendments, St aff and
the consultant will prepare draft language for the Code and Guidelines for review and
Memo re. Historic District Code/Guidelines Update Phase 2
April 17, 2024
Page 3 of 3
recommendation. Staff anticipates these proposed amendments would return to the Board at their
June meeting.
Recommendations
Staff recommends the ARB review th is memo and confirm the scope of the Phase 2 Code
Amendments with the following questions as a guide for the discussion .
Discussion Questions
1) Does the Board agree with delegating authority to staff to approval certain MPRs for
Background buildings?
2) Does the Board support the expansion of AAs as listed above? Are there other items to
in clude?
3) Does the Board support minor edits to both the Code and Guidelines that place more
emphasis on scale and context for Background buildings and less emphasis on the
architectural details appropriate for Landmark buildings?
4) Does the Board support the potential to grant a one-year extension for previously -approved
FDPs, and if so, should the Board have this responsibility or sta ff?
5) Other considerations by the Board.
Architectural Review Board
Special Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2024
Page 2 of 9
materials refers to the use of a non-traditional, synthetic material in place of an original
material or modern materials used on new construction.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Singh stated that this is a request for adoption of the Alternative Materials document, which
will serve as a resource for Historic District and Appendix G properties. The project was initiated in
2021 in conjunction with a resource for Pre-approved Paint Colors. Later, a separate document was
compiled for Alternative Materials. The Alternative Materials project goal is to provide owners, staff,
and the Board with more specific guidance for the use of non-traditional, modern construction
materials within the Historic District. Staff presented a draft at the February ARB meeting and
requested the Board's comments and feedback prior to its adoption. The Board reviewed this
document last year on August 23, September 27 and December 13, and this year on February 21,
2024, and a final draft was presented at the Board’s March 27 meeting. All previous comments,
plus formatting changes, have been included. Based on the Board’s reviews and feedback, the
document is now a concise document including only alternative materials that have been approved
in the past by the ARB via waivers. [A detailed description of the document contents was provided.]
The document will be updated annually, incorporating any additional alternative material approved
via waiver by the ARB. Staff recommends the Board adopt the document to serve as a learning
resource for Historic District and Appendix G properties. Once adopted, the document will be posted
as a resource on the City’s Historic District webpage.
Public Comments
There were no public comments related to this case.
Board Questions
Ms. Cooper suggested minor typographical changes, including verbiage regarding building materials
once approved, but no longer recommended for approval.
Discussion continued regarding the proposed language.
A majority of the Board determined that if the material has been approved in the past, it would
continue to be listed; however, no future waivers for use of the material would be approved.
Mr. Damaser moved, Ms. Cooper seconded approval of the Alternative Materials Document with the
minor typographical corrections as noted.
Vote: Mr. Cotter, yes; Ms. Cooper, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Mr. Jewell, yes; Ms. Damaser, yes.
[Motion carried 5-0]
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Case 24-012ADMC HD Code & Guidelines Update - Phase II, Administrative
Request – Code Amendment
Proposal for Amendments to the Historic District Zoning Code and Amendments to the Historic
District Guidelines.
Staff Presentation
Architectural Review Board
Special Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2024
Page 3 of 9
Ms. Holt stated information was provided in the meeting packet for proposed amendments
concerning Background Buildings, expansion of Administrative Approvals and Extension of Final
Development Plan timeframes.
Background Buildings:
There is a public desire to review these buildings with much less focus on architectural details; staff
wants to ensure that compatible scale, massing, and site design features are maintained. Initial
discussions with the Board indicated support for Background Building projects that do not include
an increase in volume, footprint, or height to be approved by staff. Staff suggests a new section
within Chapter 4 of the Guidelines to address Background buildings related to scale, massing, and
guidance for additions.
Expansion of Administrative Approvals (AAs):
There has been a significant increase in AAs over the past years. A list of administratively approved
cases are presented to the Board each quarter enabling the Board to monitor AA activities and
ensure transparency and trust in the process. Staff suggests the following type of applications also
be administratively approved:
• Modifications to Background buildings where no building volume/footprint increase is
requested (materials replacement, reconstruction of decks, window replacements), with
appeals to the Board;
• Single sign approvals that meet Code criteria for Background and Landmark buildings;
• Residential hardscape features less than 3 feet tall (patios, low walls) for Background and
Landmark buildings;
• Installation of awnings (residential and commercial) for Background and Landmark buildings
• Lighting for residential and commercial projects, Background and Landmark buildings;
• Commercial exterior furniture for Background and Landmark buildings; and
• HVAC and trash screening for Background and Landmark buildings.
Extension of Final Development Plan Timeframes:
Staff suggests the opportunity for a time extension of one year for larger projects. If the Board has
no objection to this option, would the Board prefer to review these applications, or would they
prefer that they be handled administratively?
Ms. Holt noted that questions have been provided to guide the Board’s discussion on the proposed
amendments. In the next several weeks, additional feedback will be requested from the Board with
the intent of providing a draft document to the Board in June for a recommendation of approval by
PZC to City Council.
Board Questions
Mr. Alexander inquired if staff is also administratively approving paint color applications in the
District.
Ms. Holt responded that staff is reviewing and approving applications using colors from the list of
pre-approved colors. Recently categorized Background buildings could be considered
administratively, regardless of color.
Architectural Review Board
Special Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2024
Page 4 of 9
Mr. Alexander inquired if the proposed administrative approval of landscape would include
pavement.
Ms. Holt responded that residential landscape projects, hardscape only (not plants), would be
administratively approved. These would be structures that do not extend above ground more than
three feet, such as outdoor kitchens or pergolas. Currently, staff reviews commercial landscape
projects but believes they should be reviewed by the ARB.
Greg Dale, FAICP, McBride Dale Clarion, stated that following the Board’s guidance, his firm would
be making the changes for a final draft of the Code and Guidelines amendments.
Board Questions/Discussion
Mr. Dale directed the Board’s review to the first two discussion questions:
1) Does the Board agree with delegating authority to staff to approve certain Minor Project
Reviews (MPR) for Background buildings?
2) Does the Board support the expansion of Administrative Approvals (AA) as proposed?
He noted that to clarify question 1, the qualifier would be that the MPR building footprint or volume
is not increased in any way. If it would increase either, the application would need to come before
the ARB. He noted that he facilitated 2 of the public meetings where members of the public and
property owners indicated the desire for the process to be simplified/expedited, and he believes
what is proposed tonight is responsive to those concerns.
Mr. Alexander referred to question #1 and stated that “certain” is very vague. Is the suggestion
that the Board agree with delegating the authority to approve applications administratively, if it
would not change the volume in any way?
Mr. Dale responded affirmatively. If the property owner expands either the footprint or the volume,
or potentially retaining the same footprint and adding additional square footage above – those
items would come before the Board. It would not be approved administratively.
Mr. Cotter inquired if administrative approval authority would be extended to Minor Projects.
Ms. Holt responded that might include siding, window, roof and deck replacements. They would be
cosmetic items or items applied to the existing house.
Mr. Cotter stated that N(2) refers to adjustments up to 10% being approved administratively,
including substitutions, redesigns and fencing. Should all of these items be included under
Administrative Review items?
Ms. Cooper inquired if the applicant has an issue with the Administrative Review decision, is there
an appeal process available for them?
Mr. Dale stated that either staff or the property owner could determine/request that the application
be “bumped up” to the ARB for review.
Board consensus was that they had no objection “to delegating authority to staff to approve certain
Minor Project Reviews (MPR) for Background buildings,” if the word “certain” is replaced with a
more specific term.
Mr. Dale directed members’ attention to Question #2: “Does the Board support the expansion of
Administrative Approvals (AA) as proposed?”
Ms. Cooper indicated that she had no objection to the list of AAs, except for awnings. Awnings
contribute to volume and aesthetics. If it is replacement of existing awnings, she would have no
objection, but new awnings should come before the Board for consideration.
Architectural Review Board
Special Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2024
Page 5 of 9
Ms. Holt noted that awnings are not a permanent installation.
Mr. Jewell stated that if the awnings were not part of a larger project, but limited to installation of
awnings only, he would have no objection.
Ms. Damaser inquired if the Administrative Review would include awnings for commercial buildings.
Ms. Holt responded that it would be for either residential or commercial buildings.
Mr. Dale inquired the Board’s preference.
Ms. Cooper responded that if it is a replacement awning, she has no objection to Administrative
Approval for either commercial or residential. If it is a new awning, she believes the Board should
review the proposal for both residential and commercial awnings.
Board members expressed agreement.
Ms. Cooper stated that she has a similar concern for AA screening of trash receptacles. That also
can impact building footprint, volume and aesthetics, particularly commercial trash receptacles. If
it is replacement of fencing that currently exists, it is not a concern.
Mr. Dale responded that in many communities, not necessarily Historic Districts, the trash enclosure
is a detail determined by staff. Would the Board want staff to have the flexibility to refer projects
considered greater in size or impact to the Board for review? This item could have a “bump up”
provision, based on certain factors, such as changes in materials or locations or additional massing.
Mr. Alexander stated that HVAC screening and screening of dumpsters for commercial projects are
often much taller than three feet; therefore, they are an important component of the architecture.
They cannot be isolated from the buildings themselves and are an important part of the site. He
does not believe those items should be subject to the standards for decision-making in the other
categories.
Mr. Dale concurred; they change the building volume. Perhaps a definition could be added that
where a trash or HVAC enclosure is being modified and would materially change the architecture
of the building, that proposal also could be “bumped up” for ARB review.
Board members expressed agreement.
Mr. Dale inquired if there was member feedback on the opportunity for Final Development Plan
(FDP) extensions.
Ms. Damaser inquired the purpose of the deadline.
Ms. Holt responded that deadlines are a typical part of all development applications. If finances
were to become an issue for the applicant, the project could not remain inactive for years, then be
started several years later. Other jurisdictions often provide extensions for projects on which
progress is being made but not yet completed. Typically, criteria must be met to obtain that
extension.
Mr. Jewell inquired if an extension were to be granted, at what point that extension would end.
Ms. Holt responded there is a question as to how many extensions may be granted.
Mr. Alexander inquired if an FDP extension is granted and the standards for that approval
subsequently change, should the language qualify that the extension would be granted with the
condition that the pertinent Code remains unchanged.
Mr. Dale agreed that the condition for consideration of the extension would be that the Code has
not changed, making it essentially a legal nonconformity. The extension would not be automatic.
The applicant would need to submit the request, and the request would need to be approved.
Appropriate conditions could be considered for that extension. One of them would be that there
have not been changes in the regulations that would cause said project to be treated differently.
Mr. Dale indicated that language would be drafted for the Board’s review.
Architectural Review Board
Special Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2024
Page 6 of 9
Mr. Alexander directed the Board’s attention to Question #3: “Does the Board support minor edits
to both the Code and Guidelines that place more emphasis on scale and context for Background
buildings and less emphasis on the architectural details appropriate for Landmark buildings?”
Mr. Dale stated that many comments from the public were heard about Background buildings. Since
the last Code and Guidelines update, more buildings now are identified as Background buildings
than previously. On Franklin Street, for example, there is now an entire row of Background
buildings. The property owners indicated that they did not want their homes to continue to be
treated as Landmark buildings in regard to required architectural details. They do agree that context
matters, including scale, massing, building orientation and site design. He would recommend that
the Guidelines and Code, if needed, be edited to clarify that when the Board is reviewing a
Background building application, particularly in the context of other Background buildings, that the
Board’s focus will be more on scale, massing and siting and less on the architectural details that
are reviewed with Landmark buildings.
Mr. Alexander stated that being the only design professional on the Board, there is a dilemma with
that. The details cannot be removed from a review of scale. For example, if there is no window trim
or grids, it can completely alter the scale and apparent mass of a structure. He does not believe it
is possible to completely remove the details from consideration and address the scale very well. He
agrees that the details do not need to be the same as they would be on a Landmark building. The
Board has seen some contemporary buildings where having window trim and some traditional
elements was important, although the detail was completely different than for a Landmark building.
The Guidelines should not indicate no trim would be needed, although more flexible language would
be appropriate.
Mr. Dale responded that he believes the key is to form verbiage that clarifies context matters. It
would be discretionary language that permits the Board to say, “In this case, the windows are
important because they affect the sense of scaling context.” This issue was the one most expressed
by the property owners. We are attempting to be responsive to what we heard.
Mr. Alexander stated that the idea is good, but how that is actually incorporated and still ensures
those important items are addressed is important. They still need to be addressed, although
perhaps in a less literal manner.
Mr. Dale stated that what we are contemplating is not unlike how the City reviews planned
developments. PZC looks at architecture with a Planned Unit Development (PUD), but it is with a
different lens than with a Landmark building.
Mr. Cotter stated that it is important to find a way to manage the expectation. The architecture
appearance remains important, but perhaps in a more straightforward manner.
Mr. Jewell stated that the language should clarify that the Board’s review lens is different in terms
of architecture for Background versus Landmark buildings.
Mr. Alexander stated that the Board would need to look at the drafted language and discuss how
the standards would apply. Is the drafted language something with which the Board can work?
Mr. Dale stated that staff was not interested in a Code amendment that could take a year. The
intent is to determine how to micro edit the existing language, perhaps with a new section, or by
editing the language in the purpose or Background statements.
4) Does the Board support the potential to grant a one-year extension for previously
approved FDPs; if so, should the Board have this responsibility or staff?
Architectural Review Board
Special Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2024
Page 7 of 9
Mr. Alexander noted that Item #4 was discussed earlier in the conversation.
Mr. Dale stated that preliminary draft language would be provided to the Board for review before
a final draft is compiled.
Mr. Alexander stated that it needs to be made clear to the property owners that the City’s
regulations are similar to homeowner association (HOA) guidelines. Most Dublin neighborhoods
have HOA guidelines. Historic District homeowners are asked to comply with design standards
similar to the rest of Dublin with their HOA regulations.
Mr. Cotter inquired if Interim Land Use Principles, which currently are used in reviewing Concept
Plans, would be going away when the new Community Plan is adopted.
Ms. Rauch responded that the intent of the Interim Land Use Principles was that they be used for
the development process during the gap between the existing Community Plan and the adoption
of the new Community Plan. Many of those principles are being incorporated into the new
Community Plan in a more robust way, and the Interim Land Use Principles will go away.
Public Comment (received via email)
David Venne, 56 S. Riverview Street, Dublin:
“Good evening, Board members. I am a resident of the Historic District. I have suggestions and
questions concerning the Historic District Code and Guidelines Update. First, I recommend that gas
lamps be prohibited for all future use cases for failing to meet the required efficiency standards of
Table 153.173(i), as listed in Section 153.172(j). While visually beautiful, these fixtures are
incredibly inefficient at light production. If Dublin is serious about sustainability, should not be
permitted in any setting, be it commercial or residential. Companies such as American Gas Lamp
Works have developed efficient LED alternatives that replicate the appearance and intensity of gas
mantel lighting for those who desire the aesthetic. Second, I recommend the addition in the Code
covering surveillance devices. Security cameras are a modern ubiquity, but how should they best
be handled in the Historic District? For example, can cameras be prominently installed directly to
the façade of historic structures, such as the three cameras mounted to Dublin Bridge at the river
level of Dublin Springs Park. Do we want to further draw attention to the cameras by posting
warning signs of their usage? Finally, the pre-approved paint color standards are not equitable and
should be revised. The Historic Paint Colors document shows five eras possessing a pre-approved
color list ranging from 53 to 122 color options for one era and seven color options for another era.
It would be welcome to have the color choices for the latter timeframe increased to be more
consistent with the others.”
Mr. Alexander noted that security cameras are not an issue that the Board has the purview to
address. Perhaps the cameras on the bridge were installed by Dublin Police as a public safety
measure.
DISCUSSION ITEM
Envision Dublin Community Plan Update and Historic District Special Area Plan
Architectural Review Board
Special Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2024
Page 9 of 9
Board Questions
Mr. Alexander inquired the reason it was decided that there would be two gateways into the Historic
District. The real boundaries of the District are not very clear.
Ms. Rauch responded that staff has identified that as an item that needs to be further highlighted,
particularly the West Bridge Street gateway.
Mr. Alexander inquired if the multi-modal landscape path through the community is depicted on
any of the drawings.
Ms. Rauch responded that the Signature Trail extends from the West Innovation District, through
the City and to Sawmill Road. Details on the Trail are being developed in a separate study, but it is
a key component of the Community Plan. In the Historic District, the Trail potentially could run
along Indian Run.
Mr. Alexander noted that not many modifications were suggested for the Historic District, as it is
more established.
Ms. Rauch stated that there is a chapter in the Plan that addresses natural resources, and tree
canopy is a significant item. The Signature Trail will capitalize upon that, providing a green ribbon
connection throughout the City.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Holt stated that an ARB project tour is tentatively scheduled for May 15, 2024, which would be
before the new ARB appointee’s first Board meeting on June 26, 2024. She inquired if members
would prefer to reschedule the tour to enable the new ARB appointee to participate.
Consensus of the members was to reschedule the tour to a Fall 2024 date.
Ms. Holt indicated potential fall dates would be forwarded to the members for consideration.
Mr. Cotter inquired if there is a proposed plan for the previous Oscar's building.
Ms. Holt responded that no application has been filed to date.
Mr. Cotter observed that the streetscape there is empty.
The next regular ARB meeting is scheduled for April 24, 2024, 6:30 pm.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Chair/Architectural Review Board
Assistant Clerk of Council
To: Members of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning
Date: November 9, 2023
Initiated By:
Sarah Tresouthick Holt, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner
Re: Historic District Code and Guidelines Updates, Case 23-097ADMC
Summary
At the August 2022 City Council Work Session, staff and our consultant, Greg Dale (McBride Dale
Clarion) presented information to address City Council’s 2022 goal regarding the preservation,
composition, and management of the District. The discussion centered on how District properties
should be addressed from a preservation perspective, specifically on the contributing/non-
contributing terminology and how the demolition criteria applies based on that terminology. City
Council requested additional information regarding the historic inventory and steps to address the
direction provided. A revised map has been prepared which reclassifies the buildings within the
district based on that request.
After initial research, staff brought the discussion to ARB in May and September of 2023. In May,
the Board supported the replacement of the contributing/non-contributing nomenclature and the
subsequent implications for the demolition criteria. The Board was also interested in exploring
additional administrative approval responsibilities for staff.
On September 27, 2023, the Board reviewed and made a recommendation of the draft Code and
Guidelines language (attached) that include the new terminology of “landmark/background” to
replace contributing/non-contributing respectively. Additionally, the Board requested that site
stabilization requirements be included for demolition of background buildings. The Board also
requested that staff review Appendix G to ensure all City-owned properties and cemeteries are
represented, which is also included herein. Additionally, staff clarified that the properties listed on
Appendix G are considered “landmark” and subject to the higher burden of demolition review. Staff
has also taken the opportunity to update related language and address minor scriveners’ errors.
Staff requests the Planning and Zoning Commission review the proposed Code and Guidelines and
make a recommendation to City Council for determination.
Background
City Council’s previous discussion centered on concerns that demolition review criteria are too
onerous based on the contributing/non-contributing designations, and a different approach should
be considered based on staff research. Council also confirmed the remainder of the recently-
adopted Code and Guidelines should be in effect to allow for adequate time to evaluate outcomes,
but did request staff identify additional opportunities for administrative approvals to streamline
processing. That portion of the project is now intended as a second phase, in order to allow the
Planning Division
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4600 • Fax: 614-410-4495 Memo
Memo re. Historic District Code/Guidelines Updates
November 9, 2023
Page 2 of 4
primary goals of contributing/non-contributing terminology and associated demolition requirements
to be addressed most quickly.
The additional research performed by staff results in the attached maps. The NRHP – Dublin High
Street District contains properties constructed between 1833 and 1920, as shown in green. There
are a few properties within that district that were built within the last 50 years and would not be
subject to the higher burden of consideration for demolition (shown in grey). Additionally, the map
indicates the NRHP-individually-listed properties within the Architectural Review District, but
outside the NRHP District, constructed between 1830 and 1901, shown in orange.
Based on the two ranges of dates, staff has determined that an overall time period of 1830-1920
should be the baseline to identify additional properties that ought to have the higher burden of
consideration for demolition. This has resulted in the inclusion of addition properties shown in dark
blue:
• Map ID 2 – 144 W. Bridge Street (1919) – 1919 Building
• Map ID 9 – 41 W. Bridge Street (1890) – commercial
• Map ID 35 – 45 N. High Street (1880) - commercial (Harvest Pizza)
• Map ID 38 – 8-12 E. Bridge Street (1900) – commercial (Domino’s Pizza)
• Map ID 43 – 40 N. High Street (1956) – commercial (Dr. LaPierre’s office)
• Map ID 85 – 45 Short Street (1800) - barn
• Map ID 91 – 138 S. High Street (1860-90) commercial
• Map ID 93 – 25 S. Riverview Street (1900) - residence
• Map ID 95 – 55 S. Riverview Street (1900) - residence
• Map ID 96 – 61 S. Riverview Street (1894) - residence
• Map ID 103 – 137 S. Riverview Street (1890) - residence
• Map ID 116 – 40 E. Bridge Street (1850) - residence
• Map ID 118 – 27 N. Riverview Street (1890) - residence
• Map ID 119 – 37 N. Riverview Street (1890) - residence
• Map ID 120 – 45 N. Riverview Street (1880) - residence
• Map ID 122 – 62 N. Riverview Street (1910) – residence
• Map ID 124 – Dublin Cemetery and Related Structures/Objects (1858) - cemetery
Staff identified properties that are more recent than 1920 yet should be considered for the higher
burden given their context or character in the district (also shown in dark blue):
• Map ID 5 – 38 W. Bridge Street (1965) – Former Post Office
• Map ID 7 – 37 W. Bridge Street (1944) – Former Firehouse
• Map ID 33 – 24 Darby Street (1939) – Modern Male
• Map ID 80 – 155 S. High Street (1926) - residence
• Map ID 86 – 224 Dublin Road (1930) – Former Dr. Karrer Residence
• Map ID 117 – 17 N. Riverview Street (1927) - residence
• Map ID 121 – 53 N. Riverview Street (1932) – residence
Staff has also added the historic cabin reconstruction at the Dublin Arts Center to Appendix G:
• Map ID 21 – DAC Cabin (ca. 1830) - residence
The remaining properties within the Architectural Review District that are not outlined above would
not require the higher burden of consideration for demolition, as shown in grey. Notably, this would
Memo re. Historic District Code/Guidelines Updates
November 9, 2023
Page 3 of 4
include the houses on Franklin Street and S. Riverview Street, east side. Nevertheless, all properties
located within the District would remain under the purview of the ARB, Code, and Guidelines. The
ARB affirmed this map in September.
Additionally, staff recommended the replacement language for the contributing/non-contributing
nomenclature be “landmark” and “background”, respectively, to be used in both the Code and the
Guidelines. This, combined with the reclassifications and additions on the attached maps, would
result in the directed changes related to demolition criteria. “Landmark” is already a term used by
the City’s Code, with the definition “Any property or site which has special character, archaeological,
historical, aesthetic or architectural value as part of the heritage, development or cultural
characteristics of the city, state, or the United States designated as a landmark pursuant to the
provision of this chapter, and including all property located in the city listed on the National Register
of Historic Places”. An expansion of that definition includes the pertinent language from the
previous “contributing” definition as shown in the attached, proposed Code updates. The ARB
affirmed this approach in October as well.
In order to legally tie the new nomenclature and status to the Zoning Code and Guidelines, staff
recommends the acceptance of updated maps, which will replace the map in the Historic Design
Guidelines, page 11 for Appendix G, and page 37 for the district. Staff has also simplified the
terminology “building/s, property/ies” in appropriate locations in the Code to “resources”. This
allows an all-encompassing reference to either historic primary structures, historic outbuildings,
objects, and other items, based on the anticipated Future Amendments described below. Minor
scriveners’ errors are also addressed.
Public Engagement
Staff has conducted three opportunities for public engagement regarding the Historic District
generally and the proposed changes specifically. These included background about the current
Code and Guidelines, the review process, and the proposed amendments. The goal of these
sessions has been to ensure continued dialogue with the residents and owners within the District.
On May 20, 2023, staff attended a neighborhood meeting to review City Council’s direction
regarding the contributing/noncontributing language and how that applies to demolition. Staff also
shared background about the existing Code and Guidelines and the changes that have been made
over time to address the development pressures facing the District. Discussion points and
acknowledged challenges were:
• That recent amendments to the Code and Guidelines in 2021 followed a significant public
engagement process and were approved by City Council. Discussion about how these
documents direct actions of both staff and ARB within the District.
• That review process is too rigorous, challenging, and subjective.
• That there is frustration with the level of detail and scrutiny needed to get individual
projects approved and the length of time to gain approval.
• Discussion about what could be built in place of a demolished structure, when demolition of
one of the properties not requiring greater scrutiny occurs.
• Questions about whether properties that don't require greater scrutiny for demolition
should continue to be located within the Historic District.
Memo re. Historic District Code/Guidelines Updates
November 9, 2023
Page 4 of 4
• Concerns about the subjective nature of reviews and a desire for clearer requirements.
Discussion about the eclectic nature of the District and the difficultly of defining a one-size-
fits-all solution.
On September 13, 2023, staff and Greg Dale conducted an informational meeting for all
commercial and residential owners within the Historic District as a follow up to the May meeting.
The meeting included a more detailed overview of: the Code, Guidelines, and review processes;
the City Council-requested modifications regarding demolition and contributing/noncontributing
language; the staff initiatives to address previous concerns and questions by residents; and an
opportunity for attendees to provide feedback. See included presentation for reference. The
following comments were provided:
• General concern about the discretionary nature of the process, especially for buildings that
would not be considered “landmark” (fka contributing)
• Discussion about preservation versus transformation of the District
• Desire for staff to have greater latitude in decision-making
• Concerns about submission and review timelines. Opportunity for the Board to meet more
often
• Concerns that additions and alterations reflect a faux history, instead of a progression of
history
• Discussion about how the Code and Guidelines are applied to buildings that are not
considered under the new landmark designation.
On October 11, 2023, a final public meeting was conducted with staff and Greg Dale to ensure that
all issues had been heard from both residents and business owners within the district. See
attached presentation for reference. Those attending confirmed that modifications should be
considered to streamline the review process, affirmed the comments and concerns raised at the
September meeting, and agreed staff office hours within the district would be beneficial. Staff and
the consultant are reviewing the comments and recommendations.
Future Amendments
Staff has identified the opportunity to address a number of additional minor items and clarifications
with the Code that we will be undertaking as Phase 2. This will allow the Council-directed work to
be completed first, and then staff and the Board may focus on: allowing additional administrative
approvals, addressing any additional scriveners’ errors, and providing additional clarifications
within the Code. The topic of how the Code and the Guidelines would be applied to buildings newly
considered “background” may also be discussed and altered as needed in Phase 2.
As previously noted, staff, with consultant support, is in the process of identifying a number of
historic outbuildings and objects within the District that were not surveyed as part of the 2017
Historic and Cultural Assessment. The results of this research would also be included in Phase 2,
thus providing greater clarity for the status of these resources, where currently none exists.
Recommendations
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission review the proposed amendments and
make a recommendation of approval to City Council. Staff also welcomes feedback or discussion
about other topics that should be discussed as part of Phase 2.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2023
Page 7 of 16
Case #23-097ADMC - Historic District – Code Update
Proposal for amendments to the Historic District Zoning Code. Request for review and
recommendation of approval to City Council for proposed amendments to the Historic District
Zoning Code.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Rauch stated that she would provide a brief overview. Prior to 2012, the Historic District was
governed by its own set of zoning and guidelines. In 2012, the Historic District was incorporated
into the Bridge Street District (BSD) and the BSD Code. However, that Code permitted building
types, uses and intensity of development that did not align with the historic character of the Historic
District. Concerns were raised regarding how the BSD Code was applied to the Historic District.
Consequently, amendments were made in 2017 based on the Historic and Cultural Assessment.
That assessment evaluated the City’s inventory of historic and cultural assets and identified them
as contributing or not contributing. The 2017 amendment to the BSD Code created a Historic South
District within the BSD District. This district provided for reduced building heights and attempted
to address development patterns that were of concern. Concerns continued and in 2021, the
Historic District was removed from the Bridge Street Code. The Historic District was reverted to the
pre-2012 status of having its own Code and Guidelines, which focus on the preservation of historic
resources and permit infill and redevelopment cohesive to the character of the district. The Historic
District includes an Architecture Review boundary. Within the Historic District, there is a National
Register District. Those specific properties are identified in Appendix F in the Code. Appendix G in
the Code includes properties that are under the Architectural Review Board’s (ARB) purview but
outside the Historic District.
The Historic District Code, used in tandem with the Historic District Guidelines, includes objective
standards, uses, site development requirements, signs and review processes that apply to all the
properties in the Historic District and properties identified in Appendix G. The amendment under
consideration tonight focuses on the demolition criteria. Under the current Code, if a building is
considered contributing, the property owner must demonstrate economic hardship with a request
to demolish. That is a difficult requirement to meet. With non-contributing properties, the burden
of proof for a demolition requirement is less; it is essential to meet one of three criteria. The
Guidelines provide supplemental guidance to the Code; they are more discretionary in nature with
the intent of protecting the character in the District. Not every property and structure is treated
the same as this is an eclectic district. The goal is to have a rehabilitation and preservation focus
for original and historic buildings and compatibility for new buildings and additions. The Guidelines
provide the contextual guidance versus the Code’s objective standards. City Council requested
staff to look at how demolition requests are addressed within the Historic District and to evaluate
which properties are truly historic in nature within the District, and finally how the Code and
Guidelines are applied to demolition requests. Tonight’s review will focus on how demolition
requests are handled and how the review criteria is applied and to which buildings within in the
Historic District. The demolition section of the Code has been revised to refer to the buildings that
were previously identified as contributing and non-contributing as landmark and background
buildings. With this amendment, all requests for demolition still must be reviewed by the ARB;
however, more structures have been identified as background, so would not be required to meet
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2023
Page 8 of 16
the higher burden that is required for landmark buildings. Phase 2 of this overall review will look
at administrative approvals with the intent of expediting the application review process.
Ms. Rauch displayed a map of the Historic District that identified each property as landmark or
background by color. The NRHP (National Register Historic Places) – Dublin High Street District
contains properties constructed between 1833 and 1920, as shown in green. There are a few
properties within that district that were built within the last 50 years and would not be subject to
the higher burden of consideration for demolition (shown in grey). Additionally, the map indicates
the properties within the Architectural Review District, but outside the NRHP District, constructed
between 1830 and 1901 (shown in orange). Based on the two ranges of dates, staff has
determined that an overall time period of 1830-1920 should be the baseline to identify additional
properties that ought to have the higher burden of consideration for demolition. On September
27, 2023, the ARB reviewed the draft Code and Guidelines language, requested some minor
modifications and requested that site stabilization requirements be included for demolition of
background buildings. The Board also requested that staff review Appendix G to ensure all City-
owned properties and cemeteries are represented. Those properties as well as the Dublin Arts
Council historic log cabin (ca. 1830) reconstruction have been added to Appendix G. She noted
that the properties listed on Appendix G are considered “landmark” and subject to the higher
burden of demolition review. The modifications requested by ARB at their final review are reflected
in the draft provided for PZC review tonight. Staff recommends the PZC review the proposed
amendments and make a recommendation of approval to City Council.
Commission Questions
Mr. Fishman inquired if this document would be provided to people purchasing property within the
Historic District. Perhaps it could be attached to the deed. Buyers should know at the outset what
the requirements are in the Historic District.
Ms. Rauch responded that the documents are not attached to the property documents, although
the buyer is aware that the prospective property is located in the Historic District. New property
owners in the district receive information about the City, including a copy of the annual mailing
that goes to Historic District property owners regarding the requirements in the Historic District.
The City attempts to provide sufficient communications to make the property owners and residents
aware of the property requirements and responsibilities.
Mr. Fishman responded that he is aware of those efforts, but his concern and question is regarding
the information that is provided to a prospective buyer before they purchase property in the
District.
Mr. Supelak noted that the information has been provided in some areas by title companies.
Ms. Call requested the Assistant Law Director to comment on the City’s ability related to this issue.
Mr. Boggs responded that the Historic District Code governed and enforced by the City of Dublin
is a zoning code, which does not appear in the chain of title for a property. The document is
regulatory and subject to change by the City of Dublin. The City does not have any legal
responsibility to affirmatively inform people moving into the Historic District that there are any
special obligations that will apply to them. It is the responsibility of the property owner to acquire
that knowledge. However, the City does make an effort to publicize the information.
Mr. Fishman stated that if it is not appropriate to provide this document with the deed, it would
be beneficial to include it with the closing documents. He is aware that when a person purchases
a property in Muirfield, a separate packet of information is provided with the deed that provides
all the obligations of a property owner in Muirfield.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2023
Page 9 of 16
Mr. Boggs responded that it may be a function of the Muirfield Homeowners Association. Per
Ohio’s Planned Communities Law, homeowner associations are part of the chain of title. Because
the Historic District (HD) is a straight zoning district, there is no associated homeowner association.
In the past, the City has encouraged realtors to provide the information needed to investigate the
zoning of the prospective property purchase. The City cannot require them to do so.
Ms. Rauch stated that the information is readily available if it is sought.
Ms. Call stated that every person selling a house must fill out a seller’s disclosure. That is the
method by which the seller should communicate any particular property restrictions to the
potential buyer.
Mr. Supelak stated that there are four different property distinctions within this document, one of
which is properties on the National Historic Register, which would relate to the Department of the
Interior. Does that Department have a different mechanism that would address this question?
Mr. Boggs responded that he is not aware if that Department requires that the owner of a property
on the National Historic Register include such a memorandum with the chain of title.
Ms. Harter inquired if stonewalls are background or landmark structures.
Ms. Rauch responded that in the Historic and Cultural Assessment from 2017, stonewalls were
specially identified. The City has an inventory of those walls along with their approximate date of
structure. The ARB reviews any requests to demolish or alter the stonewalls. The City’s goal is to
retain them. There were other elements in the 2017 assessment that were not part of the current
review, such as outbuildings. Phase 2 of the Historic District review will look at the outbuildings
and perhaps the stonewalls, as well.
Public Comment
Lyndy Lyon, 143 S. Riverview Street, Dublin thanked Mr. Fishman for asking the question about
making prospective HD homebuyers aware of the HD requirements. The property they recently
purchased will now be designated as a background property. At the time of their purchase, they
had no reason to anticipate that structure would be treated as a historic property as it had no
historical integrity. They endured a two-year process before gaining approval to demolish and
construct a house in the Historic District. They have lived in their home now for six years, but the
process would have been much easier if the change that is proposed had occurred earlier. She
appreciates Mr. Fishman’s comments about the need to protect homebuyers from a situation such
as they experienced.
No additional public comments were received.
Commission Discussion
Mr. Fishman reiterated his request that the document be provided to new homebuyers in the
District before they close on the purchase.
Ms. Call suggested that staff bring forward the Board’s concern to City Council for consideration,
indicating that if there is an appropriate way to notify homebuyers, the Board would encourage
that to be pursued.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2023
Page 10 of 16
Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Fishman seconded a recommendation for Council approval of the Historic
District Code Amendment
Vote: Mr. Chinnock, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes.
[Motion carried 5-0]
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Solar Implementation Update
Staff Presentation
Ms. Noble stated on June 12, 2023, City Council adopted Ordinance 70-22, a Code amendment to
regulate renewable energy equipment installation on both residential and commercial properties. Ms.
Noble reviewed the evolvement of the Code language during preceding public meeting reviews before
adoption of the current language. Since the passage of the ordinance, the City has received 25
applications for the installation of solar panels for residential properties and one application for a
non-residential property. Planning and Building Standards staff are working collaboratively to review
applications and ensure compliance with the adopted regulations, primarily focused on location and
aesthetic requirements. Prior to the Code modifications, the City of Dublin did not have language that
specifically regulated solar panels. Before Code language was adopted by City Council, Planning
utilized the Accessory Structures section of the Code. That Code section required solar panels to be
installed on the side and rear of a structure; they were not permitted on the front of a structure.
There were no aesthetic requirements. To encourage the installation of solar panels, the recent Code
amendment allows solar panels to be located on any façade of residential or non-residential
properties. Due to aesthetic concerns, the adopted Code includes requirements to ensure the panels
appear as integrated into the structure as possible. After several months of reviewing permit
applications, it has been identified that the aesthetic requirements of the Code limit the ability for
solar to be approved and as a result, more permits are being denied now than under the previous
Code. The issue is due to the following two Code sections:
1. Section 153.074(E)(1)(c)(5). For pitched roofs, roof-mounted equipment shall be installed in
a rectangular shape to avoid complex and non-symmetrical configurations.
2. Section 153.074(E)(1)(c)(5). For pitched roofs, roof-mounted equipment shall be a color
that is similar to the roof color.
Ms. Noble added that installers have pointed out that roof vents or roof configuration impact ability
to meet the rectangular shape requirement. For the “similar in color” requirement, only a small
percentage of home roofs are dark in color. Five of the seven permits approved since the Code
adoption were approved because the entire roof was replaced, which provided flexibility to adjust
the roof color. Many of the applications disapproved were because the existing roofs were lighter in
color. Ms. Noble described the review process considerations. S he noted that staff has looked at ways
in which to add more predictability to the review process. To accommodate the color requirement,
staff has researched the opportunity for use of solar skins. Per industry leaders, there are some
concerns with the longevity of the skins. Most of the solar installation applications approved recently
were for roofs of a dark color. For tonight’s discussion, the following questions are provided for
Commission feedback concerning implementation of the “similar in color” Code requirement:
1. Is the updated Code language improving the aesthetic appearance of solar panels and
thus meeting the intent?
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — November 9, 2023
Page 16 of 16
Ms. Call stated that one of the elements she noticed was the importance of the public realms. A 5-
foot difference in setback significantly impacts how individuals in the public realm interact with a
property. The street grid is also important. Dublin has done a good job with the spoke and wheel
street layout in its neighborhoods, which creates a different interplay with the lots. In regard to
both residential and commercial developments, she believes it is important for the Commission to
focus more on the items within its purview, such as building materials. The tour revealed some
sites in which the building materials were not holding up well. In the past, Dublin has focused on
having high-quality materials, and the Commission should continue to ensure that.
Mr. Chinnock inquired at what point in the process the street grid is addressed.
Ms. Call stated that it is addressed with the Preliminary Development Plan and Plat.
Mr. Chinnock stated that he likes the real wood look, but there may be some wood-like materials
that are more sustainable than wood. Perhaps the Commission should begin to consider some of
the wood-like products on the market.
Ms. Call stated that perhaps there would be value in trying a wood-like material on a City structure
and evaluating how the material weathers.
Mr. Chinnock stated that in viewing a couple of the developments it was apparent that adding
mounding for developments adjacent to streets blocks the views of cars and creates a better view.
The Commission discussed potential opportunities regarding building materials.
e 2024 PZC Meeting Schedule
The Commission reviewed the meeting schedule revisions that had been made per the
Commission’s direction at its previous meeting.
Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Fishman seconded approval of the 2024 PZC Meeting Schedule.
Vote: Mr. Chinnock, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes.
[Motion carried 5-0]
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m.
\ chair, Planning and Zoning Commission
Qud th KX Bipl
Assistafiy Clerk of Council
To: Members of Dublin Architectural Review Board
From: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning
Date: September 27, 2023
Initiated By:
Sarah Tresouthick Holt, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner
Re: Historic District Code and Guidelines Updates, Case 23-097ADMC
Summary
At the August 2022 City Council Work Session, staff and our consultant, Greg Dale (McBride Dale
Clarion) presented information to address City Council’s 2022 goal regarding the preservation,
composition, and management of the District. The discussion centered on how District properties
should be addressed from a preservation perspective, specifically on the contributing and non-
contributing terminology and how the demolition criteria applies based on that terminology. City
Council requested additional information regarding the historic inventory and steps to address the
direction provided.
After initial research, staff brought the discussion to ARB in May of 2023. At that time, the Board
supported the replacement of the contributing/non-contributing nomenclature and the subsequent
implications for the demolition criteria. The Board was also interested in exploring additional
administrative approval responsibilities for staff. With City Council’s and the Board’s confirmation,
staff has prepared the proposed Code and Guideline updates, along with a supporting map, for
review and recommendation.
Background
City Council’s previous discussion centered on concerns that demolition review criteria are too
onerous based on the contributing/non-contributing designations, and a different approach should
be considered based on staff research. Council also confirmed the remainder of the recently-
adopted Code and Guidelines should remain in effect to allow for adequate time to evaluate
outcomes, but did request staff identify additional opportunities for administrative approvals to
streamline the process. That portion of the project is now intended as a second phase, in order for
the primary goal of contributing/non-contributing terminology and associated demolition
requirements to be addressed most quickly.
The additional research performed by staff results in the attached map. The NRHP – Dublin High
Street District contains properties constructed between 1833-1920 (shown in green). There are a
few properties within that district that were built within the last 50 years and would not be subject
to the higher burden of consideration for demolition (shown in grey). Additionally, the map
indicates the NRHP-individually-listed properties within the Architectural Review District, but
outside the NRHP District, constructed between 1830-1901 (shown in orange).
Based on the two ranges of dates, staff has determined that an overall time period of 1830-1920
should be the baseline to identify additional properties that ought to have the higher burden of
Planning Division
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4600 • Fax: 614-410-4495 Memo
Memo re. Historic District Code/Guidelines Updates
September 27, 2023
Page 2 of 4
consideration for demolition. This resulted in the inclusion of addition properties (shown in dark
blue):
Map ID 2 – 144 W. Bridge Street (1919) – 1919 Building
Map ID 9 – 41 W. Bridge Street (1890) – commercial
Map ID 35 – 45 N. High Street (1880) - commercial (Harvest Pizza)
Map ID 38 – 8-12 E. Bridge Street (1900) – commercial (Domino’s Pizza)
Map ID 43 – 40 N. High Street (1956) – commercial (Dr. LaPierre’s office)
Map ID 85 – 45 Short Street (1800) - barn
Map ID 91 – 138 S. High Street (1860-90) commercial
Map ID 93 – 25 S. Riverview Street (1900) - residence
Map ID 95 – 55 S. Riverview Street (1900) - residence
Map ID 96 – 61 S. Riverview Street (1894) - residence
Map ID 103 – 137 S. Riverview Street (1890) - residence
Map ID 116 – 40 E. Bridge Street (1850) - residence
Map ID 118 – 27 N. Riverview Street (1890) - residence
Map ID 119 – 37 N. Riverview Street (1890) - residence
Map ID 120 – 45 N. Riverview Street (1880) - residence
Map ID 122 – 62 N. Riverview Street (1910) - residence
Staff also identified properties that are more recent than 1920 yet should be considered for the
higher burden given their context or character in the district (also shown in dark blue):
Map ID 5 – 38 W. Bridge Street (1965) – Former Post Office
Map ID 7 – 37 W. Bridge Street (1944) – Former Firehouse
Map ID 33 – 24 Darby Street (1939) – Modern Male
Map ID 80 – 155 S. High Street (1926) - residence
Map ID 86 – 224 Dublin Road (1930) – Former Dr. Karrer Residence
Map ID 117 – 17 N. Riverview Street (1927) - residence
Map ID 121 – 53 N. Riverview Street (1932) – residence
The remaining properties within the Architectural Review District that are not outlined above would
not require the higher burden of consideration for demolition (all shown in grey). Notably, this
would include the houses on Franklin Street and S. Riverview Street (east side). Nevertheless, all
properties located within the District would remain under the purview of the ARB, Code, and
Guidelines.
Staff recommends the replacement of the “contributing” and “non-contributing” nomenclature be
“landmark” and “background”, respectively, to be used in both the Code and the Guidelines. This,
combined with the reclassification on the attached map, would result in the directed changes related
to demolition criteria. “Landmark” is already a term used by the City’s Code, with the definition Any
property or site which has special character, archaeological, historical, aesthetic or architectural
value as part of the heritage, development or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or the United
States designated as a landmark pursuant to the provision of this chapter, and including all property
located in the city listed on the National Register of Historic Places. An expansion of that definition
includes the pertinent language from the previous “contributing” definition as shown in the
attached, proposed Code updates.
In order to legally tie the new nomenclature to the Zoning Code and Guidelines, staff recommends
Memo re. Historic District Code/Guidelines Updates
September 27, 2023
Page 3 of 4
the acceptance of an updated map within the Historic Design Guidelines that outlines the property
status as identified above. Modifications to the appropriate language are included in the draft
documents.
Public Engagement
Staff has conducted two opportunities for public engagement regarding the Historic District, which
included background about the current Code and Guidelines, the review process and the proposed
amendments. The goal of these sessions have been to ensure continued dialogue with the
residents and owners within the District.
On May 20, 2023, staff attended a neighborhood meeting to review City Council’s direction
regarding the contributing/noncontributing language and how that applies to demolition. Staff also
shared background about the existing Code and Guidelines and the changes that have been made
over time to address the development pressures facing the District. A summary of the main
discussion points and challenges are outlined below.
Discussion about the recent amendments to the Code and Guidelines in 2021 that followed
a significant public engagement process and approved by City Council. Discussion about
how these documents are what staff and ARB are charged with upholding in the District.
Concerns that the review process is too rigorous, challenging and subjective.
Frustration with the level of detail and scrutiny needed to get individual projects approved
and the length of time to gain approval.
Discussion about what could be built in place of a demolished structure, when demolition of
one of the properties not requiring greater scrutiny occurs.
Questions about whether properties that don't require greater scrutiny for demolition
should continue to be located within the Historic District.
Concerns about the subjective nature of reviews and a desire for clearer requirements.
Discussion about the eclectic nature of the District and the difficultly of defining a one-size-
fits-all solution.
On September 13, 2023, staff and Greg Dale conducted an informational meeting for all
commercial and residential owners within the Historic District as a follow up to the May meeting.
The meeting included a more detailed overview of the Code and Guidelines and review processes,
an overview of the City Council-requested modifications regarding demolition and
contributing/noncontributing language, an overview of the initiatives staff is taking to address
previous concerns and questions by residents, and an opportunity for attendees to provide
feedback. (See included presentation for reference). The following comments were provided:
General concern about the discretionary nature of the process, especially for buildings that
would not be considered “landmark” (fka contributing)
Discussion about preservation versus transformation of the District
Desire for staff to have greater latitude in decision-making
Concerns about submission and review timelines. Opportunity for the Board to meet more
often
Concerns that additions and alterations reflect a faux history, instead of a progression of
history
Discussion about how the Code and Guidelines are applied to buildings that are not
considered under the new landmark designation.
Memo re. Historic District Code/Guidelines Updates
September 27, 2023
Page 4 of 4
A follow-up public meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2023 at COhatch to allow for additional
discussion regarding these topics and opportunities to continue to improve the process.
Future Amendments
Staff has identified the opportunity to address a number of additional minor items and clarifications
with the Code and Guidelines that will be undertaking as Phase 2. This will allow the Council-
directed work to be completed and then staff and the Board to focus on these additional items,
which would include allowing additional administrative approvals, addressing scriveners’ errors,
and providing additional clarifications within the Code and Guidelines. As part of the public
engagement discussions the topic of how the Code and the Guidelines would be applied to
buildings considered “background” could also be discussed and altered as needed as part of Phase
2. Additionally, staff with consultant support is in the process of identifying a number of historic
outbuildings and objects within the District that were not surveyed as part of the Historic and
Cultural Assessment. The results of this research would also be included as part of Phase 2.
Recommendations
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board review the proposed amendments and make a
recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff also welcomes
feedback or discussion about other topics that should be discussed as part of Phase 2.
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2023
Page 3 of 13
Public Comments
No public comments on the case were offered.
Mr. Jewell moved, Ms. Cooper seconded approval of the Minor Project with no conditions.
Vote: Ms. Damaser, yes; Mr. Jewell, yes; Ms. Cooper, yes; Mr. Garvin, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes.
[Motion passed 5-0.]
Case 23-097: Historic Dublin Code and Guidelines Update, Administrative
Request
Mr. Alexander stated that this application is a proposal for amendments to the Historic District
Zoning Code and Guidelines, including portions of Code Sections 153.002, 153.175, and 153.176,
and Guideline Chapters 2-4. This will address Council’s 2022 goal regarding the preservation,
composition, and management of the District, the contributing and non-contributing terminology,
and the demolition criteria applicability to that terminology.
Staff Report
Ms. Rauch stated that the proposed amendment was initially provided to ARB in May 2023, and at
that time, the Board supported the replacement of the contributing/non-contributing nomenclature
and the subsequent implications for the demolition criteria. Revisions have been made based on
Council and the Board’s recommendation, and tonight, a final draft Code and Guidelines are
provided for the Board’s consideration. From an applicability standpoint, the City’s existing Historic
Dublin Code includes all properties in the Historic District and those in Appendix G. The Code’s
review process section addresses demolition. The 2021 amendment differentiated how the
demolition criteria would be applied, based on whether the building was identified as contributing
or non-contributing in the City’s Historic and Cultural Assessment completed in 2019. A contributing
building has a higher burden of demolition criteria to meet than a non-contributing building. The
Guidelines supplement the Code and are more discretionary as they relate to the character and the
neighborhood context. The primary goals for the Guidelines are to look at the rehabilitation and
preservation of original and historic buildings, and to look at the compatibility and appropriateness
of new buildings. Council gave this direction in 2022. At an A pril 2022 Council work session, Council
asked staff to conduct additional inventory research, and in August 2022, staff provided a detailed
inventory of every property within the District along with a photo and the construction time. Based
on that information, Council asked staff to determine what the review process should be for
preservation and demolition, and any Code amendments that would be necessary. There was not
a comfort level with the existing contributing and non-contributing designations. In a May 2023
work session, that information was further refined. Ms. Rauch s tated that within the Historic District,
there is a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) District. All of the properties within that
district, with the exception of those built within the City’s more recent history, are designated as
landmark buildings. An inventory map has been provided in the meeting material, [map shown]
which indicates the properties within that district, color coded by time period. The NRHP – Dublin
High Street District contains properties constructed between 1833-1920, shown in green; a few
properties within that district built within the last 50 years that would not be subject to the higher
demolition criteria, shown in grey; and the NRHP-individually-listed properties within the
Architectural Review District, but outside the NRHP District, constructed 1830-1901, shown in
orange. Based on the two ranges of dates, staff has determined that the years 1830-1920 should
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2023
Page 4 of 13
be the baseline to identify additional properties that would be subject to the higher demolition
criteria. There are a couple of buildings shown in blue that are outside that time period but were
included as they are considered iconic buildings. Those buildings are designated as landmark
buildings; the gray buildings are designated as background buildings. Landmark buildings
(previously contributing) will have to adhere to a higher level of demolition criteria; background
buildings (previously non-contributing) will adhere to the lower demolition criteria. Ms. Rauch
stated that public engagement and education meetings have been held, where staff explained the
Code, the Guidelines, ARB’s role and staff’s role. The public expressed concerns about the
lengthiness of the review process and the use of discretion within the process. Also provided for
the Board’s consideration is a revised list of potential administrative review topics. Before the Board
tonight for their review and recommendation are the Revised Code and Guidelines; proposed
terminology revision from contributing/non-contributing to landmark/background buildings, and the
level of demolition review for each; and a proposed list of administrative review topics.
Mr. Alexander stated that it is important to emphasize that if the proposed revisions are adopted,
it would not change the zoning. Any new buildings would still need to meet the current zoning
requirements of the property. The existing Code requirements will not change and the review
process will continue. The proposed Code changes relate only to demolition standards.
Public Comments
[received via email]
David Venne, 56 S. Riverview Street, Dublin:
“The city’s research and determination state that every home located on Franklin Street and the
east side of S. Riverview should not have an elevated standard for consideration for demolition,
thus signaling no historical significance. The city also states that these homes will remain under the
purview of ARB, Code, and Guidelines. I ask that the ARB take steps to adjust the boundaries of
the historic district to accurately reflect the truly historic areas of Dublin. The swaths of gray homes
on Franklin and the east side of S. Riverview represent a historical overreach and an additional
burden the ARB need not carry. The twenty one “background” homes can be responsibly passed
to the City of Dublin to make sure area building standards are upheld allowing the ARB to more
tightly focus on its mission of preserving the historic sites in Dublin.”
Board Questions
Mr. Jewell inquired how this would impact the Appendix G properties.
Ms. Rauch responded that the Appendix G properties were updated with the Code update in 2021.
However, that list of properties can be checked to determine if any modifications are needed before
this item moves forward to PZC for review. The City-owned historic structures were added to the
list.
Mr. Jewell suggested that the reconstructed cabin on the Dublin Arts Council property and a couple
of historic cemeteries probably could be added to Appendix G.
Ms. Rauch responded that those properties would be considered for inclusion.
Mr. Cotter requested clarification of the process for making changes in the District and the need
for waivers going forward.
Ms. Rauch responded that the way it currently exists is that contributing and non-contributing
buildings are in the existing Guidelines, which are used as a reference; with the proposal, that
component would continue to exist within the Guidelines. There is the opportunity for a property
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2023
Page 5 of 13
owner to request that their building be considered a background building, not a landmark building.
A condition of approval with such requests could be that the map and Guidelines be revised to
reflect that change.
Mr. Cotter inquired if ARB would have the authority to make that change.
Ms. Rauch stated that she would need to look at the sequencing, but it would seem to make sense
that if the Board has the authority to approve a landmark building being re-designated as a
background building that ARB also would have the authority to direct the map be revised to reflect
that change.
Mr. Cotter stated that it would not then be a waiver.
Ms. Rauch responded that staff is proposing that the process remain the same. A property owner
could make a waiver request that the building be determined background versus a landmark
building.
Mr. Cotter inquired if that authority would remain with ARB.
Ms. Rauch responded that is how it currently exists and staff recommends that it remain the same.
Mr. Jewell stated that it only makes sense that the map be changed simultaneously with any change
from landmark to background building; otherwise, the map would be outdated.
Ms. Rauch responded that currently, when ARB approves demolition of a property listed in Appendix
G, staff is authorized to change Appendix G to reflect that change.
Mr. Alexander stated that the proposed language is unique, because it is rare in a historic district
for a property owner to be able to demolish a building without knowing what will replace it. If
approved, that would be a significant change in the Code. It would appear that ARB would not need
to see and approve a new design to approve the demolition.
Ms. Rauch responded that if it is a landmark building, it would.
Mr. Alexander stated that, currently, ARB needs to see the design of the replacement structure to
approve the demolition of any buildings, even non-landmark, in this District. The proposed change
is that ARB would need to see design of replacement buildings only for the newly designated
landmark buildings. That is not common in historic districts. As a result, open parcels could exist.
Whether that is a good idea is open for discussion, because it will change the fabric of the
community. There may be open gaps and there is no guarantee how long those open spaces will
exist. Could we require a site restoration plan be provided with the application for demolition?
Some communities without historic districts require that where a lag is anticipated after demolition
that a site restoration plan be provided, so raw earth does not exist. Is that covered in the City’s
general Code perhaps?
Ms. Rauch responded that the City requires that in the Bridge Street District. If that requirement is
not sufficiently clear for this District, it can be clarified. ARB’s review of a demolition request could
require that the interim site condition be provided. From the City’s property maintenance
perspective, the site would need to be graded and seeded.
Mr. Alexander stated that the proposed amendment provides 3 (three) criteria for demolition of
non-landmark buildings, and they only need to meet one of those. It seems that it would be possible
that the structure could have distinct architectural features and characteristics yet meet one of the
other criteria, so would be permitted to be demolished.
Ms. Rauch responded that the only change made was to revise the terminology, but if ARB believes
the applicant should be required to meet more than one criteria , the Board can indicate that change
be made. The Code currently requires that they meet one of the three criteria.
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2023
Page 6 of 13
Mr. Alexander stated that the responsibility of the ARB is to preserve buildings that have
architectural merit and value, so it would seem that part of the Code should be changed. We do
not want to permit the demolition of buildings that have architectural merit or value.
Ms. Rauch responded that is part of the ARB’s purview when it is reviewing various applications. It
may be helpful to look further at the buildings that are considered background buildings. If the
Board believes some of them have architectural significance, then maybe they should be identified
as landmark versus background buildings. That would be another way to approach it.
Mr. Alexander responded that he is not sure of the correct solu tion, but the potential seems contrary
to the purpose of the ARB.
Mr. Jewell stated that he likes the suggestion that a site rest oration plan be required with a request
for demolition. There is an existing property on S. High Street that was partially demolished on the
interior several years ago and is currently an eyesore.
Mr. Cotter inquired if such a property would be addressed by the City’s general property
maintenance code.
Ms. Rauch responded affirmatively.
Public Comments
[offered in meeting]
Steve Rudy, 129 S. Riverview Street, Dublin stated that he has a question and a comment. He must
not have been aware when the requirement for a demolition request changed from two of four to
one of four criteria. It appears the trend is to require less criteria to be met. Is the proposal that
only one of four criteria be required for landmark buildings?
Mr. Alexander responded that one criteria is proposed only for the non-landmark buildings, shown
in gray on the map.
Ms. Rauch clarified that the buildings shown as green, orange and dark blue have a higher burden
of scrutiny, one of which is economic hardship, which is difficult to meet. The code that was
established in 2021 required that one of three criteria must be met for the non-landmark buildings.
Mr. Rudy responded that the main protection of the landmark buildings would seem to be the
economic hardship criterion.
Ms. Rauch responded affirmatively.
Mr. Rudy stated that when he first moved to the District in 1996, preservation of the buildings in
the District was the intent. It is demonstrable that economic hardship coincides with ownership of
historic inventory. The only difference between the buildings within the District that are falling apart
and those that are not is massive capital outlay and continuous oversight by the property owner.
He would argue that the economic hardship criterion, intended to maintain the historic inventory,
is not a very strong criterion. Everyone is aware that the N. Riverview properties were deliberately
not maintained so it would be necessary to invest significant dollars to make them useable. Those
properties that have not been allowed to deteriorate have had significant maintenance and
attention. He does not believe the Code provides much protection.
Mr. Alexander stated that an applicant can present a demolition request that they believe meets
the definition of economic hardship, but that does not mean staff or the Board will agree. Approval
is required; it is not automatic.
Mr. Rudy stated that it would be good if that were quantified. It would be nice to know how it is so
much harder to meet the economic hardship status. If the intent was that the criterion provide a
protection, it does not seem to have achieved that.
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2023
Page 7 of 13
Mr. Alexander inquired if he would like to see more demolition criteria be required to provide
protection.
Mr. Rudy responded that it could be that or at least quantify the economic hardship. Currently, to
be a good steward of his historic structure within the district, it will be necessary for him to invest
$50,000.
Mr. Alexander stated that City Council has attempted to address the Code language regarding
maintenance of structures, and penalties are applied where it a ppears that the owner is intentionally
allowing the structure to deteriorate.
Jane Corelli, 179 S. Riverview Street, Dublin, stated that she moved here three years ago. She
renovated her house after receiving ARB approval, which was daunting and intimidating. She
trusted that in turn, ARB would look after her interests as a property owner in the Historic District.
However, she was very disappointed because of what ARB permitted with the property immediately
to the left of her house. Therefore, this Board’s credence is tainted in her eyes. In talking with
many neighbors, she has learned that if an applicant has power and influence, they can build
whatever they want in the District. The residents on Franklin Street and S. Riverview believe that
individuals with time, wealth and influence will achieve ARB and City Council approval, while the
typical resident cannot. Homeowners in the District would rather have their homes fall in disrepair
than go through the ARB approval process. Does the City really want Old Dublin to be reflective of
the haves and have-nots? She would like to get involved and help improve the existing discourse.
Mr. Alexander stated that the current membership composition of this Board is very different than
it was when the house to which she is referring came before ARB. He was on the Board at that
time, and he was the only member who voted against approving it. He agrees with her; as a
licensed architect, in his opinion, it is inappropriate. However, in the past, visualizing proposed
mass has been difficult. Recently, the City has developed a tool that will assist the Board members
in visualizing the 3-dimensional impact of proposed designs. That was clearly an issue for some
board members when that project came before it, and in his opinion, that is not the only
questionable building. The architectural review approval process can be easier if the homeowner is
working with a design professional who has worked in this community previously. Some of those
professionals have come before the Board four times on one project before it is approved. Design
professionals who handle these types of projects regularly do navigate the review process a little
easier.
Ms. Corelli responded that it is not right to ask the residents to choose particular architects.
Mr. Alexander responded that the Board is not asking that, just pointing out the value of choosing
people with experience, whether it is an architect, sports player or physician.
Ms. Corelli responded that this is a reflection of the “haves” and “have nots” in the District. Many
residents cannot afford the most expensive architects.
Ms. Rauch stated that the residents expressed concerns about the lengthiness of the approval
period; and that was recently discussed in a meeting. They also expressed a great deal of concern
about the scale of residential projects recently approved by the Board. Unfortunately, the previous
Code had only lot coverage restrictions; it did not have building coverage requirements. The new
Code includes a building coverage standard, so the Board now has an additional level of scrutiny.
The size of a residential building that can be built has to meet that percentage requirement. In the
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2023
Page 8 of 13
past, the lack of that requirement was a problem, as with only a lot coverage requirement, it was
possible to have a significantly larger home than the character of the District would warrant.
Ms. Corelli stated that she would like to work with the City to achieve an approval process that
allows homeowners to make changes to their home without the financial intimidation involved in
navigating the subjective review of the ARB.
Ms. Cooper stated that as Mr. Alexander pointed out, it is necessary to work with a design
professional experienced in Dublin, but it is also necessary to work with a design professional with
experience in working in historic districts. In the past, we have seen many design professionals
without any understanding of the preservation requirements in this District. She pointed out that
there is also an opportunity for homeowners to meet and discuss their proposed projects with staff
before engaging a design professional. Staff is available to provide ideas and informal feedback for
no charge. We want to encourage our residents to use staff to understand the complicated rules
in this District.
Ms. Corelli stated that her desire is to see the ARB approval p rocess become more comfortable and
less intimidating, as that has been the situation for too many years.
Ms. Damaser stated that she has only been on the Board for a year, but she does not understand
from where the feeling of intimidation is coming. There is a Code in place, which she believes is
clear. She believes applicants may be coming before the Board with a predetermined view of what
they want, then they feel intimidated when it is not approved.
Ms. Corelli stated that she does not have or understand the residents’ experience.
Kate Vessels, 63 S. Riverview Street, Dublin, stated that they also have had previous experience
with the ARB. She appreciates that the Board is re-evaluating their rules and process. That is the
first step in making a change that engages the community. She hopes that the Board listened to
the previous comments, as it appeared the reaction might have been defensive rather than
inquiring. What Ms. Corelli expressed is entirely correct. In their experience, they had three
separate meeting reviews and one item was changed at a time. They do not believe the Board is
aware of the money involved for the applicants in “tweaking” items. They did not anticipate getting
everything they wanted and expected the Board to provide input. They wanted to follow the rules,
but they were not looking for subjective input. They had engaged an architect that was familiar
with the area, yet their experience was not easier, as the Board has indicated it should have been.
She hopes the Board finds it helpful to have some insight on the residents’ view.
Mr. Alexander responded that this meeting itself reflects the Board’s responsiveness to the
residents’ concerns. We are reviewing a proposal, based on feedback received from residents, to
relax the demolition requirements in the Historic District. Additionally, staff is looking into ways to
shorten the project timeline. Recently, the time has been less between a project being tabled and
re-scheduled for review than it was in the past. Although it may not have been apparent that the
Board was receptive to the residents’ concerns, the Board has been attempting to be just that. That
is the purpose of both this topic and the administrative review topic, which will follow.
Lindy Lyon, 143 S. Riverview Street, Dublin, OH, stated that they were before the Board two years
earlier, when they learned their house was historical. They appreciate the proposed changes that
are being suggested with the intent of bringing more clarity, reason and fairness to the process,
particularly the unreasonable and impossible burden of the demolition criteria that they
experienced. She agrees with the intimidation impression of the Board review process. She
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2023
Page 9 of 13
proposes a community table discussion, instead, which would give an impression of co-laboring.
She believes that elected officials such as City Council should sit at the dais. She would suggest
that everybody else, as volunteers, sit around a community table together with the applicants.
Someone has referred to the subjectivity of the review; however, she does not believe this Board
could operate in any other way. It is the nature of the effort; it is an art, not a science endeavour.
It is not insulting to talk about subjectivity; it is a part of this Board’s process. However, she
believes there should be a resident in the District who serves on the Board, maybe even an elected
resident.
Mr. Alexander responded that the City looks for volunteers. Both the previous ARB chair and the
current mayor, who also served on ARB, are residents in the District. City Council selects members
to serve on the Board, and residents are encouraged to apply online.
Ms. Lyons stated that she does not believe the Board review is unfair; it is equally difficult for all
applicants. While those residents who have the money to engage experienced local architects can
navigate the process more successfully, she does not believe the process should make that factor
so necessary. It is a privilege to own one of these historical structures, but it is also a financial
burden. Dublin should have a grant fund for this purpose. If there must be so much authority and
scrutiny involved in the review process, Dublin should allocate funds to enable the residents to sure
it or provide a City architect with whom the residents can work. Some people can afford what is
necessary with this review process; others cannot.
There were no additional public comments.
Board Discussion
Mr. Alexander inquired if a Board vote is requested on this item.
Ms. Rauch responded that if the Board is comfortable with the proposed Code amendment and
Guidelines, staff is requesting the Board make a recommendation for Council review and approval.
However, the Board’s discussion tonight indicated that members may want some revisions to be
made. The Board either could indicate the changes they want to be made in the version that moves
forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission, or they can direct the changes be made and come
back to ARB first for review before they move forward.
Mr. Cotter requested confirmation that the demolition criteria would not change from what currently
exists.
Ms. Rauch responded affirmatively.
Mr. Cotter inquired if members are satisfied with no change in the criteria.
Ms. Damaser stated that the primary change is which properties are identified as the landmark
buildings and subject to the higher criteria. The proposed change would identify more buildings as
non-landmark buildings, and therefore, not subject to the higher criteria. The term is changing,
not the definition, and the map of the buildings with revised designations.
Mr. Alexander stated that the ability to have a vacant lot in this District for an indeterminate period
of time is also a proposed change. Previously, every structure in the District was a contributing or
landmark building. He is supportive of the proposed map. His concern is providing some protection
for the residents. The proposed language would permit open lots to exist with no assurance of
whether the lot would be restored with landscaping. He would recommend a requirement for a
site restoration plan if a replacement building is not imminent.
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2023
Page 10 of 13
Ms. Cooper stated that it appears that would be the result if the Code would no longer require
approval of a replacement structure with approval of a demolition.
Ms. Rauch responded that with the landmark buildings, the applicant could be required to provide
a design for a replacement structure for approval before demolition can occur. With a background
building, the applicant could be required to provide a site restoration plan with the demolition
request.
Ms. Cooper stated that it would be preferable to ensure a minimum standard for the lot while
empty.
Mr. Alexander inquired if that is the only revision the Board members would like to be added.
Ms. Rauch stated that per the Board’s suggestion, the properties listed in Appendix G also would
be validated.
Board members indicated consensus on the proposed amendments.
Tom Holton, 5957 Roundstone Place, Dublin, requested clarification of the intent that landmark
structures could transition to background buildings.
Mr. Alexander stated that he did not understand that to be part of the proposed Code amendment.
Ms. Rauch stated that the current Code allows property owners to submit a request that their
contributing structure be re-designated as non-contributing. The proposed Code also would permit
that request to be made to the Board.
Mr. Holton inquired if it would be possible for a non-landmark building to be designated a landmark
building.
Ms. Rauch responded affirmatively. After 50 years, a building technically is historic. At this point, it
is the owner’s responsibility to make any requests that a building be re-designated, although it is
also within the City’s purview to do so.
Mr. Holton stated that he is supportive of requiring with a demolition request either a timeline for
new construction or a site restoration plan.
Ms. Cooper inquired if it is the Board’s intent that a lot not be permitted to be left undeveloped
with only the site restored after demolition.
Ms. Damaser stated that site restoration to a minimum standard should occur immediately after
demolition if construction is intended. However, if new construction does not occur within a certain
timeframe, a greater level of site restoration should be required.
Ms. Rauch responded that staff would include language that addresses both immediate and long-
term restoration if the site will be vacant a longer period of time.
Ms. Cooper inquired if it would be possible for a property owner to submit both an application for
their landmark building to be designated as a background building and an applicat ion for demolition
at the same time.
Ms. Rauch responded that both applications can occur concurrently. However, the applicant could
be investing unnecessary work if approval of the first application is not assured.
Mr. Alexander inquired if that process is addressed in the current Code.
Ms. Rauch responded affirmatively. Staff has reviewed the proposed map with a high level of
scrutiny to ensure no buildings would be designated as landmark buildings if outside the timeframe
unless they have some historical or architectural significance.
Mr. Alexander directed the Board’s attention to the next item included in this discussion.
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2023
Page 11 of 13
Administrative Review Items
Mr. Alexander inquired if the Board believes there are review items that could be moved from
essential Board review/approval to administrative review/approval. He would recommend that
paint colors be reviewed administratively for both landmark and background buildings. He also
believes that with background buildings, any change that does not modify the mass could be
reviewed administratively. There are guidelines in place that would guide any such changes, which
would include windows, doors, siding, roof, lighting or landscaping. Any changes in mass, even the
addition of a porch, for either background or landmark buildings should continue to be reviewed by
the Board.
Board members expressed agreement with the proposed additions for administrative review.
Ms. Rauch stated that with that guidance, a list of proposed administrative review items would be
prepared and brought back to the Board for future approval.
Mr. Holton suggested that walkways and driveway paving could be administrative review items.
Board members were supportive of the suggestion.
Ms. Damaser moved, Ms. Cooper seconded to refer to Planning and Zoning Commission a
recommendation for Council approval of the proposed Historic District Code amendment and
Guidelines update with the addition of two modifications - to require a Site Restoration Plan with
Demolition Requests and review/validation of Appendix G Properties.
Vote: Mr. Cotter, yes; Ms. Cooper, yes; Mr. Jewell, yes; Ms. Damaser, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes.
[Motion carried 5-0.]
Case 23-081: Alternative Materials, Administrative Request
A request to supplement the Historic Design Guidelines with a guide for property owners, staff,
and the Board regarding the appropriate choice of alternative building materials within the Historic
District and Appendix G properties. Alternative materials refers to the use of a non-traditional,
synthetic material in place of an original material or modern materials used on new construction.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Singh stated that this administrative request is a continuation of the Alternative Materials
discussion at the Board’s August 2023 meeting. At that meeting, staff presented a draft Alternative
Materials document. The Board discussed the draft and expressed concerns with the extensive
content of the document. Staff is currently working on shortening the document. A sample of a
revised section is provided for the Board’s input before completing the remaining revision. The
anticipated users of this document will be property owners, consultants, architects, staff and the
Board. The goal is to provide a document that lists alternative building materials previously
approved by the Board by waiver approval. The document should include only materials not listed
in the Code but approved previously via a waiver. The intent is that the document be updated
annually with any additions or exclusions. The first two chapters of the revised document are
provided for the Board’s input -- Introduction and Roofs and Exterior Walls. She reviewed the
alternative roof and exterior wa ll materials recently approved via waiver, noting that the documents
includes photographs and building addresses where those materials were permitted.