Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 58-24RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6301 ; 58-24 Resolution No. Passed ; ACCEPTING THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES APPLICABLE TO HISTORIC DUBLIN AND OUTLYING HISTORIC PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED IN APPENDIX G (CASE 24-012ADMC) WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to update design guidelines to preserve and enhance the high quality of life, community character, and fiscal well-being of those who live or work in the Historic District and outlying historic properties; and WHEREAS, the Historic Design Guidelines are intended to preserve and protect historic structures and cultural landscapes while allowing for sensitive rehabilitation, new construction, site modification and signs within Historic Dublin and outlying historic properties; and WHEREAS, Section 153.170 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code states that the Architectural Review Board may make recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for resolutions, and WHEREAS, Section 153.232 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code states that the Planning and Zoning Commission may make recommendations to City Council for resolutions, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, __“/ _ of the elected members concurring that: Section 1. The attached Historic Design Guidelines document is hereby adopted by City Council as a policy guide for the review of proposal within the Historic District and outlying historic properties. Section 2. Pursuant to Section 4.04 of the Charter, this resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage. Passed this on day of J Vind , 2024. Uh. be P= Mayor — Presiding Officer Cler Khe sed ( To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Megan O’Callaghan, City Manager Date: November 12, 2024 Initiated By: Jennifer Rauch, AICP, Community Development and Planning Director Sarah Tresouthick Holt, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner Re: Historic District Guidelines Update Phase 2, 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 Provide additional Guidelines clarifications about how Background buildings should be designed to help address scale, massing, details, and setbacks After recommendations of approval with no changes by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), the Historic Design Guidelines portion of the project is ready for consideration of approval by City Council. This is a companion effort to the Code updates that were introduced at first reading on November 4, 2024 and will be heard at second reading this same date. 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. A specific request from the attendees was to provide more direction in the Guidelines about Background buildings and the Board’s expectations for them. This project responds to that request. An overview of these improvements was provided to the Architectural Review Board in September 2023, with confirmation on Phase 2 direction obtained in April of 2024. The draft Guidelines were delivered to Architectural Review Board for extended review on the 26th of July. The Architectural Review Board reviewed and recommended approval of the final draft on August 28, 2024; Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended approval on September 19, 2024. Staff and the consultant identified specific essential elements that define the character of Background buildings and neighborhoods and used these to create guiding language in this document. These include: height, setbacks, massing, roof shape, window and door openings (fenestration), eaves, and overhangs. In Background neighborhoods where new construction or additions are contemplated, such as Franklin Street, these features should be echoed in the new construction. In locations where Background buildings are amongst Landmark resources, such as Office of the City Manager 5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090 Phone: 614-410-4400 Memo Memo re. Historic District Guidelines Update Phase 2 November 12, 2024 Page 2 of 2 South Riverview Street, the key design elements to emulate increase to materials and stylistic features, such as cornice details, fenestration proportions, emphasis on entries and porches, to name a few. Thus, the following changes to the Guidelines are noted in the attached red-lined final drafts: • Section 3.3 includes information about stylistic and contextual appropriateness for Background building design, and emphasizes special care when Background resources are adjacent to Landmark resources. The essential elements are listed for reference. • Section 3.4 re-emphasizes these same essential design elements o Staff and the consultant chose to repeat these elements in order to ensure that they are not missed by users. • Section 4.0 refers back to Section 3.4 to connect this specific section to the essential principles previously outlined. • Section 4.12 notes that Background buildings may have additions to either the side or rear of a property when the other essential factors are met. By comparison, Landmark buildings’ additions should be to the rear and not visible. • Section 5.0 notes that the Guidelines focus on architectural detail when applied to Landmark structures, whereas Background structures emphasize the essential elements previously noted. • Section 6.0 again refers back to Section 3.4 for continuity. Request Approval of Resolution 58-24. 0 250 500 � i!Cityof ublin 24-012-ADMC Zoning Code Amendment Historic Design Guidelines Updates Feet nu,n IJ�A 1 Historic Design Guidelines Department of Development Planning Division 1 Historic Design Guidelines Department of Development Planning Division HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO2 Acknowledgments Dublin City Council Chris Amorose-Groomes, Mayor, At-Large Cathy De Rosa, Vice Mayor, Ward 4 Greg Peterson, Ward 1 Jane Fox, Ward 2 John Reiner, Ward 3 Christina Alutto, At-Large Andrew Keeler, At-Large 2020 Dublin Architectural Review Board Kathleen Bryan, Chair Gary Alexander, Vice Chair Sean Cotter Frank Kownacki Amy Kramb 2019 Dublin Architectural Review Board Shannon Stenberg, Chair Gary Alexander, Vice Chair Rob Bailey Kathleen Bryan Andrew Keeler 2018 Stakeholder Committee Jay Eggspuehler, Commercial Property Owner Rick Gerber, Historic Dublin Business Association Tom Holton, Dublin Historical Society Kathy Lannan, Residential Property Owner Victoria Newell, Dublin Planning and Zoning Board Chair David Rinaldi, Dublin Architectural Review Board Chair Julie Seel, Residential Property Owner Richard Taylor, Business Owner Alex Vesha, Commercial Property Owner Planning Division Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner Mike Kettler, Planning Technician Julia Brooks, Planning Assistant Kenneth Ganter, Planning Assistant Richard Hansen, Planning Assistant Jimmy Hoppel, Planning Assistant Landplan Studios Daniel Phillabaum, AICP, RLA, Principal McBride Dale Clarion Greg Dale, FAICP, Principal Max Merritt, Planner Preservation Designs Christine Trebellas, AICP, LEED Green Associate, Principal CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 3 Contents Chapter 1: Introduction Overview Background Historic District Map Outlying Historic Properties (Appendix G) Map Chapter 2: Context & Character Cultural Landscape Neighborhood Character Building Types and Architectural Styles Chapter 3: Guidelines - Users Guide Using the Guidelines Landmark vs. Background Application of Guidelines Chapter 4: Guidelines - Rehabilitation General Maintenance and Construction Exterior Materials Architectural Details Foundations Building Colors Doors and Entrances Windows Porches Roof, Gutter, and Downspout Canopy and Awning Building Additions Outbuildings Retrofitted Access for ADA Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Commercial Storefront Design Chapter 5: Guidelines - New Construction General Building Placement Form and Mass Building Width Façade Doors and Windows Architectural Details Materials and Color Outbuildings Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Chapter 6: Guidelines - Site Design General Natural Features Landscaping Walls and Fences Access and Parking Decks and Patios Lighting Mechanical Equipment and Waste Screening Chapter 7: Guidelines - Signs General Color and Relief Materials and Lighting Avoid Context Sensitive Quality and Character Ground Signs Wall Signs Window Signs Projecting Signs Awning Signs Sandwich Board Signs ljf 6 8 10 11 14 18 24 36 36 37 40 40 40 40 40 41 41 42 42 42 43 43 44 44 44 45 46 46 47 48 48 48 48 49 49 49 54 54 54 54 55 55 55 55 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 59 59 59 59 59 4 5 Chapter 1Introduction HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO6 Historic Map of Dublin, 1872 1.0 Applicability The Historic Design Guidelines (Guidelines) apply to all land within the Historic District as outlined in Appendix F, as well as other outlying historic properties as specified in Appendix G of the City of Dublin’s Zoning Code. All properties located within either of these designated areas require approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for certain activities related to renovation, rehabilitation, or new construction, as provided in the Zoning Code §153.170. The Guidelines supplement the review standards contained in the code and will guide the ARB in determining if requests for approvals by the ARB will be granted in accordance with the code. 1.1 Overview The City of Dublin is a thriving community located in northwest Franklin County, southwest Delaware County, and southeast Union County, Ohio. Dublin has undergone tremendous growth in the last five decades, with the population increasing from a village of approximately 700 in 1970 to 48,647 in 2018 (Quick Facts, US Census Bureau). Still, Historic Dublin largely retains the character, scale, and feel of a traditional village. The history of Dublin and the surrounding Washington Township are closely intertwined. Before Ohio became a state in 1803, land was purchased in the area, along the Scioto River, that was to become the Village of Dublin. Peter and Benjamin Sells traveled from Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, to purchase land for their father, three brothers, and themselves. The 400 acres purchased for their brother, John Sells, were located on the high west bank of the Scioto where Historic Dublin now stands. The brothers also purchased land north and south of the original village boundaries. The settlement of Dublin started slowly, with John Sells and his family settling in 1808 and his establishment of the first tavern in the area in 1809. By 1810, Sells began to survey lots to establish a town. He conferred the honor of naming the new town to his surveyor, John Shields. Shields named the future village after his birthplace, Dublin, Ireland. By 1818, Sells advertised 200 town lots for sale in the Columbus newspaper. He listed the excellent building stone, clay for brick and pottery, and an offer of three years’ credit as inducements to purchase lots in the new town. Settlement continued slowly as the community gained residences, a gristmill, a distillery, sawmills and other businesses that served the local population, as well as farmers from the surrounding area. As evidence of Dublin’s permanence as a settlement, a post office was established in 1820. INTRODUCTION Overview CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 7 INTRODUCTION Overview As the community and the township grew, better transportation became a necessity. Lacking a railroad, which spurred development in many Ohio communities in the 19th century, Dublin was dependent on its system of roads. The need for a bridge to span the Scioto River became critical for Dublin so that it could be physically connected to Worthington and Columbus to the east. The first bridge in 1840 was a wooden covered bridge. It was later replaced with a steel span bridge in 1880, and the present Works Progress Administration (WPA) concrete arch bridge was completed in 1935. An effort was made in 1855 to incorporate the village and establish a local government, but the idea was rejected. The issue was revisited in 1881, and in September of that year the Village of Dublin was incorporated. With local government, public improvements became possible. Among those undertaken in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were the installation of gas street lamps in 1888, followed by carbide lights in 1907 and finally electric lights in 1920. By the early 20th century, the local economy was largely based on agriculture and quarrying, and Dublin businesses were largely dependent on the local population. Dublin maintained a relatively stable population, with very little growth during the first seven decades of the 20th century. This changed abruptly in the early 1970s with the construction of Interstate 270 around Columbus and the development of Muirfield Golf Club and Muirfield Village by golf champion Jack Nicklaus. This innovative planned community was located about four miles north of the village core. During the last five decades, the City has grown to fill in the land between the historic center of Dublin and Muirfield Village, as well as expanding to the south, east and west. The current boundaries of Dublin encompass approximately 26 square miles. In spite of the tremendous growth that has taken place in recent decades, the physical form of Historic Dublin is distinctive and clearly reflects the early history of the community. The form is still very much in evidence today. The major north-south road, High Street (also known as SR 745), runs parallel to the river on a high bluff with another parallel road, Riverview Street, running along the Scioto River. The main intersection is High and Bridge Streets, as it was historically, and the bridge crossing the Scioto still connects east and west Dublin. Dublin residents and public officials have long appreciated the special character of Historic Dublin. A part of the district and individual properties, as well as other historic properties in Washington Township, were listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1979, based on both architectural and HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO8 INTRODUCTION Background historic significance. The City of Dublin took further steps to protect and preserve the historic core of the community, as well as other historic sites throughout the community in 1970 through the establishment of the ARB. Credit for the preservation of Historic Dublin’s special character must also be given to the stewardship of generations of Dublin property owners who have maintained and improved the buildings and their physical environment. Historic Dublin continues as the historic heart of the community and a walkable, thriving mixed-use neighborhood with residences concentrated along Riverview and Franklin Streets and retail, cultural/civic, and residential uses intermingled along High and Bridge Streets. Outlying historic properties exist throughout Dublin as examples of the City’s rich agricultural history. 1.2 Background There are significant economic and social benefits in preserving historic areas and properties. Dublin’s efforts to promote the preservation of Dublin, while promoting historically appropriate development and investment, began over 50 years ago. Success requires a partnership among the City, land owners, residents, business owners, and stakeholders. Dublin has recognized the importance of preservation in a number of policy documents, including the City’s Community Plan, which details the unique character of Historic Dublin and many outlying historic properties. The plan provides many recommendations about preservation and enhancement of the Historic District’s character. The plan also recommends further efforts to identify and recognize historic properties outside the district. In 2016, the City conducted a Historic and Cultural Assessment of the built resources, landscape features, and archaeological sites throughout Dublin. The goal of the assessment was to gain a greater understanding of the historic resources that exist and how those resources contribute to the City’s sense of place. The assessment produced a detailed inventory of over 900 resources considered to be relevant, an assessment of the landmark and background status, and strategies and recommendations to encourage and fund historic preservation efforts. Additionally, the City has taken the initiative to revise and update the Zoning Code on a series of occasions to ensure new development and redevelopment meet the desired character by the community and its stakeholders. The Zoning Code requirements, these Guidelines, and the applicable policy documents collectively contribute to protecting the character of Dublin’s historic places. Dublin Community Church, 81 West Bridge Street, 1930s (Constructed in 1877) Home of Isaac Walter, 37 South Riverview Street, 1842 Dublin Firehouse, 37 West Bridge Street, 1945 CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 Mansfield Buggy Co. & Post Office, SW Corner - Bridge Street at High Street, 1890s Christie Methodist Church, South High Street, 1870s (Built in 1838 and Destroyed by Tornado in 1912) 32 South High Street, 1932, (Built in 1830s and Operated until 1972) NE Corner - Bridge Street at High Street, 1880s Coffman’s Corner, SW Corner - Bridge Street at High Street, 1879 Washington Local School, 75 North High Street, 1871 INTRODUCTION Background HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO10 INTRODUCTION Historic District Map Architectural Review District Boundary CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 11 INTRODUCTION Outlying Historic Properties (Appendix G) Map Appendix G Properties 1. Brand, Asher Residence – 5281 Brand Road 2. Coffman, Fletcher House – 6659 Coffman Road 3. Cramer Homestead – 5927 Rings Road 4. Davis, James Barn & Farm – 5707 Dublin Road 5. Dun, John Homestead – 8055 Dublin-Bellepoint Road 6. Gelpi Residence (Dublin Arts Council) – 7125 Riverside Drive 7. Holder-Wright Earthworks – 6985 Emerald Parkway 8. Llewellyn Farms Barn – 4845 Belfield Drive 9. Maroa Wilcox Memorial – Norn Street & Woerner- Temple Road (PID 273009779) 10. Mitchell Barn (Earlington Park) – 5585 Brand Road 11. Mitchell Cemetery (on Cardinal Health Campus) – Emerald Parkway (PID 273011174) 12. Mt. Zion Cemetery – Kinross Court and Memorial Drive (PID 273000448) 13. Rings Farm – 6665 Shier Rings Road 14. St. John’s Lutheran Cemetery – Avery Road (PID 274000024) 15. St. John’s Lutheran Church & Sandy Corners Cemetery – Rings Road (PID 274000155 and 274000031) 16. Summit View Farm – 8115 Conine Drive 17. Tuller Barn – Brand and Ashbaugh Roads 18. Washington Township School (Graham Residence) – 4915 Brand Road 19. Brown-Harris Cemetery – Lot 6, University Boulevard - Phase II Final Plat (Resolution 43-20) 20. Ferris Cemetery – SR 257 (Riverside Drive) and Bright Road 21. DAC Log Cabin - 7125 Riverside Drive 21 1212 1313 Chapter 2Context & Character HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO14 CONTEXT & CHARACTER Cultural Landscape 2.1 Background Historic Dublin possesses a strong sense of place. The combination of its eclectic architecture, intimate village scale, pedestrian scale streets, and natural features create an authentic environment worth preserving, protecting, and celebrating. Historic Dublin’s unique character is in part due to the very gradual growth of the community up until the late 20th century. Much of what was built in the 19th century still defines the physical environment today. 2.2 Cultural Landscape The Historic District’s unique visual character is attributable to the beauty of its extensive natural landscape including the striking topography and cultural sites that have been shaped by previous generations. The Dublin Community Plan calls for the protection of these valued natural and historic landscape assets within Dublin, which contribute to the cultural landscape of Historic Dublin. The character-defining topography and the numerous historic landscape assets within the Historic District embody a “soul and sense of place”, creating a legacy that reveals our past and the people that shaped and lived on our land. The extraordinary and extensive landscape within Dublin’s Historic District provides scenic, economic, ecological, social, recreational, and educational opportunities, and the preservation and protection of these unique landforms provides an enriched quality of life for the community. Among the valued natural assets that require sensitive protection are: the distinctive topography; the Scioto River; the Indian Run Ravine and Falls; the Dublin Spring; abundant view sheds and vistas; natural ravines, caves and outcroppings; native flora and fauna; wetlands and vernal pools; hardwood forests; and landmark trees and woodlands. The distinctive historic cultural sites that have been influenced by the imprint of past generations include among others: dry laid stone walls, stone quarries, historic cemeteries, the West Bridge Street Bridge, Native American archaeological sites, and appurtenances such as hitching posts, stone carriage steps, stone work and retaining walls, artwork and memorials. These defining historic landscape assets are the canvas of our past and require dedicated preservation and maintenance. The following guidelines provide direction in protecting Dublin’s historic cultural landscape for the benefit of our community and future generations. Bridge Street Bridge, 1935 Indian Run Falls, 1899 CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 15 Topography One of the most dramatic features is the topography of the area. John Sells selected the area for the settlement of a town since it was on the high west bank of the Scioto River, protected from flooding. The change in elevation between High Street and Riverview Street is considerable, with a further dramatic drop to the Scioto River. This change of elevation leads to steep, sloping yards. Due to the varied topography, not all areas are easily suited to development, which has led to the preservation of natural vistas and views of the river and valley. Scioto River The Scioto River is the most prominent natural feature, providing a strong physical and visual connection to Dublin’s early history. The Scioto River corridor is unique due to its shallow river bed with a wide floodway. In many locations, the edge of the floodplain is defined by small limestone outcroppings. The wide floodway has an extensive native deciduous tree canopy. Seasonal flooding of the river often makes areas of the floodway inaccessible. Due to its shallow depth, the river water is typically brown. Several tributaries feed the Scioto River as it flows through Dublin. Typically, these streams are narrow slivers carving ravines down to the river. Ravines and Springs The wooded ravines, Indian Run to the north and Cosgray Ditch to the south, in conjunction with the Scioto River, form natural boundaries for Historic Dublin. Indian Run Falls, located within the Indian Run Ravine, is a pristine waterfall once home to members of the Wyandot tribe and later home to settlers of Dublin. The Falls remain an important cultural resource today. Natural flows of fresh water throughout the area form springs. The Dublin Spring is located along the Scioto River where Dublin’s founders drew clean drinking water. In the winter, the weeps from underground springs leak water through the stone and create beautiful ice patterns along the riverbanks. CONTEXT & CHARACTER Cultural Landscape 1900s Historic Stone Wall, 2000 Scioto River, 2015 HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO16 CONTEXT & CHARACTER Flora and Fauna Dublin is ecologically diverse particularly along the river corridor. Native plant species include Rock Cress, Drummond’s Aster, Rattlesnake Fern, and Marsh Marigold. Historically, Rock Cress has been found growing along the Scioto River, although it can be overtaken by invasive plants such as Honeysuckle and Garlic Mustard. Sycamore trees, know for their large stature, white bark, and long life, are prominent along the riverbanks. A number of animals thrive in the area including birds, beavers, bats, chipmunks, deer, ducks, geese, skunks, squirrels, turtles, and woodchucks. Earthworks Archaeological resources influence Dublin’s landscape today. The Holder-Wright Earthworks, located within Ferris-Wright Park, are significant to the Hopewell people. Earthworks were places for ceremony, marriages, to honor relatives and neighbors who died, to make alliances, for celebration, feasting, and sacred games. Three earthworks exist at the site, two circles and a square, and five burial mounds. The tallest mound once stood five feet tall, and the others were approximately three feet tall. The earthworks at Ferris-Wright Park are the northernmost earthworks in the Scioto Valley. Many tribes are represented at this site, with the oldest dating back to Clovis times, or about 12,000 years ago. Quarries At the southern end of Historic Dublin, adjacent to the Scioto River, is a former stone quarry which played an important role in the physical development of Dublin and Washington Township, as evidenced by the extensive use of limestone for building purposes. The limestone in this region is characterized by a prevalence of Devonian Period fossils. The limestone, known as Columbus Limestone, is highly fossilized, which gives it a rough texture that is distinctive when used either in its natural state or as cut and finished building stone. The extensive use of limestone in the construction of dry-laid low stone walls, foundations, stoops, and entire buildings is a distinguishing feature of Historic Dublin and many other central Ohio communities. Stone Walls Similar to other central Ohio communities due to the ready supply of limestone, Dublin possesses an abundance of limestone in various applications including a number of low, dry-laid stone walls. Many date from the early 19th century, although even the more recent examples contribute to the character of the area. These walls are a significant historic element in the community’s past and present physical environment. Butterflyweed (Asclepias Tuberosa) at Dublin Cemetery, 2017 Holder-Wright Earthworks, 2020 Cultural Landscape CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 17 Daily Chores by Michael Tizzano, 2012 Indian Run Cemetery, 2015 Cemeteries Historic Dublin contains two cemeteries, the Indian Run Cemetery and the Dublin Cemetery. The Indian Run Cemetery, established in 1814, was the first burial ground in Dublin. It is located in the northern portion of the Historic District, along the Indian Run Ravine, adjacent to the Grounds of Remembrance. The Indian Run Cemetery was active for over 40 years, until the Dublin Cemetery was established in 1858. The Dublin Cemetery is located at the western entrance into the Historic District and remains active today. Both cemeteries are located within a park-like setting where the community can visit and pay their respects to those interred, which include a number of Dublin’s historic families. Historic Details Remnants of historic life remain today as a reminder of the past and can be seen throughout Historic Dublin. Hitching posts and carriage stones are located along High Street and provide a reminder of the way of life in years past. Public Art Art in public spaces contribute to the sense of place. Art may invoke an emotion, a question, or an interaction. A number of art pieces are located within the Historic District and provide a lens into the past. Dublin’s historic water pump, originally located at the intersection of High and Bridge Streets, inspired Michael Tizzano’s “Daily Chores” bronze sculpture in 2012. The Grounds of Remembrance, located within Dublin Veterans’ Park at the northern end of the Historic District, provides recognition to Dublin’s veterans. CONTEXT & CHARACTER Cultural Landscape HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO18 CONTEXT & CHARACTER Neighborhood Character 2.3 Neighborhood Character Historic Dublin contains a series of neighborhood areas that coincide with the Historic Zoning Districts outlined in the Zoning Code §153.170. While Historic Dublin is a relatively small district, it contains distinct neighborhood areas defined by historic character, architectural design, primary uses, and development pattern. The historic street grid and the pattern of the blocks contribute to the established character of Historic Dublin. This development pattern results in a smaller lot size, with buildings located along the street edge, and vehicular access through alleys at the rear of the properties. Each neighborhood area utilizes the development pattern in various ways depending on the uses and layout of each property. The neighborhood descriptions outlined below provide background and guidance regarding the desired character for each of these distinct areas. Construction Materials Brick masonry and wood siding appear extensively throughout Historic Dublin. Brick is used as a building material as well as a paving material. Wood siding appears in a number of applications, including horizontal, vertical, shake, and shiplap siding. Wood is also used for fencing, porches, and decorative ornamentation on buildings. Wrought iron and stone fences are prevalent in landscape design. Scale and Form Perhaps the most defining characteristic of Historic Dublin is its intimate, small village scale. The buildings are located close together with shallow front yard setbacks and generally range from one to two stories in height. A majority of the buildings have a residential quality, in contrast to the centers of many other historic Ohio communities that have a continuous streetscape of commercial buildings with storefronts, cornices, and shared party walls. The spaces between the buildings offer owners and tenants opportunities to create small gardens, seating areas, and open space. Street Character The traditional streetscape character and street design are another integral element of the visual character of Historic Dublin. The tight street pattern, coupled with the size and scale of the buildings and their relationship to the street, define Historic Dublin’s pedestrian-scaled environment. Narrower street widths, on-street parking, buildings facing the street, sidewalks, and mature street trees contribute to the character of the area. The cohesive design of these elements contribute to the success of the District by connecting the commercial and the residential uses and providing inviting environment for residents and visitors. South Riverview Street, Historic Residential Neighborhood, 2019 South High Street, Historic South Neighborhood, 2010 CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 19 2.4 Historic Core The Historic Core applies to the historic center of Dublin at the intersection of West Bridge and North High Streets. The Historic Core contains largely commercial uses within historic buildings, along with a number of new, more contemporary buildings. The area serves as a major gateway into the Historic District, setting the tone for the neighborhood character. The neighborhood layout promotes a walkable environment, while accommodating vehicular access given its proximity to a major intersection. A challenge for this neighborhood is balancing the preservation of historic buildings while providing the opportunity for infill that is sensitive to the existing scale and character of the surrounding area. General design principles for the Historic Core neighborhood include: X Connecting and enhancing the historic grid street pattern. X Promoting a walkable environment through quality streetscape design. X Preserving and rehabilitating landmark resources to maintain the historic fabric of Historic Dublin. X Allowing sensitive redevelopment consistent with surrounding character. X Providing opportunities to enhance the street edge and reinforce the building envelope. X Requiring architectural design, scale, and building materials that complement the existing historic character. X Locating buildings along the street edge with parking and access to the rear. X Creating opportunities for connectivity throughout Historic Dublin and to adjacent development, civic uses, and open space. CONTEXT & CHARACTER Neighborhood Character N High StN High StW Bridge StW Bridge St SS High St High St HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO20 2.5 Historic South The Historic South district contains smaller, cottage-scale buildings located along South High Street, south of the Historic Core and surrounded by the Historic Residential neighborhood to the south, east, and west. The area contains the majority of the historic structures and sites found within Historic Dublin with a fewer number of new structures. The area includes a mix of commercial and residential uses. The buildings are consistent with the historic development pattern and support a highly walkable setting because of the proximity of buildings located closely together. General design principles for the Historic South neighborhood include: X Maintaining the historic grid street pattern. X Promoting a walkable environment through quality streetscape design. X Preserving and rehabilitating landmark resources to maintain the historic fabric of Historic Dublin. X Allowing sensitive redevelopment consistent with surrounding character. X Requiring architectural design and scale, and building materials that complement the existing historic character. X Maintaining a smaller building scale and mass consistent with the development pattern of the area. X Retaining open areas at the rear of the properties, particularly adjacent to residential properties. X Creating opportunities for connectivity throughout Historic Dublin and to adjacent developments and open space. S High StS High StPinney Hill LnPinney Hill Ln CONTEXT & CHARACTER Neighborhood Character CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 21 2.6 Historic Residential The Historic Residential neighborhood surrounds the Historic South area to the east along South Riverview Street and west along Franklin Street, and south along High Street. This area supports the preservation and development of houses on existing or new lots that are comparable in size, mass, and scale, while maintaining and promoting the traditional residential character of Historic Dublin. General design principles for the Historic Residential neighborhood include: X Preserving and rehabilitating landmark resources to maintain the historic fabric of Historic Dublin. X Allowing for development of new residential structures that complement the scale, mass, and design of the surrounding historic residential. X Encouraging comparable building height and lot coverages, similar to the surrounding historic structures. X Encouraging new residential structures to have consistent setbacks and similar lot coverage to surrounding residential development. X Promoting rear accessed lots where feasible. X Encouraging outbuildings and detached buildings be to located at the rear of a property. X Promoting preservation of open rear yards, green space corridors, and river views throughout the neighborhood.S Riverview StS Riverview StCONTEXT & CHARACTER Neighborhood Character Franklin SFranklin SttDublin RdDublin Rd HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO22 CONTEXT & CHARACTER Neighborhood Character 2.7 Public The Historic Public neighborhood contains a series of civic spaces and natural areas located throughout Historic Dublin, including Riverside Crossing Park West, Indian Run Falls, Indian Run Cemetery, Dublin Veterans’ Park, Dublin Cemetery, Karrer Barn, and Dublin Springs Park. These spaces preserve the historic character and natural environment found throughout the District and serve as an amenity to residents and visitors. General design principles for the Historic Public neighborhood include: X Continuing efforts to preserve the sites and amenities. X Ensuring connectivity and access to these areas. X Providing greenway connections and access to the Scioto River. X Increasing public access to the natural amenities. CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 23 2.8 Outlying Properties and Historic Farmsteads A series of sites and structures located outside of Historic Dublin contribute to the history of Dublin. These properties, identified on Appendix G of the Zoning Code, include historic farmsteads, barns, churches and former schoolhouses. The character of each of these sites is unique, but help tell the story of the history of Dublin. Karrer Barn, 225 South High Street 5600 Bristol Parkway 5623 Dublinshire Drive CONTEXT & CHARACTER Neighborhood Character HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO24 2.9 Overview The architecture of Historic Dublin spans a period of over two centuries, which contributes to the architectural variety of the District. Some of the buildings possess characteristics of a specific architectural style; however, the vast majority are “vernacular” in character and are best identified by building type. Vernacular architecture is defined as “a mode of building based on regional forms and materials” (Harris, Cyril M. Historic Architecture Sourcebook. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1977). Building type is based on form, function, floor plan, configuration (shape), and stories (height). Architectural style is based on design details and ornamentation. Building type does not determine architectural style. Some architectural styles have a predominate building type, although architectural styles can include a number of building types over time. Buildings may include elements of more than one architectural style. Dublin’s historic buildings often demonstrate the original owner’s personal tastes, availability and affordability of materials, and design influences at the time of construction. While many of the same building types and architectural styles can be found elsewhere in Central Ohio, the combination of building materials, physical setting, and spatial relationships create the unique historic character of Historic Dublin. Identified as part of the Historical and Cultural Assessment, a series of building types and architectural styles are present in Dublin. The characteristics of the predominate building types and architectural styles, identified herein, are based on the A Field Guide to American Houses (McAlester, Virginia, A. Lee McAlester, Lauren Jarrett, and Juan Rodriguez-Arnaiz. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993); and, How to Complete the Ohio Historic Inventory (Gordon, Stephen C., et al. How to Complete the Ohio Historic Inventory. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Ohio Historical Society, 1992.) The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) identifies 19 building types under ‘House Types’ and 35 architectural styles found in Ohio. Many structures in Historic Dublin were constructed as residential buildings. Therefore, most of the building types in Dublin are represented under the ‘House Types’ category recognized by SHPO. Not all building types are present in Dublin. Similarly, many architectural styles are not found in Dublin. Many of the historic structures in Dublin are of “No Academic Style – Vernacular.” Academic styles are considered high style, which exemplify a particular architectural movement. Only the building types and CONTEXT & CHARACTER Building Types & Architectural Styles 109 South Riverview Street, built ca. 1827, is an example of Federal architecture. Note the Federal-style elements such as the two-story height, rectilinear form, five-bay façade composition with symmetrical window and door placement, and a side-gable roof. The Washington Township Centralized School at 150 West Bridge Street was built in 1919 in the Art Deco style. Elements of the style include the smooth wall surface and decorative concrete panels with stylized or geometric motifs. CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 25 architectural styles present in Historic Dublin and the outlying historic properties (Appendix G) are included below. The building types and architectural styles are arranged chronologically. Each building type and architectural style includes a general description, typical design characteristics, and a graphic example. Building Types X Hall and Parlor X I-House X Saltbox X Gabled Ell X Bungalow X Cape Cod Cottage X Ranch/Split-Level Architectural Styles X No Academic Style - Vernacular X Federal X Greek Revival X Gothic Revival X Romanesque Revival X Italianate X Queen Anne X Colonial Revival X Craftsman/Arts and Crafts X French Colonial/Norman Revival X Art Deco X Modern Movements CONTEXT & CHARACTER Building Types & Architectural Styles 167 South High Street, built in 1897 in the Queen Anne style. Elements of the style include the asymmetrical massing, irregular floor plan, bay windows, decorative gable ends, wrap-around front porch with decorative spindle work, and decorative shingles in the roof. St. John Lutheran Church at 6135 (6115) Rings Road, built ca. 1860, is an example of Romanesque Revival architecture. Note the elements such as the masonry construction, round arches, brick corbeling, and square tower. HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO26 2.10 Hall and Parlor A rectangular, two room floor plan with a side gable roof form, the Hall and Parlor building type was popular between 1800-1870. Additional characteristics include: X 1 to 1.5-stories in height X 1-room deep X Symmetrical, 3-bay wide façade X Central entry X One or two chimneys, central or at both ends CONTEXT & CHARACTER Building Types 2.11 I-House A rectangular, two room floor plan with a side gable roof form, less commonly a flat or hipped roof, the I-House building type was popular between 1820-1890. Additional characteristics include: X 2-stories in height X 1-room deep X Symmetrical, 3 or 5-bay wide façades; select 4-bay examples X Central entry X Front porch, 1 or 2-stories in height X One or two chimneys, central or at both ends 2.12 Saltbox A rectangular floor plan with an asymmetrical sloping roofline, mimicking a ‘saltbox’, the Saltbox building type was popular between 1830-1900. Additional characteristics include: X 1.5 to 2-stories in height X 3 or 4-bay wide façades X One or two chimneys, central or at both ends CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 27 Caption CONTEXT & CHARACTER Building Types 2.13 Gabled Ell An irregular ‘L’ or ‘T’ floor plan with intersecting gable roof forms at the same height, the Gabled Ell building type was popular between 1865-1885. Additional characteristics include: X 1 to 2-stories in height X 1 or 2-bays wide, wing and block X Front facing entry X Front porch, 1-story in height 2.14 Bungalow A rectangular floor plan with a gabled or hipped roof form, with or without a front dormer, the Bungalow building type was popular between 1905-1930. Characteristics for a Dormer Front Bungalow include: X 1-1.5, and 2-stories in height X 3-bay wide façade X Central entry X Overhanging eaves X Full-width front porch, 1-story in height with columns X Interior or exterior chimney 2.15 Cape Cod Cottage A rectangular floor plan sometimes with an attached one- car garage. Typified by a side gable roof form, the Cape Cod Cottage building type was popular between 1925-1950 Additional characteristics include: X 1 to 1.5-stories in height X Dormer windows X Symmetrical, 3 or 5-bay wide façades X Central entry X One central chimney HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO28 2.16 Ranch/Split-Level An elongated irregular floor plan with a low gabled or hipped roof and overhanging eaves, the Ranch building type was most popular between 1940-1970, although still remains relevant today. Additional characteristics include: X 1 to 1.5-stories in height X Symmetrical or asymmetrical façade X Attached garage or carport X Off-center entry, may be hidden X Large picture window The Split-Level building type, having multiple stories with at least a half story below grade, was most popular between 1940-1970. Additional characteristics include: X 1 to 2-stories in height X Symmetrical or asymmetrical façade X Attached garage X Off-center entry X Large picture window CONTEXT & CHARACTER Building Types CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 29 CONTEXT & CHARACTER Architectural Styles 2.17 No Academic Style - Vernacular No Academic Style - Vernacular is by far the most prevalent style of architecture in Historic Dublin. Vernacular buildings are “influenced by the local climate, available building materials, ethnic building traditions rather than by contemporary architectural fashions and styles” (Gorden, 76). 2.18 Federal Federal architecture is a post-Colonial style that sought to stress independence from England, rejecting earlier English-based Georgian architecture, by establishing a new national style. Federal style buildings retain the symmetry of earlier architecture, and stress dignity, restraint, and simple ornamentation (Walker, 96-97). Since Dublin was just being settled in the early 19th century, this is one of the first architectural styles to appear in the area. 2.19 Greek Revival Greek Revival architecture rose as a response to the Greek War of Independence from Turkey. The style became popular in public and private contexts. The style is typified by a Greek temple aesthetic with Greek columns that were carefully detailed. Everything was usually painted white to simulate the color of a Greek temple (Walker, 106-109). Regional variants of this style exist with farmhouses incorporating elements of Greek Revival style. Architectural details such as cornices with returns, moulding beneath the cornice, and front doors with rectangular transom and sidelights are common. 119 South High Street 109 South Riverview Street 63 South High Street HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO30 75 South High Street Coffman Homestead, 6659 Coffman Road St. John Lutheran Church, 6115/6135 Rings Road 2.20 Gothic Revival Gothic Revival architecture began in England as a revolt against classical styles and symmetry in favor of picturesque and irregular shapes. In the United States, the style is visible in rural, domestic architecture from 1840-1880. Gothic Revival style homes are often stone or brick construction transitioning to wood framing in the later 19th century. Variants of the style include Cottage Gothic, Carpenter Gothic, and Steamboat Gothic (Walker, 120-131). Fanciful or decorative ornamentation, barge boards under the gables, and pointed arches, and window crowns define the style. The Gothic Revival style can be seen in Dublin in steeply pitched gable roofs and pointed arch windows. 2.21 Romanesque Revival Romanesque Revival architecture rose in popularity in Ohio during the mid-19th century. The style is most often applied to churches, public buildings, and institutional buildings. Inspired by James Renwick’s Smithsonian Castle in Washington, DC., these buildings typically have monochromatic brick or stone walls with round-arch window and door openings and square or polygonal towers with brick corbelling (Gordon, 81). 2.22 Italianate Italianate style began in England as a revolt against classical styles and symmetry in favor of the picturesque and irregular shapes. The style emphasized rural, rambling, informal Italian farmhouses and dominated American house construction from 1850 to 1880. In Ohio, the Italianate style was among the most popular Romantic style of the 19th century, gaining favor as the state’s population nearly doubled in this time period. Early examples are square or rectangular box-shaped homes with three visual bays and tall windows, usually topped with a segmental arch or window hood. Large overhanging eaves with decorative brackets were also common (Gordon, 85). Italianate architecture in Dublin followed this trend. CONTEXT & CHARACTER Architectural Styles CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 31 25 South Riverview Street 114 South High Street 56-58 North High Street 2.23 Queen Anne Queen Anne architecture first appeared in England and subsequently adapted in the United States. Blumenson’s Identifying American Architecture describes the style as the “most varied and decoratively rich style. The asymmetrical composition consists of a variety of forms, textures, materials, and colors. Architectural parts include towers, turrets, tall chimneys, projecting pavilions, porches, bays and encircling verandas. The textured wall surfaces occasionally are complimented by colored glass panels in the windows” (63). In Ohio, Queen Anne architecture was the dominant style of house construction from 1880 to 1900 (Gordon, 91). As such, there are several examples of this style in Dublin. 2.24 Colonial Revival Colonial Revival style is strictly an American movement inspired by nostalgia for the past. It started around the turn of the 20th century and includes tremendous variety in terms of scale, details, and application. Later examples, from the mid-20th century, are usually side-gable buildings with simple stylized door surrounds, cornices, or other details that allude to colonial architecture rather than replicate it. Dublin has a variety of Colonial Revival style homes ranging from the traditional Colonial Revival to Dutch Colonial Revival architecture. 2.25 Craftsman/Arts and Crafts Craftsman/Arts and Crafts architectural style was inspired by the English Arts and Crafts movement and subsequently became popular in the United States. In the United States, Craftsman-style first appeared in California at the turn of the 20th century. Craftsman homes emphasize low, horizontal lines and a design that becomes part of its natural setting. Wide projecting eaves, overhanging gables with exposed rafters, open porches with heavy square porch piers (often on top of masonry bases) give these homes a sense of solid construction. CONTEXT & CHARACTER Architectural Styles HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO32 150 West Bridge Street 7125 Riverside Drive 2.27 French Colonial/Norman Revival French Colonial/Norman Revival architecture is a subcategory of Colonial Revival architecture based on 16th and 17th century French countryside style growing in popularity post World War I (Gorden, 110). The style is typified by steeply pitched roofs, round towers with turrets, and an asymmetrical entrance. 2.28 Art Deco Art Deco architecture is common in public and commercial buildings built in the 1920s and early 1930s (McAlester, 464- 466). The style rejected historical precedent in favor of modern materials and industrial-inspired design. Buildings designed in this style usually had rectilinear massing, futuristic images, stylized ornament, and polychromatic effects. Walls tended to have smooth, polychromatic surfaces of brick or concrete with rounded or angular corner windows. While Art Deco was popular among skyscrapers built in this period, the design was also applied to low-scale buildings such as schools, post offices, and apartment buildings (Gordon, 112). In Dublin, this style appears in commercial and institutional buildings such as the Washington Township Centralized School at 150 West Bridge Street, built circa 1919. CONTEXT & CHARACTER Architectural Styles 170 South Riverview Street 2.29 Modern Post World War II brings the advent of Modern architecture. The first post-war house styles to emerge were the Cape Cod and Minimal Tradition, which were based on earlier house styles of the 20th century, but with new materials and building methods developed during the war. By the1950s, these house styles were replaced by the Ranch house, which dominated American residential architecture throughout the 1960s and is still popular today. The Split-Level house style followed the ranch and retained the low-pitched roof and broad, rambling façade of the period. Less common in this period was the Mid-Century Modern architecture, which rejected traditional forms in favor of a more modern expression with wide overhanging eaves, flat or low-pitched roofs with broad, low front-facing gables, and exposed structural members such as beams or slender metal columns (McAlester, 447). All of these building styles can be seen in Dublin’s residential areas, and even in some of its commercial and institutional structures. CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 33 CONTEXT & CHARACTER Building Types & Architectural Styles 83 South Riverview Street, built in1824, is an example of an I-House building type with Federal architectural style elements. The building is of stone construction with a standing seam metal roof. Former Post Office at 38 West Bridge Street, built in 1965, is in a Modernist Movement architectural style. The one-story brick and stone building has a rectilinear footprint with flat roof and a large glazed storefront window. 87 South High Street, built ca. 1840, in a Greek Revival architectural style has a rectilinear footprint with stone foundation, front gable façade clad in horizontal siding accented by a decorative frieze. 55 South Riverview Street, built ca. 1900, is an example of the Gabled Ell building type with No Academic Style. The front block and wing are identifying forms with the spindle work suggesting an increased accessibility of millwork at the turn of the century. 3434 3535 Chapter 3Users Guide GUIDELINES HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO36 3.1 Intent The Guidelines help protect the overall character of Dublin by emphasizing preservation of architectural styles, details, and streetscape elements that define the community’s unique character. They help guide appropriate rehabilitation work and alterations of existing buildings. For additions, new construction and site work, the Guidelines emphasize compatibility of new buildings or features with the District’s historic character. 3.2 Using the Guidelines The intent of the Guidelines is preservation and rehabilitation: retaining and stabilizing the significant buildings and features that define a historic building or streetscape. That is why terms such as repair, retain, maintain, and preserve are used throughout the Guidelines. Repairing, retaining, maintaining, and preserving the original or historic architectural features of a contributing structure is preferred to replacement or modification. For that reason, the rehabilitation Guidelines always begin with the most conservative approach (repair) and then move to other more intrusive treatments. The Guidelines also offer guidance to ensure new buildings align with the character of the District, and building additions are compatible and use appropriate design elements. The Guidelines are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (U.S. Department of the Interior). The purpose of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings is to provide guidance to historic building owners and building managers, preservation consultants, architects, contractors, and project reviewers prior to beginning work. It is always recommended that preservation professionals be consulted early in any project. 3.3 Landmark vs. Background Resources Resources within the City have been classified as either “landmark” or “background” according to their historic character, as shown on the 2023 Historic District Map and Appendix G Map. This distinction is pertinent for the following reasons: X The emphasis for landmark resources is preservation and rehabilitation. These are resources that contribute to the historic value of the district and in fact, were important to the Federal designation of the National Register district and/or individual property listings. Maintaining or restoring the historic integrity of landmark resources is the highest policy objective of these Guidelines. X Landmark resources within the Historic District are defined as adding to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities, or archaeological value of the area. Resources are designated landmark for a variety of reasons including National Register eligibility, period of significance, and sufficient integrity. X Background resources within the Historic District are those that do not add to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities, or archaeological value of the area. Buildings and resources are designated background for GUIDELINES Users Guide NRHP - District Properties NRHP - Individually Listed Additional Properties Recommended Not Recommended Dublin High Street Historic District Dublin Historic District 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 3738 39 4041 42 43 44 45 DUBLIN HISTORIC DISTRICT MAP 49 62 59 56 57 55 52 51 50 106 107 85 111 108 109 110 113 92 94 81 83 89 101 102 105 75 100 97 99 95 112 114 115 80 91 93 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 47 46 32 96 70 69 68 73 77 78 76 79 60 61 82 67 66 103 104 88 86 84 48 53 54 58 63 64 65 74 87 98 90 W BRIDGE ST N HIGH STS HIGH STDublin Historic District S RIVERVIEW STN RIVERVIEW STFRANKLIN STSHORT ST PINNEYHILL LN EBERLY HILL SPRING HILL WING HILLDARBY ST2023 Historic District Map CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 37 a variety of reasons including National Register ineligibility, irrelevance to the period of significance, and insufficient integrity. X Background resources should emphasize design elements that are stylistically compatible and contextually supporting landmark resources through the height, setbacks, massing, roof shape, windows & door openings, eaves, and overhangs. When the context of background resources includes landmark resources, a higher level of evaluation should be given to the key design elements, including the materials utilized and the appropriateness of other stylistic features. 3.4 Application of Guidelines Overview These Guidelines provide the ARB with guidance in reviewing applications for approvals related to modifications of existing buildings or structures and the construction of new buildings or structures. They are intended to communicate either a desired or undesired outcome or preference. As Guidelines, interpretation is discretionary on the part of the ARB within the parameters of the regulations that establish and govern the Board. The terms “should”, “should not”, and “avoid” used in the Guidelines signify a desired or undesired outcome or preference. For the purpose of applying these Guidelines by the Board, the terms “should”, “should not”, and “avoid” will include consideration by the Board of feasibility and practicality, guided by consideration of factors such as the context of the proposed improvements, availability of materials, site conditions, building conditions, and other applicable City policies and plans. In exercising discretion in applying the Guidelines, the Board will consider and weigh these and other factors as circumstances require. Each project is reviewed on an individual, case-by-case basis, and there are times when more flexibility or creative solutions are needed in applying the Guidelines. When those situations occur, the Board will be clear in stating the reasons for its decision. The application of these guidelines to background resources adjacent to or across from landmark resources should be followed with more focus to architectural detail and key design elements, including the materials utilized and the appropriateness of other stylistic features. When background resources are adjacent to or across from other background resources, the application of the standards should focus more on site design, including: height, massing, setbacks, form, and fenestration. Zoning Regulations The Design Guidelines supplement the regulations contained in the Dublin Zoning Code. In the event of a conflict between these Guidelines and zoning regulations, the zoning regulations will apply unless specifically modified through approval by the ARB as authorized by the Zoning Code. The Guidelines illustrate how the Zoning Code may be successfully applied to existing historic structures and new infill development. GUIDELINES Users Guide NRHP - District Properties NRHP - Individually Listed Additional Properties Recommended Not Recommended Dublin High Street Historic District Dublin Historic District 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 3738 39 4041 42 43 44 45 DUBLIN HISTORIC DISTRICT MAP 49 62 59 56 57 55 52 51 50 106 107 85 111 108 109 110 113 92 94 81 83 89 101 102 105 75 100 97 99 95 112 114 115 80 91 93 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 47 46 32 96 70 69 68 73 77 78 76 79 60 61 82 67 66 103 104 88 86 84 48 53 54 58 63 64 65 74 87 98 90 W BRIDGE ST N HIGH STS HIGH STDublin Historic District S RIVERVIEW STN RIVERVIEW STFRANKLIN STSHORT ST PINNEYHILL LN EBERLY HILL SPRING HILL WING HILLDARBY ST2023 Historic District Map 3838 3939 Chapter 4Rehabilitation GUIDELINES HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO40 4.0 Applicability The following Guidelines are applicable to both residential and commercial properties, except where otherwise noted, as well as are applicable to properties located in Historic Dublin and outlying historic properties. Application of the guidelines to landmark and background resources in this section should follow Chapter 3, 3.4 Application of Guidelines. 4.1 General A. Preservation of original architectural features and materials are the first preference in rehabilitation. Such features and materials should be retained in place and/ or repaired. B. Repair of existing features (or replacement when supported by the Board) should be based on an accurate replication of the materials or features, and where possible substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures. C. If it is not practical to retain the original materials or features due to the condition, unavailability, safety, or energy efficiency of original materials, then quality, contemporary, substitute materials, when approved by the Board, should replicate the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Contemporary materials may be used if it is demonstrated that they have the same quality and character as historic materials. 4.2 Maintenance and Construction Following are common considerations regarding property maintenance and construction. The recommendations are not comprehensive in nature. A. Brick and stone masonry should be tuckpointed every 20 to 30 years, or when holes, gaps, or cracks form in the mortar. Tuckpointing of masonry should be done in a way that duplicates the color, texture, and joint tooling of the building’s historic tuckpointing. B. Foundations should be kept free of moisture-retaining materials such as excess mulch, firewood, and overgrown plantings to ensure longevity. C. Avoid abrasive cleaning of historic masonry and siding, specifically power washing, sandblasting, and harsh detergents. D. Flashing, gutters, and downspouts should be in good repair. Aging roofs should be replaced if there are significant bulges, dips, or gaps. GUIDELINES Rehabilitation 4.3 Exterior Materials A. Original wood siding should not be covered over. B. Wood siding should be used in one of the traditional forms as found on the building (e.g. shingle, board-and- batten, shiplap, or beveled siding). C. Masonry walls that have not previously been painted should remain unpainted. Masonry which has been painted in the past should remain painted. D. Tuckpointing of masonry should match the color, texture, joint tooling, and physical composition of the building’s historic pointing. E. Historically stuccoed surfaces should remain stuccoed. Stucco should not be applied to a wall which has not been previously stuccoed. 4.4 Architectural Details A. Significant architectural elements that have deteriorated should be repaired rather than replaced. B. Avoid adding cornice or frieze elements as extra ornamentation on a building if not originally present on the building. C. Original architectural elements should not be covered, especially when located on a front elevation. Original architectural details, 138 South High Street CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 41 4.5 Foundations A. Avoid cutting openings in foundation walls to create basement windows or doors on elevations visible from a street. B. Avoid painting or stuccoing the exterior of a foundation. C. Previously-painted or stuccoed foundations should be kept that way, as long as they do not show evidence of moisture retention. D. If original basement windows are to be covered, avoid filling them permanently. 4.6 Building Colors A. Colors should be selected based on documented research of a building’s original paint colors. B. If original colors cannot be identified or are unacceptable to the applicant, alternate colors should be selected according to the time-period of building construction. Original stone foundation, 167 South High Street GUIDELINES Rehabilitation C. Late 19th century buildings should have a maximum of three different colors (the body color and one trim and one accent color); those from earlier and later periods should have no more than two, unless historic precedent suggests otherwise. D. The Architectural Review Board may delegate approval of colors to staff based upon a color palette approved by the Board. 4.7 Doors and Entrances A. The functional, proportional, and decorative features of a primary entrance should be preserved. B. If interior alterations make an existing entrance redundant, the door and entrance should be left intact on the exterior. Original storm door, 63 South High Street Historic building color, 76-78 South High Street Historic building color, 113 South High Street HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO42 F. Interior or exterior storm windows may be used to increase energy efficiency of existing windows. These should be either a single pane or, if they have an upper and a lower pane, the division between the two should be at the meeting rails of the original exterior windows. Storm windows should match the color of the existing window trim. G. Windows that have an original storm sash should be repaired and retained. 4.9 Porches A. Wrought or cast-iron supports should not be used to replace original porch columns unless such iron elements were part of the original design; the same is true for wrought iron railings. B. Avoid enclosing porches to create permanent interior space, particularly on front elevations. C. If a porch is proposed to replace an original, missing porch, the characteristics of original porches on similar buildings, such as height, materials, roof slope, and width of original porches, are preferred. D. If a porch is to be added where a porch never existed, a simple design should be used. E. Avoid ornamentation such as spindles and scrollwork unless they were traditionally used on the porches of similar buildings. C. Color should be compatible with historically appropriate colors already on the building. D. Avoid treatments that attempt to “dress up” a door or entrance or give it a character that was never original. E. Surviving original storm doors should be retained. F. New storm doors should be of simple design. The design should be a full-height glass section that permits viewing the main door. G. Avoid storm doors with decorative features such as scalloped window edges, strap hinges, or “crossbuck” designs. 4.8 Windows A. The position, number, and arrangement of original windows in a building should be preserved. B. If original windows are extensively deteriorated, only the deteriorated windows should be replaced. Avoid removing any that are still repairable. C. Avoid enlarging or downsizing window openings to accommodate stock replacement window sizes. D. Replacement windows should match the appearance of the historic originals in number of panes, dimensions of sash members, and profile of sash members and muntins. Windows should simulate the operating characteristics of the originals. The same material as the original windows, usually wood, should be used. E. Real through-the-glass exterior and interior muntins with spacer bar (simulated divided lite) should be used. Windows should not use sandwiched, applied, or snap- in artificial muntins. Porch, 83 South High Street True divided lite window, 31-33 South High Street GUIDELINES Rehabilitation CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 43 Figure 4.1: Appropriate Additions. Figure 4.2: Inappropriate Additions. Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines. 4.10 Roof, Gutter, and Downspout A. Re-roofing a building that currently has asphalt shingles should be simple in design. B. Avoid staggered-butt or other shingle patterns that try to create an older look. C. If a building does not have gutters and downspouts and is to have them installed, design and color should be compatible with the design and color of the building. D. On existing structures, avoid roofline additions such as dormers, skylights, or penthouses. However, these features may be appropriate on a new addition. If such elements are proposed, they should be placed toward the rear or along a rear slope where visibility is minimal. Skylights should be flat and low in profile. 4.11 Canopy and Awning A. Fabric awnings should have a matte rather than a glossy surface. B. Avoid fixed, permanent canopies unless it can be documented through research that a building had one in the past and that the canopy design is compatible with the original character of the building and the district. C. Each window or door should have its own awning, rather than a single full-width awning covering an entire façade. D. A traditional flat, sloped awning design should be used. Selection of open-end versus closed-end awnings should be historically based. E. Awning color(s) should complement the building and be compatible with historically appropriate colors used on the building, but avoid overly ornate patterns and too many colors. A simple pattern using no more than two colors is preferred. 4.12 Building Additions A. Additions should be clearly distinguishable from the original structure by designing additions to be subordinate and secondary to the primary structure. If the additions or alterations were removed, the essential form and integrity of the original structure should be unimpaired. B. Additions should be located to the rear of the original building so that the most significant and visible faces (e.g. front elevations) of historic properties are given priority. If space needs or lot conditions require that the addition be placed farther forward, the façade of the addition should be set back from the original façade. Background resources may be located in either the rear or side yard provided the other factors are met. Rehabilitation GUIDELINES HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO44 4.14 Retrofitted Access for People with Disabilities (ADA) A. Designs should be kept simple and unobtrusive within the requirements of compliance with ADA standards. B. Ramps or lifts should be located at side or rear entrances to minimize impact on the main façade. C. The design of ramps and handrails should be simple and contemporary and should not try to mimic historic handrails. D. Materials should be the same as, or similar to, those used in the building. Avoid exposed treated wood that is unpainted. E. If providing access to a building’s front entrance is only a matter of overcoming a few inches difference between sidewalk and entrance, a portion of the sidewalk should be designed so that it is sloped upward to overcome the height difference to avoid a handrail. If the building entrance or sidewalk is located within the right-of-way, Engineering approval may be required. 4.15 Energy Efficiency and Sustainability A. The visual impacts of equipment as seen from the street should be minimized. B. The smallest and least obtrusive equipment necessary and available should be used. C. The equipment should be located in an area where it is not visible along any street frontage. D. Equipment should be installed in a manner that is reversible and does not permanently alter or damage original building materials. C. A break or reveal should be provided between the original building and the addition, so it is apparent that they are two separate structures. D. The design for additions to existing properties should not destroy significant historic, architectural, or cultural materials. The design should be compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment. E. Avoid duplicating the original building’s architecture and design in the addition. The addition should take its major design cues such as form, massing, roof shape, window proportions and spacing, door types, and kind of ornamentation from the original building, but it should be a simplified structure. F. Materials for additions should be consistent with those identified in 4.1.C and complementary to the district, but need not match those of the original structure to which the addition is attached. Avoid materials that are not typically from the mid-19th to the early 20th century (e.g. concrete block, rough-sawn siding, or logs). Brick, stucco, and beveled siding or board-and-batten all may be appropriate, depending upon the materials in the original building. G. Roofline additions should be placed and designed to have the least amount of visual impact. Refer to 4.10.D H. The height and roofline of the addition should be below those of the original building. 4.13 Outbuildings A. Original outbuildings such as garages, sheds, outhouses, and barns should be repaired and retained. B. When outbuildings need repair or replacement of deteriorated elements, new materials should match the old. Outbuilding repurposed for commercial use, 109 South High Street (Rear) Rear ADA ramp with masonry wall, 129 South High Street GUIDELINES Rehabilitation CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 45 Figure 4.3: Commercial Storefront Design Elements. Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines. Commercial storefront, 14 South High Street 4.16 Commercial Storefront Design A. Designs should be consistent with the historic storefront character, including window sizes and architectural features. B. Storefronts should retain ornamentation and trim consistent with the historic architectural style of the building. C. Avoid “theme” restorations (e.g. Colonial, Bavarian, Art Deco, Post Modern, etc.) unless historically true to the building. D. Materials should be consistent with the historic architectural style of the building. Inappropriate designs and materials should be avoided such as diagonal wood siding, vinyl or aluminum siding, mansard roofs, and fixed metal canopies. Recessed entry and bulkheads, 52 South High Street Rehabilitation GUIDELINES 464646 474747 Chapter 5New Construction GUIDELINES HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO48 5.0 Applicability The following Guidelines are applicable to residential and commercial properties as well as to outlying historic properties. New construction differs from the construction of new additions to historic structures. New construction includes primary and accessory structures like houses, commercial buildings, garages, sheds, and other similar structures. These guidelines should focus on architectural detail when applied to landmark resources, whereas, the application of the guidelines to background resources should focus more on context related to surrounding landmark resources, emphasizing height, massing, setbacks, form, and fenestration which supports the landmark resources. 5.1 General A. New construction should not be a replica of historic buildings, but also should not be taken to the extreme of modern architecture. There are places in the City of Dublin where modern architecture is appropriate and desired, but within the Historic Districts it is important to provide a sense of continuity and compatibility so that both a sense of historic place and historic time is respected. Continuity and compatibility are more valued than making a bold design statement. GUIDELINES New Construction B. New construction should be similar to existing landmark resources in the District. New buildings should be obviously new to the observer, but there should be continuity and compatibility with surrounding historic structures. They should share underlying principles of design, form, mass, height, scale, and lot coverage as prevails on adjacent lots. 5.2 Building Placement A. Buildings should be sited sensitively to the varying topography of the District and established grade of the site. B. The site should be designed to be consistent with the original block, street, and site patterns of the District in which the building is located. C. The placement of the building should be similarly to the placement, orientation, and setbacks of surrounding structures. The placement should reinforce the street wall. D. The building should be sited similarly to the development pattern of surrounding properties. Lot coverage should be similar to surrounding properties. Figure 5.1: Commercial Infill Development Pattern. Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines. CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 49 GUIDELINES New Construction 5.3 Form and Mass A. The building should be similar in form, mass, and lot coverage, and in proportion and scale to other surrounding buildings. B. Roof pitch and form should be similar to surrounding buildings. C. The building should reinforce a sense of human scale through the design of pedestrian entrances, porches, door and window openings, and façades. D. The form and mass of the building should be responsive to the site topography and similar in overall height to surrounding buildings. Buildings should step-down following the topography of the site. 5.4 Building Width A. The building width should be similar to other buildings in the District. B. If a building is wider than other structures in the District, the façade should be divided into subordinate sizes that are similar to the width of other structures in the District. Sections of the wall should be stepped to further reinforce the visual impression of widths similar to other structures in the District. Figure 5.2: Building Height Scale and Proportion. Figure 5.3: Residential Infill Development Pattern. Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines. HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO50 5.5 Façade A. Façade proportions, including width to height ratio, should be similar to other buildings in the district. B. The primary entrance to the building should front the street. C. Avoid blank façades and monotony of materials. Avoid large surfaces of glass. D. Avoid concrete block foundations or exposed poured concrete. Foundations should be clad with brick or stone. E. Where multi-story buildings are permitted, the façade should incorporate a three-part composition including a base, a middle, and a top. 5.6 Doors and Windows A. The pattern and proportions of window and door openings should be proportional to the building façade and reflect the pattern of other buildings in the District. B. The window-to-wall ratios should be similar to other buildings in the district. C. Windows and doors should be framed in materials that are similar in scale and character with other buildings in the district. 5.7 Architectural Details A. Architectural elements such as eaves, window design and moldings, door surrounds, porches, and soffits, should be modern interpretations of historic details, not replications of historic styles. B. Skylights should be flat and low in profile and placed toward the rear where visibility is minimal. 5.8 Materials and Color A. The building should use materials traditional to historic Dublin: wood, brick, and stone; although may use contemporary materials with characteristics similar to historic materials, as approved by the ARB. B. Materials that have a proven durability for the Central Ohio climate should be used. C. Colors should be similar to other buildings in the district. Figure 5.4: Pattern and Proportions of Window/Door Openings. Finished foundation, 73 South Riverview Street Modern interpretation of historic details, not replication of historic styles/details, 113 South High Street GUIDELINES New Construction Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines. CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 51 5.9 Canopy and Awning A. Fabric awnings should have a matte rather than a glossy surface. B. Each window or door should have its own awning, rather than a single full-width awning covering an entire façade. C. A traditional flat, sloped awning design should be used. D. Awning color(s) should complement the building and be compatible with historically appropriate colors used on the building but avoid overly ornate patterns and too many colors. A simple pattern using no more than two colors is preferred. 5.10 Outbuildings A. Detached garages are encouraged and should be located to the rear and side of the primary structure. B. Newly-constructed outbuildings should be compatible and subordinate in scale to the main building, using design cues from landmark resources and nearby structures, and especially the principal building on the site. C. Forms, massing, roof shape, roof pitch and height, materials, window and door types, and detailing similar to those found on nearby historic or traditional outbuildings should be used. Materials and color traditional to the District, 31-33 South High Street 5.11 Energy Efficiency and Sustainability A. Energy-generating devices, such as solar collectors, should remain visually subordinate to the character of the building, and should not be visible along any street frontage. B. Buildings should incorporate elements such as operable windows for natural ventilation and light. Historic outbuilding, 83 South Riverview Street GUIDELINES New Construction 5252 5353 Chapter 6Site Design GUIDELINES HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO54 6.3 Landscaping A. Open green space, including landscape areas, should be preserved free of buildings, accessory structures, and patios. B. Landscape designs should provide year round interest. Plant materials should be species native to Central Ohio. C. Foundation plantings should be provided to soften the appearance of buildings along the street. 6.4 Walls and Fences A. Original stone walls and fences should be maintained, retained, and not be modified in any way. B. Historic stone walls should be preserved on private property and City owned property. C. Where possible, degraded stone walls should be rehabilitated without compromising the integrity and character. D. Replacement of historic stone walls with new stone walls is discouraged. E. If replacement is necessary due to the condition, or a new fence is proposed, traditional fence and wall types are preferred. These should include low stone walls in the traditional and distinctive Dublin design, low picket fences, iron fences or, in backyard areas, board fences with straight or “dog-eared” top edges, or rows of trees and shrubs. F. The design of landscaping, including walls and fences, should address the public rights-of-way in a similar manner to surrounding properties in the district. G. Non-traditional materials such as concrete or “cyclone” fencing and composite wood fencing, and non- traditional wood fencing designs like basket-weave, shadow-box, or stockade fences are not appropriate. H. For fences, paint or an opaque stain should be applied to wood fencing, rather than leaving it natural. 6.0 Applicability The following Guidelines are applicable to residential and commercial properties as well as to outlying historic properties. Application of the guidelines to landmark and background resources in this section shall follow Chapter 3, 3.4 Application of Guidelines. 6.1 General A. Site design should be sensitive to the surrounding context, particularly to natural features and cultural resources. B. Sites should be designed to preserve elements that contribute to the historic character of the site and District. 6.2 Natural Features A. Site topography should be preserved. Buildings should be sited in a manner that is respective to the existing topography. Regrading of sites should be limited. B. Landmark trees (over 24 caliper inches) on commercial and residential properties should be maintained in good health and preserved from harm. All trees should be preserved, whenever practicable. C. Buildings, accessory structures, and patios should be sited outside of the critical root zone of mature trees. Commercial landscaping, 35-39 South High Street GUIDELINES Site Design CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 55 Wood fence, 35-39 South High Street Hairpin wrought iron fence, 91 South High Street GUIDELINES Site Design 6.5 Access and Parking A. Vehicular access should be visually complementary to the site and building design; it should be secondary to the appearance of the building and not dominating its design. B. Pedestrian and bicycle access and storage should be incorporated into the site design. C. Parking should be accessed from a side street or an alley rather than from the main street. Parking lots or curb cuts in front of a building at the sidewalk should be avoided. D. The visual impacts of service and loading areas should be minimized. They should be located to the rear of the building and screened from public rights-of-way consistent with code screening requirements. 6.6 Decks and Patios A. Decks and patios should be located to the rear or side of the building. B. Decks should be architecturally integrated and treated with paint or an opaque stain to match the color of the building or its trim. C. Railings should be traditional in character, constructed of wood, metal, or other similar material. Vinyl, PVC, and polyurethane should not be used as a deck or railing material. 6.7 Lighting A. Lighting should enhance the site and the building’s design in a manner that is sensitive to surrounding properties. Light fixtures should be scaled appropriately based on the use and character of surrounding properties. B. Light fixtures should be simple in design. Subdued, soft, warm lighting should be used. Avoid large, ornate light fixtures. 6.8 Mechanical Equipment and Waste Screening A. Mechanical equipment, utility equipment, and waste facilities should be screened from view of any public right-of-way or adjacent property and located to the rear of the building. Such equipment should be screened from view with landscaping or screen walls. B. For buildings with rooftop equipment or ventilation, the equipment should be centrally located and fully screened from view using a primary building material. Roof penetrations should be painted to match the roof. Eberly Hill Lane and South Riverview Street stone wall 5656 5757 Chapter 7Signs GUIDELINES HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO58 7.1 General A. Signs should have a minimal visual impact on the site, and the sub-district in which the building is located. B. Signs should be subordinate and complementary to the building. C. Graphics and messages should be simple. D. New signs should be pedestrian in scale (see the Zoning Code). Signs should relate more to the sidewalk than to the street and should be intended for viewing by people who are walking rather than driving. 7.2 Color and Relief A. The color scheme should be simple and unobtrusive. Accent colors or corporate identity colors or logos should be used with restraint, and such colors should not dominate a sign. B. Letter sizes and styles should be easily readable. One letter size and one type style is preferred. C. Signs should be dimensionally routed. 7.3 Materials and Lighting A. Signs should be constructed of durable natural materials, consistent with material used for other signs in the sub-district in which the building is located. B. Signs should be externally illuminated in a way that is subordinate to the design of the building. 7.4 Avoid A. Many bright colors, intended to draw attention rather than add visual interest to the tenant space. B. Thin, flat signs that appear flimsy and temporary. C. Clunky “off the shelf” sign cabinets with no architectural character. D. Homemade signs and designs without professional guidance. E. Using a sign contractor that is not registered with the City of Dublin. 7.5 Context Sensitive 7.6 Quality and Character A. Signs should coordinate with the architectural character of the building and of the sub-district. A. Signs should contribute to the character of the sub- district by providing interest to the pedestrian realm. B. Signs should be constructed of high-quality materials and finished with attention to design details. 7.7 Ground Signs A. Ground signs should be compact and highly coordinated with their surroundings in terms of materials, architectural character, color, and details. B. Signs should have three-dimensional elements. Flat designs are discouraged. C. Sign bases should be structurally integrated and coordinate with the overall design of the sign. GUIDELINES Signs Note: Sign images are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines. CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 59 7.10 Projecting Signs A. Three-dimensional elements are strongly encouraged, along with the creative use of textures and shadows to give the sign dimensionality and interest. B. The bracket or attachment device should be architecturally appropriate to the building design. Only use traditional brackets with traditional architecture. 7.11 Awning Signs A. Awning sign designs should be coordinated with the architectural character of the storefront. The use of stripes and scalloped edges should be minimized unless there is substantial evidence that the detail is historically appropriate. B. Awning signs should include simple text and logos on subdued backgrounds. 7.12 Sandwich Board Signs A. Sandwich Board signs should be constructed of a high- quality wood frame with chalkboard and white-board elements. The frame should not be constructed of plastic. B. Signs should have a clean, simple frame without a handle or additional ornamentation. C. Signs should incorporate whimsical, one-of-a-kind, artistic designs that cater to pedestrians. Graphics should be simple, bold, and symbolic. D. Sandwich Board signs should be maintained in good, working condition. Signs should be brought inside at night and during inclement weather. 7.8 Wall Signs A. Wall signs in pedestrian environments should be interesting to look at, adding vibrancy to the streetscape. B. Wall signs should be three dimensional, with routed letters. C. Letters should be individually pin-mounted or incorporated into a sign panel. Internally illuminated channel letters should be avoided. D. Signs should be illuminated in a way that is subordinate to the design of the building. External illumination is preferred. 7.9 Window Signs A. Permanent window signs should ensure visibility through the window into the tenant space beyond. B. Doors and windows should not be obscured by signs. C. Minimal colors and simple graphics are recommended. Dimensionally routed wall sign, 39 West Bridge Street Projecting and awning sign, 55 West Bridge Street Window sign, 48 South High Street GUIDELINES Signs Council Adopted Resolution 28-21 May 24, 2021 Council Adopted Resolution 90-23 December 11, 2023 HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO2 Acknowledgments Dublin City Council Chris Amorose-Groomes, Mayor, At-Large Cathy De Rosa, Vice Mayor, Ward 4 Greg Peterson, Ward 1 Jane Fox, Ward 2 John Reiner, Ward 3 Christina Alutto, At-Large Andrew Keeler, At-Large 2020 Dublin Architectural Review Board Kathleen Bryan, Chair Gary Alexander, Vice Chair Sean Cotter Frank Kownacki Amy Kramb 2019 Dublin Architectural Review Board Shannon Stenberg, Chair Gary Alexander, Vice Chair Rob Bailey Kathleen Bryan Andrew Keeler 2018 Stakeholder Committee Jay Eggspuehler, Commercial Property Owner Rick Gerber, Historic Dublin Business Association Tom Holton, Dublin Historical Society Kathy Lannan, Residential Property Owner Victoria Newell, Dublin Planning and Zoning Board Chair David Rinaldi, Dublin Architectural Review Board Chair Julie Seel, Residential Property Owner Richard Taylor, Business Owner Alex Vesha, Commercial Property Owner Planning Division Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner Mike Kettler, Planning Technician Julia Brooks, Planning Assistant Kenneth Ganter, Planning Assistant Richard Hansen, Planning Assistant Jimmy Hoppel, Planning Assistant Landplan Studios Daniel Phillabaum, AICP, RLA, Principal McBride Dale Clarion Greg Dale, FAICP, Principal Max Merritt, Planner Preservation Designs Christine Trebellas, AICP, LEED Green Associate, Principal CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 3 Contents Chapter 1: Introduction Overview Background Historic District Map Outlying Historic Properties (Appendix G) Map Chapter 2: Context & Character Cultural Landscape Neighborhood Character Building Types and Architectural Styles Chapter 3: Guidelines - Users Guide Using the Guidelines Landmark vs. Background Application of Guidelines Chapter 4: Guidelines - Rehabilitation General Maintenance and Construction Exterior Materials Architectural Details Foundations Building Colors Doors and Entrances Windows Porches Roof, Gutter, and Downspout Canopy and Awning Building Additions Outbuildings Retrofitted Access for ADA Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Commercial Storefront Design Chapter 5: Guidelines - New Construction General Building Placement Form and Mass Building Width Façade Doors and Windows Architectural Details Materials and Color Outbuildings Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Chapter 6: Guidelines - Site Design General Natural Features Landscaping Walls and Fences Access and Parking Decks and Patios Lighting Mechanical Equipment and Waste Screening Chapter 7: Guidelines - Signs General Color and Relief Materials and Lighting Avoid Context Sensitive Quality and Character Ground Signs Wall Signs Window Signs Projecting Signs Awning Signs Sandwich Board Signs ljf 6 8 10 11 14 18 24 36 36 37 40 40 40 40 40 41 41 42 42 42 43 43 44 44 44 45 46 46 47 48 48 48 48 49 49 49 54 54 54 54 55 55 55 55 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 59 59 59 59 59 4 5 Chapter 1Introduction HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO6 Historic Map of Dublin, 1872 1.0 Applicability The Historic Design Guidelines (Guidelines) apply to all land within the Historic District as outlined in Appendix F, as well as other outlying historic properties as specified in Appendix G of the City of Dublin’s Zoning Code. All properties located within either of these designated areas require approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for certain activities related to renovation, rehabilitation, or new construction, as provided in the Zoning Code §153.170. The Guidelines supplement the review standards contained in the code and will guide the ARB in determining if requests for approvals by the ARB will be granted in accordance with the code. 1.1 Overview The City of Dublin is a thriving community located in northwest Franklin County, southwest Delaware County, and southeast Union County, Ohio. Dublin has undergone tremendous growth in the last five decades, with the population increasing from a village of approximately 700 in 1970 to 48,647 in 2018 (Quick Facts, US Census Bureau). Still, Historic Dublin largely retains the character, scale, and feel of a traditional village. The history of Dublin and the surrounding Washington Township are closely intertwined. Before Ohio became a state in 1803, land was purchased in the area, along the Scioto River, that was to become the Village of Dublin. Peter and Benjamin Sells traveled from Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, to purchase land for their father, three brothers, and themselves. The 400 acres purchased for their brother, John Sells, were located on the high west bank of the Scioto where Historic Dublin now stands. The brothers also purchased land north and south of the original village boundaries. The settlement of Dublin started slowly, with John Sells and his family settling in 1808 and his establishment of the first tavern in the area in 1809. By 1810, Sells began to survey lots to establish a town. He conferred the honor of naming the new town to his surveyor, John Shields. Shields named the future village after his birthplace, Dublin, Ireland. By 1818, Sells advertised 200 town lots for sale in the Columbus newspaper. He listed the excellent building stone, clay for brick and pottery, and an offer of three years’ credit as inducements to purchase lots in the new town. Settlement continued slowly as the community gained residences, a gristmill, a distillery, sawmills and other businesses that served the local population, as well as farmers from the surrounding area. As evidence of Dublin’s permanence as a settlement, a post office was established in 1820. INTRODUCTION Overview CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 7 INTRODUCTION Overview As the community and the township grew, better transportation became a necessity. Lacking a railroad, which spurred development in many Ohio communities in the 19th century, Dublin was dependent on its system of roads. The need for a bridge to span the Scioto River became critical for Dublin so that it could be physically connected to Worthington and Columbus to the east. The first bridge in 1840 was a wooden covered bridge. It was later replaced with a steel span bridge in 1880, and the present Works Progress Administration (WPA) concrete arch bridge was completed in 1935. An effort was made in 1855 to incorporate the village and establish a local government, but the idea was rejected. The issue was revisited in 1881, and in September of that year the Village of Dublin was incorporated. With local government, public improvements became possible. Among those undertaken in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were the installation of gas street lamps in 1888, followed by carbide lights in 1907 and finally electric lights in 1920. By the early 20th century, the local economy was largely based on agriculture and quarrying, and Dublin businesses were largely dependent on the local population. Dublin maintained a relatively stable population, with very little growth during the first seven decades of the 20th century. This changed abruptly in the early 1970s with the construction of Interstate 270 around Columbus and the development of Muirfield Golf Club and Muirfield Village by golf champion Jack Nicklaus. This innovative planned community was located about four miles north of the village core. During the last five decades, the City has grown to fill in the land between the historic center of Dublin and Muirfield Village, as well as expanding to the south, east and west. The current boundaries of Dublin encompass approximately 26 square miles. In spite of the tremendous growth that has taken place in recent decades, the physical form of Historic Dublin is distinctive and clearly reflects the early history of the community. The form is still very much in evidence today. The major north-south road, High Street (also known as SR 745), runs parallel to the river on a high bluff with another parallel road, Riverview Street, running along the Scioto River. The main intersection is High and Bridge Streets, as it was historically, and the bridge crossing the Scioto still connects east and west Dublin. Dublin residents and public officials have long appreciated the special character of Historic Dublin. A part of the district and individual properties, as well as other historic properties in Washington Township, were listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1979, based on both architectural and HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO8 INTRODUCTION Background historic significance. The City of Dublin took further steps to protect and preserve the historic core of the community, as well as other historic sites throughout the community in 1970 through the establishment of the ARB. Credit for the preservation of Historic Dublin’s special character must also be given to the stewardship of generations of Dublin property owners who have maintained and improved the buildings and their physical environment. Historic Dublin continues as the historic heart of the community and a walkable, thriving mixed-use neighborhood with residences concentrated along Riverview and Franklin Streets and retail, cultural/civic, and residential uses intermingled along High and Bridge Streets. Outlying historic properties exist throughout Dublin as examples of the City’s rich agricultural history. 1.2 Background There are significant economic and social benefits in preserving historic areas and properties. Dublin’s efforts to promote the preservation of Dublin, while promoting historically appropriate development and investment, began over 50 years ago. Success requires a partnership among the City, land owners, residents, business owners, and stakeholders. Dublin has recognized the importance of preservation in a number of policy documents, including the City’s Community Plan, which details the unique character of Historic Dublin and many outlying historic properties. The plan provides many recommendations about preservation and enhancement of the Historic District’s character. The plan also recommends further efforts to identify and recognize historic properties outside the district. In 2016, the City conducted a Historic and Cultural Assessment of the built resources, landscape features, and archaeological sites throughout Dublin. The goal of the assessment was to gain a greater understanding of the historic resources that exist and how those resources contribute to the City’s sense of place. The assessment produced a detailed inventory of over 900 resources considered to be relevant, an assessment of the landmark and background status, and strategies and recommendations to encourage and fund historic preservation efforts. Additionally, the City has taken the initiative to revise and update the Zoning Code on a series of occasions to ensure new development and redevelopment meet the desired character by the community and its stakeholders. The Zoning Code requirements, these Guidelines, and the applicable policy documents collectively contribute to protecting the character of Dublin’s historic places. Dublin Community Church, 81 West Bridge Street, 1930s (Constructed in 1877) Home of Isaac Walter, 37 South Riverview Street, 1842 Dublin Firehouse, 37 West Bridge Street, 1945 CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 Mansfield Buggy Co. & Post Office, SW Corner - Bridge Street at High Street, 1890s Christie Methodist Church, South High Street, 1870s (Built in 1838 and Destroyed by Tornado in 1912) 32 South High Street, 1932, (Built in 1830s and Operated until 1972) NE Corner - Bridge Street at High Street, 1880s Coffman’s Corner, SW Corner - Bridge Street at High Street, 1879 Washington Local School, 75 North High Street, 1871 INTRODUCTION Background HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO10 INTRODUCTION Historic District Map Architectural Review District Boundary CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 11 INTRODUCTION Outlying Historic Properties (Appendix G) Map Appendix G Properties 1. Brand, Asher Residence – 5281 Brand Road 2. Coffman, Fletcher House – 6659 Coffman Road 3. Cramer Homestead – 5927 Rings Road 4. Davis, James Barn & Farm – 5707 Dublin Road 5. Dun, John Homestead – 8055 Dublin-Bellepoint Road 6. Gelpi Residence (Dublin Arts Council) – 7125 Riverside Drive 7. Holder-Wright Earthworks – 6985 Emerald Parkway 8. Llewellyn Farms Barn – 4845 Belfield Drive 9. Maroa Wilcox Memorial – Norn Street & Woerner- Temple Road (PID 273009779) 10. Mitchell Barn (Earlington Park) – 5585 Brand Road 11. Mitchell Cemetery (on Cardinal Health Campus) – Emerald Parkway (PID 273011174) 12. Mt. Zion Cemetery – Kinross Court and Memorial Drive (PID 273000448) 13. Rings Farm – 6665 Shier Rings Road 14. St. John’s Lutheran Cemetery – Avery Road (PID 274000024) 15. St. John’s Lutheran Church & Sandy Corners Cemetery – Rings Road (PID 274000155 and 274000031) 16. Summit View Farm – 8115 Conine Drive 17. Tuller Barn – Brand and Ashbaugh Roads 18. Washington Township School (Graham Residence) – 4915 Brand Road 19. Brown-Harris Cemetery – Lot 6, University Boulevard - Phase II Final Plat (Resolution 43-20) 20. Ferris Cemetery – SR 257 (Riverside Drive) and Bright Road 21. DAC Log Cabin - 7125 Riverside Drive 21 1212 1313 Chapter 2Context & Character HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO14 CONTEXT & CHARACTER Cultural Landscape 2.1 Background Historic Dublin possesses a strong sense of place. The combination of its eclectic architecture, intimate village scale, pedestrian scale streets, and natural features create an authentic environment worth preserving, protecting, and celebrating. Historic Dublin’s unique character is in part due to the very gradual growth of the community up until the late 20th century. Much of what was built in the 19th century still defines the physical environment today. 2.2 Cultural Landscape The Historic District’s unique visual character is attributable to the beauty of its extensive natural landscape including the striking topography and cultural sites that have been shaped by previous generations. The Dublin Community Plan calls for the protection of these valued natural and historic landscape assets within Dublin, which contribute to the cultural landscape of Historic Dublin. The character-defining topography and the numerous historic landscape assets within the Historic District embody a “soul and sense of place”, creating a legacy that reveals our past and the people that shaped and lived on our land. The extraordinary and extensive landscape within Dublin’s Historic District provides scenic, economic, ecological, social, recreational, and educational opportunities, and the preservation and protection of these unique landforms provides an enriched quality of life for the community. Among the valued natural assets that require sensitive protection are: the distinctive topography; the Scioto River; the Indian Run Ravine and Falls; the Dublin Spring; abundant view sheds and vistas; natural ravines, caves and outcroppings; native flora and fauna; wetlands and vernal pools; hardwood forests; and landmark trees and woodlands. The distinctive historic cultural sites that have been influenced by the imprint of past generations include among others: dry laid stone walls, stone quarries, historic cemeteries, the West Bridge Street Bridge, Native American archaeological sites, and appurtenances such as hitching posts, stone carriage steps, stone work and retaining walls, artwork and memorials. These defining historic landscape assets are the canvas of our past and require dedicated preservation and maintenance. The following guidelines provide direction in protecting Dublin’s historic cultural landscape for the benefit of our community and future generations. Bridge Street Bridge, 1935 Indian Run Falls, 1899 CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 15 Topography One of the most dramatic features is the topography of the area. John Sells selected the area for the settlement of a town since it was on the high west bank of the Scioto River, protected from flooding. The change in elevation between High Street and Riverview Street is considerable, with a further dramatic drop to the Scioto River. This change of elevation leads to steep, sloping yards. Due to the varied topography, not all areas are easily suited to development, which has led to the preservation of natural vistas and views of the river and valley. Scioto River The Scioto River is the most prominent natural feature, providing a strong physical and visual connection to Dublin’s early history. The Scioto River corridor is unique due to its shallow river bed with a wide floodway. In many locations, the edge of the floodplain is defined by small limestone outcroppings. The wide floodway has an extensive native deciduous tree canopy. Seasonal flooding of the river often makes areas of the floodway inaccessible. Due to its shallow depth, the river water is typically brown. Several tributaries feed the Scioto River as it flows through Dublin. Typically, these streams are narrow slivers carving ravines down to the river. Ravines and Springs The wooded ravines, Indian Run to the north and Cosgray Ditch to the south, in conjunction with the Scioto River, form natural boundaries for Historic Dublin. Indian Run Falls, located within the Indian Run Ravine, is a pristine waterfall once home to members of the Wyandot tribe and later home to settlers of Dublin. The Falls remain an important cultural resource today. Natural flows of fresh water throughout the area form springs. The Dublin Spring is located along the Scioto River where Dublin’s founders drew clean drinking water. In the winter, the weeps from underground springs leak water through the stone and create beautiful ice patterns along the riverbanks. CONTEXT & CHARACTER Cultural Landscape 1900s Historic Stone Wall, 2000 Scioto River, 2015 HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO16 CONTEXT & CHARACTER Flora and Fauna Dublin is ecologically diverse particularly along the river corridor. Native plant species include Rock Cress, Drummond’s Aster, Rattlesnake Fern, and Marsh Marigold. Historically, Rock Cress has been found growing along the Scioto River, although it can be overtaken by invasive plants such as Honeysuckle and Garlic Mustard. Sycamore trees, know for their large stature, white bark, and long life, are prominent along the riverbanks. A number of animals thrive in the area including birds, beavers, bats, chipmunks, deer, ducks, geese, skunks, squirrels, turtles, and woodchucks. Earthworks Archaeological resources influence Dublin’s landscape today. The Holder-Wright Earthworks, located within Ferris-Wright Park, are significant to the Hopewell people. Earthworks were places for ceremony, marriages, to honor relatives and neighbors who died, to make alliances, for celebration, feasting, and sacred games. Three earthworks exist at the site, two circles and a square, and five burial mounds. The tallest mound once stood five feet tall, and the others were approximately three feet tall. The earthworks at Ferris-Wright Park are the northernmost earthworks in the Scioto Valley. Many tribes are represented at this site, with the oldest dating back to Clovis times, or about 12,000 years ago. Quarries At the southern end of Historic Dublin, adjacent to the Scioto River, is a former stone quarry which played an important role in the physical development of Dublin and Washington Township, as evidenced by the extensive use of limestone for building purposes. The limestone in this region is characterized by a prevalence of Devonian Period fossils. The limestone, known as Columbus Limestone, is highly fossilized, which gives it a rough texture that is distinctive when used either in its natural state or as cut and finished building stone. The extensive use of limestone in the construction of dry-laid low stone walls, foundations, stoops, and entire buildings is a distinguishing feature of Historic Dublin and many other central Ohio communities. Stone Walls Similar to other central Ohio communities due to the ready supply of limestone, Dublin possesses an abundance of limestone in various applications including a number of low, dry-laid stone walls. Many date from the early 19th century, although even the more recent examples contribute to the character of the area. These walls are a significant historic element in the community’s past and present physical environment. Butterflyweed (Asclepias Tuberosa) at Dublin Cemetery, 2017 Holder-Wright Earthworks, 2020 Cultural Landscape CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 17 Daily Chores by Michael Tizzano, 2012 Indian Run Cemetery, 2015 Cemeteries Historic Dublin contains two cemeteries, the Indian Run Cemetery and the Dublin Cemetery. The Indian Run Cemetery, established in 1814, was the first burial ground in Dublin. It is located in the northern portion of the Historic District, along the Indian Run Ravine, adjacent to the Grounds of Remembrance. The Indian Run Cemetery was active for over 40 years, until the Dublin Cemetery was established in 1858. The Dublin Cemetery is located at the western entrance into the Historic District and remains active today. Both cemeteries are located within a park-like setting where the community can visit and pay their respects to those interred, which include a number of Dublin’s historic families. Historic Details Remnants of historic life remain today as a reminder of the past and can be seen throughout Historic Dublin. Hitching posts and carriage stones are located along High Street and provide a reminder of the way of life in years past. Public Art Art in public spaces contribute to the sense of place. Art may invoke an emotion, a question, or an interaction. A number of art pieces are located within the Historic District and provide a lens into the past. Dublin’s historic water pump, originally located at the intersection of High and Bridge Streets, inspired Michael Tizzano’s “Daily Chores” bronze sculpture in 2012. The Grounds of Remembrance, located within Dublin Veterans’ Park at the northern end of the Historic District, provides recognition to Dublin’s veterans. CONTEXT & CHARACTER Cultural Landscape HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO18 CONTEXT & CHARACTER Neighborhood Character 2.3 Neighborhood Character Historic Dublin contains a series of neighborhood areas that coincide with the Historic Zoning Districts outlined in the Zoning Code §153.170. While Historic Dublin is a relatively small district, it contains distinct neighborhood areas defined by historic character, architectural design, primary uses, and development pattern. The historic street grid and the pattern of the blocks contribute to the established character of Historic Dublin. This development pattern results in a smaller lot size, with buildings located along the street edge, and vehicular access through alleys at the rear of the properties. Each neighborhood area utilizes the development pattern in various ways depending on the uses and layout of each property. The neighborhood descriptions outlined below provide background and guidance regarding the desired character for each of these distinct areas. Construction Materials Brick masonry and wood siding appear extensively throughout Historic Dublin. Brick is used as a building material as well as a paving material. Wood siding appears in a number of applications, including horizontal, vertical, shake, and shiplap siding. Wood is also used for fencing, porches, and decorative ornamentation on buildings. Wrought iron and stone fences are prevalent in landscape design. Scale and Form Perhaps the most defining characteristic of Historic Dublin is its intimate, small village scale. The buildings are located close together with shallow front yard setbacks and generally range from one to two stories in height. A majority of the buildings have a residential quality, in contrast to the centers of many other historic Ohio communities that have a continuous streetscape of commercial buildings with storefronts, cornices, and shared party walls. The spaces between the buildings offer owners and tenants opportunities to create small gardens, seating areas, and open space. Street Character The traditional streetscape character and street design are another integral element of the visual character of Historic Dublin. The tight street pattern, coupled with the size and scale of the buildings and their relationship to the street, define Historic Dublin’s pedestrian-scaled environment. Narrower street widths, on-street parking, buildings facing the street, sidewalks, and mature street trees contribute to the character of the area. The cohesive design of these elements contribute to the success of the District by connecting the commercial and the residential uses and providing inviting environment for residents and visitors. South Riverview Street, Historic Residential Neighborhood, 2019 South High Street, Historic South Neighborhood, 2010 CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 19 2.4 Historic Core The Historic Core applies to the historic center of Dublin at the intersection of West Bridge and North High Streets. The Historic Core contains largely commercial uses within historic buildings, along with a number of new, more contemporary buildings. The area serves as a major gateway into the Historic District, setting the tone for the neighborhood character. The neighborhood layout promotes a walkable environment, while accommodating vehicular access given its proximity to a major intersection. A challenge for this neighborhood is balancing the preservation of historic buildings while providing the opportunity for infill that is sensitive to the existing scale and character of the surrounding area. General design principles for the Historic Core neighborhood include: X Connecting and enhancing the historic grid street pattern. X Promoting a walkable environment through quality streetscape design. X Preserving and rehabilitating landmark resources to maintain the historic fabric of Historic Dublin. X Allowing sensitive redevelopment consistent with surrounding character. X Providing opportunities to enhance the street edge and reinforce the building envelope. X Requiring architectural design, scale, and building materials that complement the existing historic character. X Locating buildings along the street edge with parking and access to the rear. X Creating opportunities for connectivity throughout Historic Dublin and to adjacent development, civic uses, and open space. CONTEXT & CHARACTER Neighborhood Character N High StN High StW Bridge StW Bridge St SS High St High St HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO20 2.5 Historic South The Historic South district contains smaller, cottage-scale buildings located along South High Street, south of the Historic Core and surrounded by the Historic Residential neighborhood to the south, east, and west. The area contains the majority of the historic structures and sites found within Historic Dublin with a fewer number of new structures. The area includes a mix of commercial and residential uses. The buildings are consistent with the historic development pattern and support a highly walkable setting because of the proximity of buildings located closely together. General design principles for the Historic South neighborhood include: X Maintaining the historic grid street pattern. X Promoting a walkable environment through quality streetscape design. X Preserving and rehabilitating landmark resources to maintain the historic fabric of Historic Dublin. X Allowing sensitive redevelopment consistent with surrounding character. X Requiring architectural design and scale, and building materials that complement the existing historic character. X Maintaining a smaller building scale and mass consistent with the development pattern of the area. X Retaining open areas at the rear of the properties, particularly adjacent to residential properties. X Creating opportunities for connectivity throughout Historic Dublin and to adjacent developments and open space. S High StS High StPinney Hill LnPinney Hill Ln CONTEXT & CHARACTER Neighborhood Character CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 21 2.6 Historic Residential The Historic Residential neighborhood surrounds the Historic South area to the east along South Riverview Street and west along Franklin Street, and south along High Street. This area supports the preservation and development of houses on existing or new lots that are comparable in size, mass, and scale, while maintaining and promoting the traditional residential character of Historic Dublin. General design principles for the Historic Residential neighborhood include: X Preserving and rehabilitating landmark resources to maintain the historic fabric of Historic Dublin. X Allowing for development of new residential structures that complement the scale, mass, and design of the surrounding historic residential. X Encouraging comparable building height and lot coverages, similar to the surrounding historic structures. X Encouraging new residential structures to have consistent setbacks and similar lot coverage to surrounding residential development. X Promoting rear accessed lots where feasible. X Encouraging outbuildings and detached buildings be to located at the rear of a property. X Promoting preservation of open rear yards, green space corridors, and river views throughout the neighborhood.S Riverview StS Riverview StCONTEXT & CHARACTER Neighborhood Character Franklin SFranklin SttDublin RdDublin Rd HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO22 CONTEXT & CHARACTER Neighborhood Character 2.7 Public The Historic Public neighborhood contains a series of civic spaces and natural areas located throughout Historic Dublin, including Riverside Crossing Park West, Indian Run Falls, Indian Run Cemetery, Dublin Veterans’ Park, Dublin Cemetery, Karrer Barn, and Dublin Springs Park. These spaces preserve the historic character and natural environment found throughout the District and serve as an amenity to residents and visitors. General design principles for the Historic Public neighborhood include: X Continuing efforts to preserve the sites and amenities. X Ensuring connectivity and access to these areas. X Providing greenway connections and access to the Scioto River. X Increasing public access to the natural amenities. CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 23 2.8 Outlying Properties and Historic Farmsteads A series of sites and structures located outside of Historic Dublin contribute to the history of Dublin. These properties, identified on Appendix G of the Zoning Code, include historic farmsteads, barns, churches and former schoolhouses. The character of each of these sites is unique, but help tell the story of the history of Dublin. Karrer Barn, 225 South High Street 5600 Bristol Parkway 5623 Dublinshire Drive CONTEXT & CHARACTER Neighborhood Character HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO24 2.9 Overview The architecture of Historic Dublin spans a period of over two centuries, which contributes to the architectural variety of the District. Some of the buildings possess characteristics of a specific architectural style; however, the vast majority are “vernacular” in character and are best identified by building type. Vernacular architecture is defined as “a mode of building based on regional forms and materials” (Harris, Cyril M. Historic Architecture Sourcebook. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1977). Building type is based on form, function, floor plan, configuration (shape), and stories (height). Architectural style is based on design details and ornamentation. Building type does not determine architectural style. Some architectural styles have a predominate building type, although architectural styles can include a number of building types over time. Buildings may include elements of more than one architectural style. Dublin’s historic buildings often demonstrate the original owner’s personal tastes, availability and affordability of materials, and design influences at the time of construction. While many of the same building types and architectural styles can be found elsewhere in Central Ohio, the combination of building materials, physical setting, and spatial relationships create the unique historic character of Historic Dublin. Identified as part of the Historical and Cultural Assessment, a series of building types and architectural styles are present in Dublin. The characteristics of the predominate building types and architectural styles, identified herein, are based on the A Field Guide to American Houses (McAlester, Virginia, A. Lee McAlester, Lauren Jarrett, and Juan Rodriguez-Arnaiz. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993); and, How to Complete the Ohio Historic Inventory (Gordon, Stephen C., et al. How to Complete the Ohio Historic Inventory. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Ohio Historical Society, 1992.) The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) identifies 19 building types under ‘House Types’ and 35 architectural styles found in Ohio. Many structures in Historic Dublin were constructed as residential buildings. Therefore, most of the building types in Dublin are represented under the ‘House Types’ category recognized by SHPO. Not all building types are present in Dublin. Similarly, many architectural styles are not found in Dublin. Many of the historic structures in Dublin are of “No Academic Style – Vernacular.” Academic styles are considered high style, which exemplify a particular architectural movement. Only the building types and CONTEXT & CHARACTER Building Types & Architectural Styles 109 South Riverview Street, built ca. 1827, is an example of Federal architecture. Note the Federal-style elements such as the two-story height, rectilinear form, five-bay façade composition with symmetrical window and door placement, and a side-gable roof. The Washington Township Centralized School at 150 West Bridge Street was built in 1919 in the Art Deco style. Elements of the style include the smooth wall surface and decorative concrete panels with stylized or geometric motifs. CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 25 architectural styles present in Historic Dublin and the outlying historic properties (Appendix G) are included below. The building types and architectural styles are arranged chronologically. Each building type and architectural style includes a general description, typical design characteristics, and a graphic example. Building Types X Hall and Parlor X I-House X Saltbox X Gabled Ell X Bungalow X Cape Cod Cottage X Ranch/Split-Level Architectural Styles X No Academic Style - Vernacular X Federal X Greek Revival X Gothic Revival X Romanesque Revival X Italianate X Queen Anne X Colonial Revival X Craftsman/Arts and Crafts X French Colonial/Norman Revival X Art Deco X Modern Movements CONTEXT & CHARACTER Building Types & Architectural Styles 167 South High Street, built in 1897 in the Queen Anne style. Elements of the style include the asymmetrical massing, irregular floor plan, bay windows, decorative gable ends, wrap-around front porch with decorative spindle work, and decorative shingles in the roof. St. John Lutheran Church at 6135 (6115) Rings Road, built ca. 1860, is an example of Romanesque Revival architecture. Note the elements such as the masonry construction, round arches, brick corbeling, and square tower. HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO26 2.10 Hall and Parlor A rectangular, two room floor plan with a side gable roof form, the Hall and Parlor building type was popular between 1800-1870. Additional characteristics include: X 1 to 1.5-stories in height X 1-room deep X Symmetrical, 3-bay wide façade X Central entry X One or two chimneys, central or at both ends CONTEXT & CHARACTER Building Types 2.11 I-House A rectangular, two room floor plan with a side gable roof form, less commonly a flat or hipped roof, the I-House building type was popular between 1820-1890. Additional characteristics include: X 2-stories in height X 1-room deep X Symmetrical, 3 or 5-bay wide façades; select 4-bay examples X Central entry X Front porch, 1 or 2-stories in height X One or two chimneys, central or at both ends 2.12 Saltbox A rectangular floor plan with an asymmetrical sloping roofline, mimicking a ‘saltbox’, the Saltbox building type was popular between 1830-1900. Additional characteristics include: X 1.5 to 2-stories in height X 3 or 4-bay wide façades X One or two chimneys, central or at both ends CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 27 Caption CONTEXT & CHARACTER Building Types 2.13 Gabled Ell An irregular ‘L’ or ‘T’ floor plan with intersecting gable roof forms at the same height, the Gabled Ell building type was popular between 1865-1885. Additional characteristics include: X 1 to 2-stories in height X 1 or 2-bays wide, wing and block X Front facing entry X Front porch, 1-story in height 2.14 Bungalow A rectangular floor plan with a gabled or hipped roof form, with or without a front dormer, the Bungalow building type was popular between 1905-1930. Characteristics for a Dormer Front Bungalow include: X 1-1.5, and 2-stories in height X 3-bay wide façade X Central entry X Overhanging eaves X Full-width front porch, 1-story in height with columns X Interior or exterior chimney 2.15 Cape Cod Cottage A rectangular floor plan sometimes with an attached one- car garage. Typified by a side gable roof form, the Cape Cod Cottage building type was popular between 1925-1950 Additional characteristics include: X 1 to 1.5-stories in height X Dormer windows X Symmetrical, 3 or 5-bay wide façades X Central entry X One central chimney HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO28 2.16 Ranch/Split-Level An elongated irregular floor plan with a low gabled or hipped roof and overhanging eaves, the Ranch building type was most popular between 1940-1970, although still remains relevant today. Additional characteristics include: X 1 to 1.5-stories in height X Symmetrical or asymmetrical façade X Attached garage or carport X Off-center entry, may be hidden X Large picture window The Split-Level building type, having multiple stories with at least a half story below grade, was most popular between 1940-1970. Additional characteristics include: X 1 to 2-stories in height X Symmetrical or asymmetrical façade X Attached garage X Off-center entry X Large picture window CONTEXT & CHARACTER Building Types CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 29 CONTEXT & CHARACTER Architectural Styles 2.17 No Academic Style - Vernacular No Academic Style - Vernacular is by far the most prevalent style of architecture in Historic Dublin. Vernacular buildings are “influenced by the local climate, available building materials, ethnic building traditions rather than by contemporary architectural fashions and styles” (Gorden, 76). 2.18 Federal Federal architecture is a post-Colonial style that sought to stress independence from England, rejecting earlier English-based Georgian architecture, by establishing a new national style. Federal style buildings retain the symmetry of earlier architecture, and stress dignity, restraint, and simple ornamentation (Walker, 96-97). Since Dublin was just being settled in the early 19th century, this is one of the first architectural styles to appear in the area. 2.19 Greek Revival Greek Revival architecture rose as a response to the Greek War of Independence from Turkey. The style became popular in public and private contexts. The style is typified by a Greek temple aesthetic with Greek columns that were carefully detailed. Everything was usually painted white to simulate the color of a Greek temple (Walker, 106-109). Regional variants of this style exist with farmhouses incorporating elements of Greek Revival style. Architectural details such as cornices with returns, moulding beneath the cornice, and front doors with rectangular transom and sidelights are common. 119 South High Street 109 South Riverview Street 63 South High Street HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO30 75 South High Street Coffman Homestead, 6659 Coffman Road St. John Lutheran Church, 6115/6135 Rings Road 2.20 Gothic Revival Gothic Revival architecture began in England as a revolt against classical styles and symmetry in favor of picturesque and irregular shapes. In the United States, the style is visible in rural, domestic architecture from 1840-1880. Gothic Revival style homes are often stone or brick construction transitioning to wood framing in the later 19th century. Variants of the style include Cottage Gothic, Carpenter Gothic, and Steamboat Gothic (Walker, 120-131). Fanciful or decorative ornamentation, barge boards under the gables, and pointed arches, and window crowns define the style. The Gothic Revival style can be seen in Dublin in steeply pitched gable roofs and pointed arch windows. 2.21 Romanesque Revival Romanesque Revival architecture rose in popularity in Ohio during the mid-19th century. The style is most often applied to churches, public buildings, and institutional buildings. Inspired by James Renwick’s Smithsonian Castle in Washington, DC., these buildings typically have monochromatic brick or stone walls with round-arch window and door openings and square or polygonal towers with brick corbelling (Gordon, 81). 2.22 Italianate Italianate style began in England as a revolt against classical styles and symmetry in favor of the picturesque and irregular shapes. The style emphasized rural, rambling, informal Italian farmhouses and dominated American house construction from 1850 to 1880. In Ohio, the Italianate style was among the most popular Romantic style of the 19th century, gaining favor as the state’s population nearly doubled in this time period. Early examples are square or rectangular box-shaped homes with three visual bays and tall windows, usually topped with a segmental arch or window hood. Large overhanging eaves with decorative brackets were also common (Gordon, 85). Italianate architecture in Dublin followed this trend. CONTEXT & CHARACTER Architectural Styles CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 31 25 South Riverview Street 114 South High Street 56-58 North High Street 2.23 Queen Anne Queen Anne architecture first appeared in England and subsequently adapted in the United States. Blumenson’s Identifying American Architecture describes the style as the “most varied and decoratively rich style. The asymmetrical composition consists of a variety of forms, textures, materials, and colors. Architectural parts include towers, turrets, tall chimneys, projecting pavilions, porches, bays and encircling verandas. The textured wall surfaces occasionally are complimented by colored glass panels in the windows” (63). In Ohio, Queen Anne architecture was the dominant style of house construction from 1880 to 1900 (Gordon, 91). As such, there are several examples of this style in Dublin. 2.24 Colonial Revival Colonial Revival style is strictly an American movement inspired by nostalgia for the past. It started around the turn of the 20th century and includes tremendous variety in terms of scale, details, and application. Later examples, from the mid-20th century, are usually side-gable buildings with simple stylized door surrounds, cornices, or other details that allude to colonial architecture rather than replicate it. Dublin has a variety of Colonial Revival style homes ranging from the traditional Colonial Revival to Dutch Colonial Revival architecture. 2.25 Craftsman/Arts and Crafts Craftsman/Arts and Crafts architectural style was inspired by the English Arts and Crafts movement and subsequently became popular in the United States. In the United States, Craftsman-style first appeared in California at the turn of the 20th century. Craftsman homes emphasize low, horizontal lines and a design that becomes part of its natural setting. Wide projecting eaves, overhanging gables with exposed rafters, open porches with heavy square porch piers (often on top of masonry bases) give these homes a sense of solid construction. CONTEXT & CHARACTER Architectural Styles HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO32 150 West Bridge Street 7125 Riverside Drive 2.27 French Colonial/Norman Revival French Colonial/Norman Revival architecture is a subcategory of Colonial Revival architecture based on 16th and 17th century French countryside style growing in popularity post World War I (Gorden, 110). The style is typified by steeply pitched roofs, round towers with turrets, and an asymmetrical entrance. 2.28 Art Deco Art Deco architecture is common in public and commercial buildings built in the 1920s and early 1930s (McAlester, 464- 466). The style rejected historical precedent in favor of modern materials and industrial-inspired design. Buildings designed in this style usually had rectilinear massing, futuristic images, stylized ornament, and polychromatic effects. Walls tended to have smooth, polychromatic surfaces of brick or concrete with rounded or angular corner windows. While Art Deco was popular among skyscrapers built in this period, the design was also applied to low-scale buildings such as schools, post offices, and apartment buildings (Gordon, 112). In Dublin, this style appears in commercial and institutional buildings such as the Washington Township Centralized School at 150 West Bridge Street, built circa 1919. CONTEXT & CHARACTER Architectural Styles 170 South Riverview Street 2.29 Modern Post World War II brings the advent of Modern architecture. The first post-war house styles to emerge were the Cape Cod and Minimal Tradition, which were based on earlier house styles of the 20th century, but with new materials and building methods developed during the war. By the1950s, these house styles were replaced by the Ranch house, which dominated American residential architecture throughout the 1960s and is still popular today. The Split-Level house style followed the ranch and retained the low-pitched roof and broad, rambling façade of the period. Less common in this period was the Mid-Century Modern architecture, which rejected traditional forms in favor of a more modern expression with wide overhanging eaves, flat or low-pitched roofs with broad, low front-facing gables, and exposed structural members such as beams or slender metal columns (McAlester, 447). All of these building styles can be seen in Dublin’s residential areas, and even in some of its commercial and institutional structures. CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 33 CONTEXT & CHARACTER Building Types & Architectural Styles 83 South Riverview Street, built in1824, is an example of an I-House building type with Federal architectural style elements. The building is of stone construction with a standing seam metal roof. Former Post Office at 38 West Bridge Street, built in 1965, is in a Modernist Movement architectural style. The one-story brick and stone building has a rectilinear footprint with flat roof and a large glazed storefront window. 87 South High Street, built ca. 1840, in a Greek Revival architectural style has a rectilinear footprint with stone foundation, front gable façade clad in horizontal siding accented by a decorative frieze. 55 South Riverview Street, built ca. 1900, is an example of the Gabled Ell building type with No Academic Style. The front block and wing are identifying forms with the spindle work suggesting an increased accessibility of millwork at the turn of the century. 3434 3535 Chapter 3Users Guide GUIDELINES HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO36 3.1 Intent The Guidelines help protect the overall character of Dublin by emphasizing preservation of architectural styles, details, and streetscape elements that define the community’s unique character. They help guide appropriate rehabilitation work and alterations of existing buildings. For additions, new construction and site work, the Guidelines emphasize compatibility of new buildings or features with the District’s historic character. 3.2 Using the Guidelines The intent of the Guidelines is preservation and rehabilitation: retaining and stabilizing the significant buildings and features that define a historic building or streetscape. That is why terms such as repair, retain, maintain, and preserve are used throughout the Guidelines. Repairing, retaining, maintaining, and preserving the original or historic architectural features of a contributing structure is preferred to replacement or modification. For that reason, the rehabilitation Guidelines always begin with the most conservative approach (repair) and then move to other more intrusive treatments. The Guidelines also offer guidance to ensure new buildings align with the character of the District, and building additions are compatible and use appropriate design elements. The Guidelines are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (U.S. Department of the Interior). The purpose of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings is to provide guidance to historic building owners and building managers, preservation consultants, architects, contractors, and project reviewers prior to beginning work. It is always recommended that preservation professionals be consulted early in any project. 3.3 Landmark vs. Background Resources Resources within the City have been classified as either “landmark” or “background” according to their historic character, as shown on the 2023 Historic District Map and Appendix G Map. This distinction is pertinent for the following reasons: X The emphasis for landmark resources is preservation and rehabilitation. These are resources that contribute to the historic value of the district and in fact, were important to the Federal designation of the National Register district and/or individual property listings. Maintaining or restoring the historic integrity of landmark resources is the highest policy objective of these Guidelines. X Landmark resources within the Historic District are defined as adding to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities, or archaeological value of the area. Resources are designated landmark for a variety of reasons including National Register eligibility, period of significance, and sufficient integrity. X Background resources within the Historic District are those that do not add to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities, or archaeological value of the area. Buildings and resources are designated background for GUIDELINES Users Guide NRHP - District Properties NRHP - Individually Listed Additional Properties Recommended Not Recommended Dublin High Street Historic District Dublin Historic District 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 3738 39 4041 42 43 44 45 DUBLIN HISTORIC DISTRICT MAP 49 62 59 56 57 55 52 51 50 106 107 85 111 108 109 110 113 92 94 81 83 89 101 102 105 75 100 97 99 95 112 114 115 80 91 93 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 47 46 32 96 70 69 68 73 77 78 76 79 60 61 82 67 66 103 104 88 86 84 48 53 54 58 63 64 65 74 87 98 90 W BRIDGE ST N HIGH STS HIGH STDublin Historic District S RIVERVIEW STN RIVERVIEW STFRANKLIN STSHORT ST PINNEYHILL LN EBERLY HILL SPRING HILL WING HILLDARBY ST2023 Historic District Map CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 37 a variety of reasons including National Register ineligibility, irrelevance to the period of significance, and insufficient integrity. X Background resources should emphasize design elements that are stylistically compatible and contextually supporting landmark resources through the height, setbacks, massing, roof shape, windows & door openings, eaves, and overhangs. When the context of background resources includes landmark resources, a higher level of evaluation should be given to the key design elements, including the materials utilized and the appropriateness of other stylistic features. 3.4 Application of Guidelines Overview These Guidelines provide the ARB with guidance in reviewing applications for approvals related to modifications of existing buildings or structures and the construction of new buildings or structures. They are intended to communicate either a desired or undesired outcome or preference. As Guidelines, interpretation is discretionary on the part of the ARB within the parameters of the regulations that establish and govern the Board. The terms “should”, “should not”, and “avoid” used in the Guidelines signify a desired or undesired outcome or preference. For the purpose of applying these Guidelines by the Board, the terms “should”, “should not”, and “avoid” will include consideration by the Board of feasibility and practicality, guided by consideration of factors such as the context of the proposed improvements, availability of materials, site conditions, building conditions, and other applicable City policies and plans. In exercising discretion in applying the Guidelines, the Board will consider and weigh these and other factors as circumstances require. Each project is reviewed on an individual, case-by-case basis, and there are times when more flexibility or creative solutions are needed in applying the Guidelines. When those situations occur, the Board will be clear in stating the reasons for its decision. The application of these guidelines to background resources adjacent to or across from landmark resources should be followed with more focus to architectural detail and key design elements, including the materials utilized and the appropriateness of other stylistic features. When background resources are adjacent to or across from other background resources, the application of the standards should focus more on site design, including: height, massing, setbacks, form, and fenestration. Zoning Regulations The Design Guidelines supplement the regulations contained in the Dublin Zoning Code. In the event of a conflict between these Guidelines and zoning regulations, the zoning regulations will apply unless specifically modified through approval by the ARB as authorized by the Zoning Code. The Guidelines illustrate how the Zoning Code may be successfully applied to existing historic structures and new infill development. GUIDELINES Users Guide NRHP - District Properties NRHP - Individually Listed Additional Properties Recommended Not Recommended Dublin High Street Historic District Dublin Historic District 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 3738 39 4041 42 43 44 45 DUBLIN HISTORIC DISTRICT MAP 49 62 59 56 57 55 52 51 50 106 107 85 111 108 109 110 113 92 94 81 83 89 101 102 105 75 100 97 99 95 112 114 115 80 91 93 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 47 46 32 96 70 69 68 73 77 78 76 79 60 61 82 67 66 103 104 88 86 84 48 53 54 58 63 64 65 74 87 98 90 W BRIDGE ST N HIGH STS HIGH STDublin Historic District S RIVERVIEW STN RIVERVIEW STFRANKLIN STSHORT ST PINNEYHILL LN EBERLY HILL SPRING HILL WING HILLDARBY ST2023 Historic District Map 3838 3939 Chapter 4Rehabilitation GUIDELINES HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO40 4.0 Applicability The following Guidelines are applicable to both residential and commercial properties, except where otherwise noted, as well as are applicable to properties located in Historic Dublin and outlying historic properties. Application of the guidelines to landmark and background resources in this section should follow Chapter 3, 3.4 Application of Guidelines. 4.1 General A. Preservation of original architectural features and materials are the first preference in rehabilitation. Such features and materials should be retained in place and/ or repaired. B. Repair of existing features (or replacement when supported by the Board) should be based on an accurate replication of the materials or features, and where possible substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures. C. If it is not practical to retain the original materials or features due to the condition, unavailability, safety, or energy efficiency of original materials, then quality, contemporary, substitute materials, when approved by the Board, should replicate the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Contemporary materials may be used if it is demonstrated that they have the same quality and character as historic materials. 4.2 Maintenance and Construction Following are common considerations regarding property maintenance and construction. The recommendations are not comprehensive in nature. A. Brick and stone masonry should be tuckpointed every 20 to 30 years, or when holes, gaps, or cracks form in the mortar. Tuckpointing of masonry should be done in a way that duplicates the color, texture, and joint tooling of the building’s historic tuckpointing. B. Foundations should be kept free of moisture-retaining materials such as excess mulch, firewood, and overgrown plantings to ensure longevity. C. Avoid abrasive cleaning of historic masonry and siding, specifically power washing, sandblasting, and harsh detergents. D. Flashing, gutters, and downspouts should be in good repair. Aging roofs should be replaced if there are significant bulges, dips, or gaps. GUIDELINES Rehabilitation 4.3 Exterior Materials A. Original wood siding should not be covered over. B. Wood siding should be used in one of the traditional forms as found on the building (e.g. shingle, board-and- batten, shiplap, or beveled siding). C. Masonry walls that have not previously been painted should remain unpainted. Masonry which has been painted in the past should remain painted. D. Tuckpointing of masonry should match the color, texture, joint tooling, and physical composition of the building’s historic pointing. E. Historically stuccoed surfaces should remain stuccoed. Stucco should not be applied to a wall which has not been previously stuccoed. 4.4 Architectural Details A. Significant architectural elements that have deteriorated should be repaired rather than replaced. B. Avoid adding cornice or frieze elements as extra ornamentation on a building if not originally present on the building. C. Original architectural elements should not be covered, especially when located on a front elevation. Original architectural details, 138 South High Street CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 41 4.5 Foundations A. Avoid cutting openings in foundation walls to create basement windows or doors on elevations visible from a street. B. Avoid painting or stuccoing the exterior of a foundation. C. Previously-painted or stuccoed foundations should be kept that way, as long as they do not show evidence of moisture retention. D. If original basement windows are to be covered, avoid filling them permanently. 4.6 Building Colors A. Colors should be selected based on documented research of a building’s original paint colors. B. If original colors cannot be identified or are unacceptable to the applicant, alternate colors should be selected according to the time-period of building construction. Original stone foundation, 167 South High Street GUIDELINES Rehabilitation C. Late 19th century buildings should have a maximum of three different colors (the body color and one trim and one accent color); those from earlier and later periods should have no more than two, unless historic precedent suggests otherwise. D. The Architectural Review Board may delegate approval of colors to staff based upon a color palette approved by the Board. 4.7 Doors and Entrances A. The functional, proportional, and decorative features of a primary entrance should be preserved. B. If interior alterations make an existing entrance redundant, the door and entrance should be left intact on the exterior. Original storm door, 63 South High Street Historic building color, 76-78 South High Street Historic building color, 113 South High Street HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO42 F. Interior or exterior storm windows may be used to increase energy efficiency of existing windows. These should be either a single pane or, if they have an upper and a lower pane, the division between the two should be at the meeting rails of the original exterior windows. Storm windows should match the color of the existing window trim. G. Windows that have an original storm sash should be repaired and retained. 4.9 Porches A. Wrought or cast-iron supports should not be used to replace original porch columns unless such iron elements were part of the original design; the same is true for wrought iron railings. B. Avoid enclosing porches to create permanent interior space, particularly on front elevations. C. If a porch is proposed to replace an original, missing porch, the characteristics of original porches on similar buildings, such as height, materials, roof slope, and width of original porches, are preferred. D. If a porch is to be added where a porch never existed, a simple design should be used. E. Avoid ornamentation such as spindles and scrollwork unless they were traditionally used on the porches of similar buildings. C. Color should be compatible with historically appropriate colors already on the building. D. Avoid treatments that attempt to “dress up” a door or entrance or give it a character that was never original. E. Surviving original storm doors should be retained. F. New storm doors should be of simple design. The design should be a full-height glass section that permits viewing the main door. G. Avoid storm doors with decorative features such as scalloped window edges, strap hinges, or “crossbuck” designs. 4.8 Windows A. The position, number, and arrangement of original windows in a building should be preserved. B. If original windows are extensively deteriorated, only the deteriorated windows should be replaced. Avoid removing any that are still repairable. C. Avoid enlarging or downsizing window openings to accommodate stock replacement window sizes. D. Replacement windows should match the appearance of the historic originals in number of panes, dimensions of sash members, and profile of sash members and muntins. Windows should simulate the operating characteristics of the originals. The same material as the original windows, usually wood, should be used. E. Real through-the-glass exterior and interior muntins with spacer bar (simulated divided lite) should be used. Windows should not use sandwiched, applied, or snap- in artificial muntins. Porch, 83 South High Street True divided lite window, 31-33 South High Street GUIDELINES Rehabilitation CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 43 Figure 4.1: Appropriate Additions. Figure 4.2: Inappropriate Additions. Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines. 4.10 Roof, Gutter, and Downspout A. Re-roofing a building that currently has asphalt shingles should be simple in design. B. Avoid staggered-butt or other shingle patterns that try to create an older look. C. If a building does not have gutters and downspouts and is to have them installed, design and color should be compatible with the design and color of the building. D. On existing structures, avoid roofline additions such as dormers, skylights, or penthouses. However, these features may be appropriate on a new addition. If such elements are proposed, they should be placed toward the rear or along a rear slope where visibility is minimal. Skylights should be flat and low in profile. 4.11 Canopy and Awning A. Fabric awnings should have a matte rather than a glossy surface. B. Avoid fixed, permanent canopies unless it can be documented through research that a building had one in the past and that the canopy design is compatible with the original character of the building and the district. C. Each window or door should have its own awning, rather than a single full-width awning covering an entire façade. D. A traditional flat, sloped awning design should be used. Selection of open-end versus closed-end awnings should be historically based. E. Awning color(s) should complement the building and be compatible with historically appropriate colors used on the building, but avoid overly ornate patterns and too many colors. A simple pattern using no more than two colors is preferred. 4.12 Building Additions A. Additions should be clearly distinguishable from the original structure by designing additions to be subordinate and secondary to the primary structure. If the additions or alterations were removed, the essential form and integrity of the original structure should be unimpaired. B. Additions should be located to the rear of the original building so that the most significant and visible faces (e.g. front elevations) of historic properties are given priority. If space needs or lot conditions require that the addition be placed farther forward, the façade of the addition should be set back from the original façade. Background resources may be located in either the rear or side yard provided the other factors are met. Rehabilitation GUIDELINES HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO44 4.14 Retrofitted Access for People with Disabilities (ADA) A. Designs should be kept simple and unobtrusive within the requirements of compliance with ADA standards. B. Ramps or lifts should be located at side or rear entrances to minimize impact on the main façade. C. The design of ramps and handrails should be simple and contemporary and should not try to mimic historic handrails. D. Materials should be the same as, or similar to, those used in the building. Avoid exposed treated wood that is unpainted. E. If providing access to a building’s front entrance is only a matter of overcoming a few inches difference between sidewalk and entrance, a portion of the sidewalk should be designed so that it is sloped upward to overcome the height difference to avoid a handrail. If the building entrance or sidewalk is located within the right-of-way, Engineering approval may be required. 4.15 Energy Efficiency and Sustainability A. The visual impacts of equipment as seen from the street should be minimized. B. The smallest and least obtrusive equipment necessary and available should be used. C. The equipment should be located in an area where it is not visible along any street frontage. D. Equipment should be installed in a manner that is reversible and does not permanently alter or damage original building materials. C. A break or reveal should be provided between the original building and the addition, so it is apparent that they are two separate structures. D. The design for additions to existing properties should not destroy significant historic, architectural, or cultural materials. The design should be compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment. E. Avoid duplicating the original building’s architecture and design in the addition. The addition should take its major design cues such as form, massing, roof shape, window proportions and spacing, door types, and kind of ornamentation from the original building, but it should be a simplified structure. F. Materials for additions should be consistent with those identified in 4.1.C and complementary to the district, but need not match those of the original structure to which the addition is attached. Avoid materials that are not typically from the mid-19th to the early 20th century (e.g. concrete block, rough-sawn siding, or logs). Brick, stucco, and beveled siding or board-and-batten all may be appropriate, depending upon the materials in the original building. G. Roofline additions should be placed and designed to have the least amount of visual impact. Refer to 4.10.D H. The height and roofline of the addition should be below those of the original building. 4.13 Outbuildings A. Original outbuildings such as garages, sheds, outhouses, and barns should be repaired and retained. B. When outbuildings need repair or replacement of deteriorated elements, new materials should match the old. Outbuilding repurposed for commercial use, 109 South High Street (Rear) Rear ADA ramp with masonry wall, 129 South High Street GUIDELINES Rehabilitation CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 45 Figure 4.3: Commercial Storefront Design Elements. Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines. Commercial storefront, 14 South High Street 4.16 Commercial Storefront Design A. Designs should be consistent with the historic storefront character, including window sizes and architectural features. B. Storefronts should retain ornamentation and trim consistent with the historic architectural style of the building. C. Avoid “theme” restorations (e.g. Colonial, Bavarian, Art Deco, Post Modern, etc.) unless historically true to the building. D. Materials should be consistent with the historic architectural style of the building. Inappropriate designs and materials should be avoided such as diagonal wood siding, vinyl or aluminum siding, mansard roofs, and fixed metal canopies. Recessed entry and bulkheads, 52 South High Street Rehabilitation GUIDELINES 464646 474747 Chapter 5New Construction GUIDELINES HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO48 5.0 Applicability The following Guidelines are applicable to residential and commercial properties as well as to outlying historic properties. New construction differs from the construction of new additions to historic structures. New construction includes primary and accessory structures like houses, commercial buildings, garages, sheds, and other similar structures. These guidelines should focus on architectural detail when applied to landmark resources, whereas, the application of the guidelines to background resources should focus more on context related to surrounding landmark resources, emphasizing height, massing, setbacks, form, and fenestration which supports the landmark resources. 5.1 General A. New construction should not be a replica of historic buildings, but also should not be taken to the extreme of modern architecture. There are places in the City of Dublin where modern architecture is appropriate and desired, but within the Historic Districts it is important to provide a sense of continuity and compatibility so that both a sense of historic place and historic time is respected. Continuity and compatibility are more valued than making a bold design statement. GUIDELINES New Construction B. New construction should be similar to existing landmark resources in the District. New buildings should be obviously new to the observer, but there should be continuity and compatibility with surrounding historic structures. They should share underlying principles of design, form, mass, height, scale, and lot coverage as prevails on adjacent lots. 5.2 Building Placement A. Buildings should be sited sensitively to the varying topography of the District and established grade of the site. B. The site should be designed to be consistent with the original block, street, and site patterns of the District in which the building is located. C. The placement of the building should be similarly to the placement, orientation, and setbacks of surrounding structures. The placement should reinforce the street wall. D. The building should be sited similarly to the development pattern of surrounding properties. Lot coverage should be similar to surrounding properties. Figure 5.1: Commercial Infill Development Pattern. Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines. CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 49 GUIDELINES New Construction 5.3 Form and Mass A. The building should be similar in form, mass, and lot coverage, and in proportion and scale to other surrounding buildings. B. Roof pitch and form should be similar to surrounding buildings. C. The building should reinforce a sense of human scale through the design of pedestrian entrances, porches, door and window openings, and façades. D. The form and mass of the building should be responsive to the site topography and similar in overall height to surrounding buildings. Buildings should step-down following the topography of the site. 5.4 Building Width A. The building width should be similar to other buildings in the District. B. If a building is wider than other structures in the District, the façade should be divided into subordinate sizes that are similar to the width of other structures in the District. Sections of the wall should be stepped to further reinforce the visual impression of widths similar to other structures in the District. Figure 5.2: Building Height Scale and Proportion. Figure 5.3: Residential Infill Development Pattern. Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines. HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO50 5.5 Façade A. Façade proportions, including width to height ratio, should be similar to other buildings in the district. B. The primary entrance to the building should front the street. C. Avoid blank façades and monotony of materials. Avoid large surfaces of glass. D. Avoid concrete block foundations or exposed poured concrete. Foundations should be clad with brick or stone. E. Where multi-story buildings are permitted, the façade should incorporate a three-part composition including a base, a middle, and a top. 5.6 Doors and Windows A. The pattern and proportions of window and door openings should be proportional to the building façade and reflect the pattern of other buildings in the District. B. The window-to-wall ratios should be similar to other buildings in the district. C. Windows and doors should be framed in materials that are similar in scale and character with other buildings in the district. 5.7 Architectural Details A. Architectural elements such as eaves, window design and moldings, door surrounds, porches, and soffits, should be modern interpretations of historic details, not replications of historic styles. B. Skylights should be flat and low in profile and placed toward the rear where visibility is minimal. 5.8 Materials and Color A. The building should use materials traditional to historic Dublin: wood, brick, and stone; although may use contemporary materials with characteristics similar to historic materials, as approved by the ARB. B. Materials that have a proven durability for the Central Ohio climate should be used. C. Colors should be similar to other buildings in the district. Figure 5.4: Pattern and Proportions of Window/Door Openings. Finished foundation, 73 South Riverview Street Modern interpretation of historic details, not replication of historic styles/details, 113 South High Street GUIDELINES New Construction Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines. CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 51 5.9 Canopy and Awning A. Fabric awnings should have a matte rather than a glossy surface. B. Each window or door should have its own awning, rather than a single full-width awning covering an entire façade. C. A traditional flat, sloped awning design should be used. D. Awning color(s) should complement the building and be compatible with historically appropriate colors used on the building but avoid overly ornate patterns and too many colors. A simple pattern using no more than two colors is preferred. 5.10 Outbuildings A. Detached garages are encouraged and should be located to the rear and side of the primary structure. B. Newly-constructed outbuildings should be compatible and subordinate in scale to the main building, using design cues from landmark resources and nearby structures, and especially the principal building on the site. C. Forms, massing, roof shape, roof pitch and height, materials, window and door types, and detailing similar to those found on nearby historic or traditional outbuildings should be used. Materials and color traditional to the District, 31-33 South High Street 5.11 Energy Efficiency and Sustainability A. Energy-generating devices, such as solar collectors, should remain visually subordinate to the character of the building, and should not be visible along any street frontage. B. Buildings should incorporate elements such as operable windows for natural ventilation and light. Historic outbuilding, 83 South Riverview Street GUIDELINES New Construction 5252 5353 Chapter 6Site Design GUIDELINES HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO54 6.3 Landscaping A. Open green space, including landscape areas, should be preserved free of buildings, accessory structures, and patios. B. Landscape designs should provide year round interest. Plant materials should be species native to Central Ohio. C. Foundation plantings should be provided to soften the appearance of buildings along the street. 6.4 Walls and Fences A. Original stone walls and fences should be maintained, retained, and not be modified in any way. B. Historic stone walls should be preserved on private property and City owned property. C. Where possible, degraded stone walls should be rehabilitated without compromising the integrity and character. D. Replacement of historic stone walls with new stone walls is discouraged. E. If replacement is necessary due to the condition, or a new fence is proposed, traditional fence and wall types are preferred. These should include low stone walls in the traditional and distinctive Dublin design, low picket fences, iron fences or, in backyard areas, board fences with straight or “dog-eared” top edges, or rows of trees and shrubs. F. The design of landscaping, including walls and fences, should address the public rights-of-way in a similar manner to surrounding properties in the district. G. Non-traditional materials such as concrete or “cyclone” fencing and composite wood fencing, and non- traditional wood fencing designs like basket-weave, shadow-box, or stockade fences are not appropriate. H. For fences, paint or an opaque stain should be applied to wood fencing, rather than leaving it natural. 6.0 Applicability The following Guidelines are applicable to residential and commercial properties as well as to outlying historic properties. Application of the guidelines to landmark and background resources in this section shall follow Chapter 3, 3.4 Application of Guidelines. 6.1 General A. Site design should be sensitive to the surrounding context, particularly to natural features and cultural resources. B. Sites should be designed to preserve elements that contribute to the historic character of the site and District. 6.2 Natural Features A. Site topography should be preserved. Buildings should be sited in a manner that is respective to the existing topography. Regrading of sites should be limited. B. Landmark trees (over 24 caliper inches) on commercial and residential properties should be maintained in good health and preserved from harm. All trees should be preserved, whenever practicable. C. Buildings, accessory structures, and patios should be sited outside of the critical root zone of mature trees. Commercial landscaping, 35-39 South High Street GUIDELINES Site Design CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 55 Wood fence, 35-39 South High Street Hairpin wrought iron fence, 91 South High Street GUIDELINES Site Design 6.5 Access and Parking A. Vehicular access should be visually complementary to the site and building design; it should be secondary to the appearance of the building and not dominating its design. B. Pedestrian and bicycle access and storage should be incorporated into the site design. C. Parking should be accessed from a side street or an alley rather than from the main street. Parking lots or curb cuts in front of a building at the sidewalk should be avoided. D. The visual impacts of service and loading areas should be minimized. They should be located to the rear of the building and screened from public rights-of-way consistent with code screening requirements. 6.6 Decks and Patios A. Decks and patios should be located to the rear or side of the building. B. Decks should be architecturally integrated and treated with paint or an opaque stain to match the color of the building or its trim. C. Railings should be traditional in character, constructed of wood, metal, or other similar material. Vinyl, PVC, and polyurethane should not be used as a deck or railing material. 6.7 Lighting A. Lighting should enhance the site and the building’s design in a manner that is sensitive to surrounding properties. Light fixtures should be scaled appropriately based on the use and character of surrounding properties. B. Light fixtures should be simple in design. Subdued, soft, warm lighting should be used. Avoid large, ornate light fixtures. 6.8 Mechanical Equipment and Waste Screening A. Mechanical equipment, utility equipment, and waste facilities should be screened from view of any public right-of-way or adjacent property and located to the rear of the building. Such equipment should be screened from view with landscaping or screen walls. B. For buildings with rooftop equipment or ventilation, the equipment should be centrally located and fully screened from view using a primary building material. Roof penetrations should be painted to match the roof. Eberly Hill Lane and South Riverview Street stone wall 5656 5757 Chapter 7Signs GUIDELINES HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO58 7.1 General A. Signs should have a minimal visual impact on the site, and the sub-district in which the building is located. B. Signs should be subordinate and complementary to the building. C. Graphics and messages should be simple. D. New signs should be pedestrian in scale (see the Zoning Code). Signs should relate more to the sidewalk than to the street and should be intended for viewing by people who are walking rather than driving. 7.2 Color and Relief A. The color scheme should be simple and unobtrusive. Accent colors or corporate identity colors or logos should be used with restraint, and such colors should not dominate a sign. B. Letter sizes and styles should be easily readable. One letter size and one type style is preferred. C. Signs should be dimensionally routed. 7.3 Materials and Lighting A. Signs should be constructed of durable natural materials, consistent with material used for other signs in the sub-district in which the building is located. B. Signs should be externally illuminated in a way that is subordinate to the design of the building. 7.4 Avoid A. Many bright colors, intended to draw attention rather than add visual interest to the tenant space. B. Thin, flat signs that appear flimsy and temporary. C. Clunky “off the shelf” sign cabinets with no architectural character. D. Homemade signs and designs without professional guidance. E. Using a sign contractor that is not registered with the City of Dublin. 7.5 Context Sensitive 7.6 Quality and Character A. Signs should coordinate with the architectural character of the building and of the sub-district. A. Signs should contribute to the character of the sub- district by providing interest to the pedestrian realm. B. Signs should be constructed of high-quality materials and finished with attention to design details. 7.7 Ground Signs A. Ground signs should be compact and highly coordinated with their surroundings in terms of materials, architectural character, color, and details. B. Signs should have three-dimensional elements. Flat designs are discouraged. C. Sign bases should be structurally integrated and coordinate with the overall design of the sign. GUIDELINES Signs Note: Sign images are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines. CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 59 7.10 Projecting Signs A. Three-dimensional elements are strongly encouraged, along with the creative use of textures and shadows to give the sign dimensionality and interest. B. The bracket or attachment device should be architecturally appropriate to the building design. Only use traditional brackets with traditional architecture. 7.11 Awning Signs A. Awning sign designs should be coordinated with the architectural character of the storefront. The use of stripes and scalloped edges should be minimized unless there is substantial evidence that the detail is historically appropriate. B. Awning signs should include simple text and logos on subdued backgrounds. 7.12 Sandwich Board Signs A. Sandwich Board signs should be constructed of a high- quality wood frame with chalkboard and white-board elements. The frame should not be constructed of plastic. B. Signs should have a clean, simple frame without a handle or additional ornamentation. C. Signs should incorporate whimsical, one-of-a-kind, artistic designs that cater to pedestrians. Graphics should be simple, bold, and symbolic. D. Sandwich Board signs should be maintained in good, working condition. Signs should be brought inside at night and during inclement weather. 7.8 Wall Signs A. Wall signs in pedestrian environments should be interesting to look at, adding vibrancy to the streetscape. B. Wall signs should be three dimensional, with routed letters. C. Letters should be individually pin-mounted or incorporated into a sign panel. Internally illuminated channel letters should be avoided. D. Signs should be illuminated in a way that is subordinate to the design of the building. External illumination is preferred. 7.9 Window Signs A. Permanent window signs should ensure visibility through the window into the tenant space beyond. B. Doors and windows should not be obscured by signs. C. Minimal colors and simple graphics are recommended. Dimensionally routed wall sign, 39 West Bridge Street Projecting and awning sign, 55 West Bridge Street Window sign, 48 South High Street GUIDELINES Signs Council Adopted Resolution 28-21 May 24, 2021 Council Adopted Resolution 90-23 December 11, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission   Meeting Minutes – September 19, 2024 Page 3 of 11 1) That the terms of the Infrastructure Agreement are met, and payments are made upon Planning & Zoning Commission approval of the Section 3 Final Development Plan and before any further approvals are granted. 2) That the Subarea and Reserve Map be revised to replace Reserve C with Reserve F to align with the proposed text modification and approved plats, prior to building permitting. 3) That the developer modifies the development text to accurately reflect the front building line for lots 58-66 in Section 3; and  A recommendation of approval to City Council for the Avondale Woods, Section 3, Final Plat. Vote: Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Garvin, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Call, yes. [Motion carried 6-0.] CASE REVIEWS  24-012ADMO – Historic District Code and Guidelines Update Proposal for modifications to the Historic District Zoning Code and amendments to the Historic Design Guidelines. Staff Presentation Ms. Holt stated that Consultant Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion, would review the background on the case. Mr. Dale stated the role of their firm has to been to work with the City to facilitate the process and public discussions for this proposed Code amendment, as well as work with staff to draft the changes to the proposed Code. This is Phase 2 of a two-phased process that has been underway for over a year. Public meetings during Phase 1 were held for Historic District (HD) residents and property owners on May 20, 2023, September 13, 2023, and October 11, 2023, and a series of items were identified as possible improvements to the speed and predictability of Historic District reviews. An overview of these improvements was provided to ARB in September 2023, and ARB confirmation of the Phase 2 direction was provided to staff in April of 2024. The draft amendment of the HD Code and Guidelines Update was provided to ARB on July 26. On August 28, 2024, the ARB reviewed and recommended PZC and Council approval. Five different changes have been proposed for this Code amendment: 1. Inclusion of Background building compatibility language within the Code and Guidelines. 2. Expansion of the Administrative Approvals (AA) to include: a. Modifications to Background buildings where no building volume/footprint increase is requested b. Single sign approvals that meet Code criteria for both Landmark and Background building types c. Residential hardscape features less than 3 feet tall for both building types d. Replacement of existing awnings for both building types (new awnings require ARB review) e. Lighting for residential and commercial projects for both building types f. Commercial exterior furniture for both building types, and Planning and Zoning Commission   Meeting Minutes – September 19, 2024 Page 4 of 11 g. HVAC and trash screening for both building types where building architecture is not affected. 3. Addition of a timeframe extension for FDP approvals (permit another one-year extension). 4. Corrections to scriveners’ errors 5. Consolidation of the Administrative Departure, Waiver, and new Variance Code sections a. Administrative Departures are no longer needed and have been removed; b. All requests for deviations from numerical standards are termed Waivers for clarity; c. Waivers above 20 percent will stay with the ARB. Mr. Dale stated that Ms. Holt would explain the impetus for the 5th proposed change. Ms. Holt stated that currently the waiver process for HD properties is cumbersome. Administrative Departures are where the numeric criteria for setbacks, lot coverage and building height exceed Code by less than 10 percent. Waivers permit the applicant to exceed Code by less than 20%, and variances for amounts in excess of 20% are referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for review. A couple of HD variances were heard by the BZA this year, and there was confusion on the nuances of applying the HD Code and Guidelines versus the “suburban” variances the BZA normally reviews. Staff, the ARB, and our consultant agreed that it made sense to keep HD variances, now termed Waivers, with the ARB to allow appropriate application of the HD Code and Guidelines. The ARB has a unique Code and Guidelines based on the National Park Service Standards that differ from the City’s regular Code. It seems more appropriate for projects within the HD to be heard by the Board that knows the HD Code the best. The proposal is that all numeric variations from the HD Code now be called waivers. Additional language was added that the waiver amount must be the minimum amount required to solve the identified issue. This approach was reviewed and determined acceptable by the Law Director’s Office. It will permit applicants to make a case before one board for very site-specific circumstances, thus lessening the time and simplifying the review process of their application. Ms. Holt stated that ARB has recommended that PZC recommend City Council approval of this HD Code and Guidelines amendment. Ms. Call invited Mr. Alexander to comment on the Code amendment, as he was a member of ARB during the timeframe in which the discussion by that Board took place. Mr. Alexander stated that with the recent reclassification of Landmark and Background Buildings, the numbers of each shifted significantly. It was determined that many of the Background Buildings projects could be handled administratively by staff, if the proposed changes would not impact the massing of the structure. He concedes that it will place more responsibility on the Planning Director to handle these additional Administrative Approvals. Commission Questions/Discussion Commission members had no questions or discussion. Public Comments There were no public comments on the case. Mr. Alexander moved, Mr. Garvin seconded a recommendation of approval to City Council of the HD Code amendments and Guidelines update, Phase 2. Planning and Zoning Commission   Meeting Minutes – September 19, 2024 Page 5 of 11 Vote: Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Garvin, yes; Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Call, yes. [Motion carried 6-0.] COMMUNICATIONS  Reaffirming remaining 2024 through February 2025 ARB Meeting Dates Commission consensus was to defer the discussion to the next meeting when Mr. Chinnock is anticipated to be present.  Staff Report Discussion Staff Presentation Ms. Rauch provided background on staff’s effort to evaluate the Staff Reports provided with development applications. City Council adopted an Economic Development Strategy approximately a year ago. The Plan identified multiple strategies. Strategy 2 was to make Dublin’s Development Processes more transparent and predictable thereby reducing uncertainty. That strategy was the impetus of our Development Review Process. The review process has involved significant stakeholder engagement with internal working groups, Board and Commission work sessions, developers, attorneys, engineers and architects. Out of those discussions came six focus areas, one of which relates to staff reports. A survey was shared with Board and Commission members and Council members and staff has received their input. Staff has also conducted internal research and identified best practices, which were shared with PZC members. She shared an overview of the survey questions, responses received and staff’s initial take-aways. She is seeking any additional input from Commission members. The survey questions related to two categories: Staff Reports and Presentations. Ms. Rauch reviewed the feedback received on each survey question.  Survey Questions and Feedback regarding Staff Reports: • Clarity of information needed during each step - Unanimous agreement that clarity is needed during each step • Clarity of the project and scope of review - Largely agreement that there is clarity of the project and scope of review - More clarity is needed regarding Concept Plans and what should be reviewed at each step - Ensure continuity between City vision and development proposals - More context needed concerning Code requirements and staff direction • Relevance of information included - Overall agreement that the information provided is relevant - Opportunities to abbreviate (bullets or lists) should be utilized • Additional information needed - Community Plan and other plans and policies provided as references - Summary of similar prior reviews • Elimination of paper plans - Review and input from other divisions - Previous similar decisions • Suggestions for improvement PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov RECORD OF ACTION Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, September 19, 2024 | 6:30 pm 2. HD Code and Guidelines Update – Phase II 24-012ADMO Administrative Request – Code Amendment Proposal: Amendments to the Historic District Zoning Code and amendments to the Historic District Guidelines. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for proposed amendments to the Historic District Zoning Code and Guidelines. Applicant: Greg Dale, FAICP, McBride Dale Clarion Sarah Holt, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner Planning Contact: Sarah Holt, AICP, Senior Planner Contact Information: 614.410.4662, sholt@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/24-012 MOTION: Mr. Alexander moved, Mr. Garvin seconded a recommendation of approval to City Council of the HD Code amendments and Guidelines update, Phase 2. VOTE: 6-0 RESULT: Motion carried 6-0 to recommend approval to City Council for the proposed Code and Guidelines Amendments RECORDED VOTES: Rebecca Call Yes Kim Way Yes Kathy Harter Yes Jamey Chinnock Absent Gary Alexander Yes Jason Deschler Yes Dan Garvin Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Sarah Holt, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner Docusign Envelope ID: 5508EBEE-DBAC-490B-A00B-1A0E11D73FDD 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. Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2023 Page 12 of 13   Staff has presented the following discussion questions: 1) Do the updated sections of the Alternative Materials document meet the Board’s vision? 2) Are there additions or modifications that should be further done to these sections? 3) Other considerations by the Board. Board Discussion Mr. Alexander clarified that this document is not intended to provide advocacy for any alternative building materials, only to share precedents. Providing context by including photographs is helpful. The document should include the clarification that some alternative materials might be permitted for background buildings or for additions to some landmark buildings. However, the Code is strict regarding permitted materials for landmark buildings. The Code requires the method to be repair of the existing building material, not replacement with a synthetic material. Ms. Damaser stated that the Introduction chapter sets forth the presumptions and priorities; it should be retitled as something different than an “introduction”. Mr. Cotter inquired if any applications requesting one of these alternative materials would still require a waiver approval. Ms. Singh responded affirmatively. The applicant must still meet the criteria and be approved. Mr. Cotter inquired if use of the alternative material could be administratively approved. Ms. Rauch responded that she would need to review the Code language further. The Code would need to be amended to allow it. Perhaps that could occur on an annual basis. If use of an alternative material has been approved on all background buildings, the alternative building material could be considered an approved material. Consequently, future applications for use of that material on background buildings could be approved administratively. Staff has conducted some initial inventory of where these materials have been used, so it might be possible to include it in the list of administrative approval topics that will be provided to the Board for consideration. Mr. Cotter suggested that a few examples be added for where that material has been approved and used. Ms. Damaser suggested that photographs and addresses be included. Ms. Cooper inquired if there might be some alternative material s approved by waiver that staff and the Board subsequently determined should not be approved in the future, perhaps because they did not appear to meet the City’s desired standard. Ms. Singh stated that would be considered and perhaps notes be provided as to the reason the material did not hold up, i.e. installation or maintenance. Ms. Cooper stated that in doing the inventory, there might have been circumstances where staff recognized that characteristics of the alternative material made it not desirable to use again in the Historic District. She would want to know that. Mr. Alexander inquired if staff needed additional input to move forward with the document revisions. Ms. Singh thanked the Board for their input. COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Rauch provided the following updates: Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2023 Page 13 of 13 e Council recently approved the Co-Hatch Development Agreement, so that development project will be moving forward. This involves four N. Riverview properties (three on the west side of the street and one on the east side). Those projects should be coming forward for ARB review and approval. Additionally, the other three N. Riverview properties were successfully auctioned, and restoration projects for those properties are anticipated for future ARB review. Mr. Jewell inquired what is the zoning of the three N. Riverview properties that were sold. Ms. Rauch responded that they are currently zoned Historic Residential, and the intent is that the zoning remain the same. Mr. Cotter inquired if it would be appropriate for the Board to attend the follow-up public meeting on October 11 at the COhatch regarding the proposed changes to the Historic District Code and Guidelines. Ms. Rauch responded affirmatively. She noted that staff is continuing to look at ways to improve the Board review process. She appreciates the Board’s suggestion for applicants to meet with staff. The architectural consultant for historic properties may be able to provide some feedback and guidance to residents, although they cannot be involved with the design of projects. Mr. Alexander stated that he appreciates one resident’s suggestion for making the meeting less formal; however, most of the architectural review boards outside of Columbus meet in their city council chambers. Perhaps staff could look into opportunities for other meeting settings or to make the space seem less formal. However, he does not believe these types of meetings can ever become unintimidating. Ms. Rauch stated that they would look into the options. The fact that these meetings are live- streamed limits the possibilities. Ms. Cooper stated that the technology provided at the dais is also helpful to members. Ms. Damaser stated that in less formal seating arrangements, it is difficult to control the speakers. Mr. Alexander responded that it would be the Chair’s responsibility to control the meeting. Ms. Rauch stated that she would share their comments with the Council Clerk's office and see if there are any options. e The 2023 Heritage Ohio Conference will be held October 10-12 in Dayton, Ohio. e The next regular ARB meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 25, 2023. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m. \ ky G é \@ Ly Chair/, Architectural Review Board OWN, K eal Assisiait Clerk of Council