Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout76-08 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES ❑avron Legal Blank Inc. 76 -08 Amended Ordinance No. Passed . 20 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REPEALING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING CODE RELATED TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND OPERATIONS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to amend the Code in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, Sections 153.170, - 153.187 Dublin Codified Ordinances contain information related to the operations of the Architectural Review Board; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Code amendment is to eliminate conflicting language regarding conditional use approvals and Planned District reviews, and to modify incorrect references to Sections, add authority to add conditions, and to consolidate certain language and standards that refer to the Architectural Review Board into one section; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment on September 18, 2008 and December 17, 2008 and the Architectural Review Board reviewed the proposed amendments on June 25, July 23, August 27, 2008, November 12, 2009 and January 21, 2010 and both bodies recommend adoption because it serves to improve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, --7— of the elected members concurring that: Section 1 . Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code is hereby amended and shall provide as follows: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW § 153.170 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. Jurisdictional Boundaries far the Architectural Review District. The Architectural Review District generally applies to properties in the original Village of Dublin and vicinity as identified on Appendix F, as well as other outlying, historic properties specified in Appendix G which may be added in accordance with Code section 153.175. § 153.171 DEFINITIONS. The following definitions shall apply to the provisions of this Chapter applicable to the Architectural Review District, unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. (A) Definitions "A" (1) ALTERATION. Any change, addition or modification in construction or any change in the structural members of a building, such as walls or partitions, columns, beams or girders, the consummated act of which may be referred to in this Chapter as "altered" or "reconstructed." Any action to change, modify, reconstruct, remove or demolish any exterior features of an existing structure or of the site within the Architectural Review District. Ordinary maintenance to correct any deterioration, decay or damage to a structure or site and to restore the structure as nearly as practicable to an original state prior to its deterioration, decay or damage is excluded from the definition of alteration, provided the work does not involve a change in type and/or color of building materials. (2) APPLICANT. Any person who applies for an Architectural Review Board Order in order to undertake any change on property subject to review by the ARB. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 76 -08 Amended Page 2 of 17 Passed 20 (3) ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER. The architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior of a building or other structure including the type of the light fixtures, signs and other associated fixtures. (4) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DISTRICT, or DISTRICT. The Architectural Review District of the City. The term may also be used to refer to Ohio Historic Inventory Properties as provided in § 153.170, where appropriate. (5) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD or BOARD, or ARB. The Architectural Review Board of the City, as created in § 153.172. (6) ARCHITECTURAL STYLE. The predominant historic architectural styles within given areas of the District, as described in § 153.174 (13)(4). (B) BOARD ORDER. The official document issued by the Architectural Review Board containing the official record of a final action or recommendation on an application for a review required by the ARB in accordance with this Chapter. (C) Definitions "C" (1) CHANGE. Any new construction, alteration, demolition, or removal or other construction involving any property subject to the provisions of this Chapter including signs, landscaping, and tree removal. Change shall not include ordinary maintenance or repair of any property if no change in material, design, color, or outward appearance is undertaken. (2) CITY. The City of Dublin, Ohio. (3) CITY COUNCIL, or COUNCIL. The legislative body of the City. (D) Definitions "D" (1) DEMOLITION. The complete or substantial removal or planned destruction of any structure located in the District. (2) DETERIORATION. The impairment of value or usefulness of a structure or site through action of the elements or lack of maintenance or upkeep. (3) DIRECTOR. The Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning for the City. (E) EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. A prominent or significant part or element of a building, structure, or site. Features include the architectural style and general arrangement of the exterior of the structure including building materials, windows, doors, lights, signs, dry-laid stone fences and other fixtures appurtenant thereto. "Feature" shall include the style, material, color, height, area, and lighting, and location of a sign regulated by this Chapter. (F) Definitions "H" (1) HISTORIC SITE. The location, structures, features or other integral part of a city, state, or United States designated archaeological or historic site. (2) HISTORIC DISTRICT. The portion of the Architectural Review District generally referred to as Historic Dublin, or the original Village of Dublin and its immediate vicinity. (G) Definitions "L" RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. 76 -08 Amended Ordinance No. Page 3 of 17 Passed 20 (1) LANDMARK. 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. (2) LANDSCAPING. Site modifications subject to ARB review of plant cover or materials, excluding sites used for single - family residential purposes. (H) Definitions "N" (1) NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION. A private, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to saving historic places and revitalizing America's communities. (2) NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. A list of properties by the National Park Service that includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. (I) Definitions "O" (1) OWNER. The legal person(s) of record having ownership of a property. (2) ORDINARY MAINTENANCE. Exterior work which does not involve any change in material, texture or color, design, or arrangement. Examples include repainting a house with the same color; residing a wood building with wood- siding and painting the same color. (3) OHIO HISTORIC INVENTORY. A program of the State of Ohio developed to serve as an accurate and continuing record of the architectural and historic properties existing in the state. (.l) Definitions "P" (1) PERSON. Includes any association, firm, partnership, trust, governmental body, corporation, organization, as well as an individual. (2) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION or COMMISSION. The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City. (3) PRESERVE or PRESERVATION. The process, including maintenance, treating an existing building to arrest or slow future deterioration, stabilizing the structure and providing structural safety without changing or adversely affecting the character or appearance of the structure. (K) SITE. Any space or ground within the District, including ground occupied by buildings, parking areas, service areas, undeveloped lands, and ground adjacent to structures. § 153.172 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD, PURPOSE, MEMBERSHIP AND OPERATION (A) Purpose. (1) The purpose of the Board shall be to promote the educational, cultural and economic well being of the community through the preservation and maintenance of the District and historic sites as landmarks and tangible reminders of early architecture in Dublin; and to prevent the deterioration of the District and historic sites. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 76 -08 Amended Page 4 of 17 Passed 20 (2) The duties of the Board shall be accomplished through the review of construction, alteration, maintenance and demolition within the District and individual sites subject to ARB review; to preserve their architectural features and characteristics; to make recommendations as to land use within the District and historic sites; to restore and maintain their basic character together with other uses appropriate to the District or a historic site's unique nature; and to recommend legislation designed to promote these purposes. (B) Establishment; members. The Architectural Review Board shall consist of five voting members appointed by Council. (1) Membership of the ARB shall consist of the following: (a) A member of the Dublin Historical Society recommended by the Society. (b) A person who maintains his/her personal residence within the District or one of the designated landmark properties as herein defined. (c) A person who owns commercial property within the District. (d) A person who has architectural training or has had extensive building or building inspection experience. (e) A person who operates a commercial business within the District. (2) Members shall have a demonstrated interest, knowledge or expertise in historic preservation. At least two members should be preservation related professionals, to the extent they are available, such as the professions of architecture, architectural history, history, archaeology, landscape architecture, planning or related disciplines. (3) Members shall serve without compensation, unless otherwise provided by Council. (C) Terms of office. Each member shall hold office from the date of his/her appointment for a term of three years. Any member may continue in office after his/her term expires until an appointed successor takes office; or until 60 days have elapsed, whichever occurs first. (D) Vacancies. All vacancies created by the expiration of the terms, resignations, or other means shall be filled in accordance with the requirements of (B) above. In the event the requirements of (B) cannot be met, Council may fill vacancies as it may deem appropriate. Vacancies shall be filled within 60 days as prescribed in Article VII of the City Charter. A member appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve out the term of the previous member. (E) Rules of Procedure and Guidelines. The Board shall establish its Rules of Procedure and Guidelines with approval from City Council. (F) Organization. The Board shall elect a chairperson and vice - chairperson as set forth in its Rules of Procedure and Guidelines. (G) Meetings. The Board will hold a regular monthly meeting unless there is no business to come before the Board. Special meetings may be called at any time by the Chair. At least 48 hours written notice of the time and place shall be given by the City or by the Chair to each member of the Board. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public as prescribed in article VII of the City Charter. (H) Duties. The Board shall have the following duties: (1) Review and act upon all applications for an ARB Board Order as required by this Chapter. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. FT-1 0::�I-�, -, (2) Make recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for additions or revisions to this Chapter or recommend other legislation that would best serve to develop, preserve, restore and beautify the District. (3) Maintain guidelines (in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings) concerning the conservation of historic areas, buildings, and resources. In so far as practicable, these guidelines shall be considered in the Board's decisions with respect to approvals of alterations, demolitions, and new construction as appropriate for historic structures or historic sites within the District. (4) Maintain an inventory of all landmarks and preservation districts. The Board may use existing inventories by the Ohio Historic Preservation Office or other recognized agency to fulfill this requirement. The inventory shall be updated periodically to reflect changes, alterations, and demolitions. All inventory materials shall be recorded on Ohio Historic Inventory and/or Ohio Archaeological Inventory forms and shall be available through duplicates to the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. This inventory shall be made available to the public upon request. (5) Conduct, cause to be conducted, or assist in a continuing survey of all properties, sites, or areas of architectural, archaeological, historic and aesthetic interest in the City when it deems necessary. (6) Undertake efforts to improve the education of the citizens of the City with respect to Dublin's architectural and historical heritage. (7) Act as a liaison as directed by Council on behalf of the City to individuals and organizations concerned with historic preservation. (8) When requested by the City, review all proposed historic registry nominations for properties within the City. When expertise not represented on the Board (e.g. archaeologist) is necessary for review of a proposed nomination, the Board shall seek expert academic or consulting advice before rendering a decision. (9) Provide a written annual report to the City Council which shall address at a minimum the Board's activities, cases, decisions, and special projects. The annual report shall be kept on file and available for public inspection. Page 5 of 17 Passed 20_ § 153.173 BOARD ORDER PROCEDURE (A) No building permit or Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval shall be issued by the Chief Building Official or the Director and/or their designees for any proposal which is subject to ARB review unless a Board Order has been issued in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. (B) Board Order Requirements. A Board Order shall be required for the following: (1) Recommendations to City Council to establish areas for an historic property or properties not included in the District or to designate an individual property or site as a landmark for protection in accordance with the requirements of Section § 153.175. (2) Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission for: (a) Rezonings to Historic Residential and Historic Business Districts in accordance with the requirements of § 153.234. RECORD OF ORDINANCES 76 -08 Amended Page 6 of 17 Ordinance No. Passed 20_ (b) Amendments to the Zoning Code provisions of the Historic Residential and Historic Business Districts in accordance with the requirements of § 153.234. (c) Rezoning and preliminary development plans and final development plans for Planned Development District applications in accordance with the requirements of § 153.052. (d) Conditional Use applications in accordance with the requirements of Section § 153.236. (3) Requests for new construction or additions to existing sites and structures for the following, unless excepted in (C), below: (a) Permitted Uses in the Residential District, excluding requests for home occupations and accessory uses. (b) Permitted Uses in the Business and Commercial Districts. (c) Permitted Uses listed on appendix G. (d) Signs. (C) (D) (4) Requests for demolition of a structure in accordance with the requirements of Section § 153.176. (5) Requests for alterations or changes to architectural features of existing sites and structures, including signs. Board Order Not Required. The following do not require a Board Order. (1) Ordinary maintenance to correct any deterioration, decay or damage to a structure or site and to restore the structure as nearly as practicable to an original state prior to its deterioration, decay or damage. (2) hiterior building improvements that do not involve any exterior changes, alterations, or modifications, including minor mechanical items such as residential roof vents and plumbing pipes. (3) Landscaping for single - family dwellings. Application. (1) Applications for review by the ARB shall be filed in accordance with the procedures and forms required by the City. In conducting its inquiry and review, the City and Board may request from the applicant any additional information, sketches and data as it shall reasonably require in making a determination. (2) Informal Review Application. An application for an informal review shall consist of the following material, unless deemed unnecessary by the Director. (a) One copy of (i) Legal description of the property. (ii) Tax parcel identification map (11 inch by 17 inch) indicating property owners and parcel numbers for all parcels within 500 feet of the site. (iii) List of contiguous property owners within 150 feet of the perimeter of the property based on the County Auditor's current tax list, including parcel number, owner name. (b) Fourteen, 11 inch by 17 inch copies and one, 24 inch by 36 inch copy of scaled site and architectural plans showing: RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 76 -08 Amended Page 7 of 17 Passed 20 (i) North arrow and bar scale. (ii) Location, size and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping for commercial projects, structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking). (iii) Proposed uses (development density, number of dwellings, building types and square footages, parking, open space, etc.). (iv) Size of the site in acres /square feet. (v) All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights -of- way, easements, and other information related to the site. (vi) Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries. (vii) Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties. (viii) Scaled, architectural elevations (if applicable) with proposed colors and materials noted. (3) An application for a Board Order shall include the following information unless deemed unnecessary by the Director. (a) One (1) original signed and notarized application, if necessary. (b) One copy of: (i) Legal description of the property. (ii) Tax parcel identification map (11 inch by 17 inch) indicating property owners and parcel numbers for all parcels within 500 feet of the site. (iii) List of contiguous property owners within 150 feet of the perimeter of the property based on the County Auditor's current tax list, including parcel number, owner name. (c) Fourteen, 11 inch by 17 inch copies and one, 24 inch by 36 inch copy of scaled site /staking plans showing: (i) North arrow and bar scale. (ii) Location, size and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping, structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking). (iii) Proposed uses (development density, number of dwellings, building types and sizes, parking, open space, etc.). (iv) Size of the site in acres /square feet. (v) All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights -of- way, easements, and other information related to the site. (vi) Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries. (vii) Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties. (d) Fourteen copies of the following scaled plans (if applicable): (i) Grading Plan. (ii) Landscaping Plan. (iii) Lighting Plan. (iv) Utility and/or Stormwater Plan. (v) Tree Survey, Tree Preservation and Tree Replacement Plans. (vi) Architectural elevations (if applicable) with proposed colors and materials noted. (e) One set of material/color samples (swatches, photos, plans, or product specifications), including manufacturer name and product number, as applicable. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. Page 8of17 Passed 20 76 -08 Amended (f) For signs, 14, 11 inch by 17 inch copies and one, 24 inch by 36 inch copy of scaled drawings showing: (i) Location of signs and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window). (ii) Sign dimensions, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grade. (iii) Copy layout and lettering styles (fonts). (iv) Materials and manufacturer to be used in fabrication. (v) Total area of sign face (including frame). (vi) Type of illumination, if provided. (E) Process: The following procedures will be used to review an application for a Board Order. (1) Informal Review (a) An application for an informal review may be submitted by an owner or applicant for projects for which general direction and comments from the ARB are desired. (b) The Board shall cause to have notices setting forth the date, rime, and place of the informal review mailed to the owner(s) or any person having a legal or equitable interest in the property, and to owners within 150 feet of the subject property, not less than seven days prior to the meeting. (c) The ARB shall review the basic concept of the proposal and provide non - binding comments to the applicant addressing the applicable review considerations for the proposal. After the informal review the applicant may submit an application for a Board Order. (2) Hearing (a) A public hearing shall be conducted prior to action on a request for a Board Order. The Board shall cause to have notices setting forth the date, time, and place of the hearing mailed to the owner(s) or any person having a legal or equitable interest in the property, and to owners within 150 feet of the subject property, not less than seven days prior to the hearing. (b) The Board shall consider the applications, plans and specifications and render its determination in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter within a reasonable time after receiving a complete application. (3) Decisions (a) A Board Order shall require approval by a majority vote of a quorum of members. The Board shall cause notice in writing to be provided to the applicant stating the reasons for the decision. (b) The Board shall keep a record of its proceedings, including copies of information, sketches and data needed to clarify the record or any amendment to it. The Board in its consideration may require any additional materials it deems necessary to evaluate the application's conformance to the review standards of § 153.174. (c) The Board may consider the advice of those consultants whose opinion is sought by the Board with respect to any application for a Board Order. (d) Period of Validity RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. . V . to - I Page 9 of 17 Passed . 20 (i) A Board Order shall be valid for a one year from the date of final approval by the Board. The Board Order shall become null and void unless the construction or other action authorized by the decision has been started within one year after the final approval is granted and is being carved forward to completion or occupancy of land, site, or buildings. (ii) The ARB may approve one six -month extension of the final approval upon written application prior to the expiration date of the approval. The extension may be granted provided the Board finds that the reasons for the extension were beyond the immediate control of the applicant. (iii) If the final approval expires a new application shall be required. (e) Conditions. In making any decision provided for in this Section, the ARB may attach any conditions regarding the location, character and other features of the application as it may deem reasonable to ensure that applicable standards of review for the decision are met. Conditions attached shall be stated in the motion for approval, including the reasons for each condition imposed. (4) Administrative modifications. The Director, in administering the Board Order may authorize minor plan modifications to building layouts, parking arrangements, sign locations, lighting, and other building and site - related improvements that are required to correct any undetected errors or address changes to the site made necessary during construction, provided the modifications remain consistent with the purpose of the Board Order. (a) No modifications shall be made that increase the permitted density of development or make any change to a permitted or conditional use. (b) Modifications deemed minor may include such changes as: (i) Minor adjustments in the location of and layout of parking lots provided the perimeter setbacks, yards and buffers are maintained; (ii) Substitution of landscaping materials specified in the landscape plan with comparable materials of an equal or greater size; (iii) Redesigning and/or relocating stormwater management facilities provided that general character and stormwater capacities are maintained; (iv) Redesigning and/or relocating landscaping, provided that the same level and quality of screening is maintained; (v) Minor modifications to the sign face, landscaping and lighting, provided the other sign requirements of the Board Order are maintained; (vi) Minor changes in building material or colors that are similar to and have the same general appearance comparable to or of a higher quality as the material approved with the Board Order. (vii) Changes required by outside agencies such as the County, State, or Federal departments. (viii) Other minor modifications deemed by the Director that do not alter the basic design or any specific conditions imposed as part of the original approval, or are a minimal structural modification necessary to protect the structure due to Acts of God prior to an ARB review. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 76 -08 Amended Page 10 of 17 Passed . 20 (c) The Director shall report approved modifications to the ARB. The Director may submit any modification to the ARB that might otherwise be considered minor if the Director finds that the overall extent and effect of the proposed modification should be reviewed by the ARB. § 153.174 BOARD ORDER STANDARDS OF REVIEW. (A) A Board Order as required in § 153.173 shall be approved only after a finding by the Board that the Review Standards of this Section have been satisfied. All applications that comply with the Review Standards shall be approved by the Board. (B) General Review Standards. The following general review standards shall be met by every application prior to approval of a Board Order. (1) The Board shall determine whether the request will be appropriate to the preservation of the historic and architectural character of the District, or of the historic property pursuant to the criteria specified in this Section. (2) Decisions of the Board shall: (a) Improve the quality of life in the City and achieve the spirit and purpose of this Chapter as described in § 153.172; (b) Consider the protection of property values in order to further the City's goals of sound economic and community development; and (c) Consider the Standards and Recommendations of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. (3) General Character (a) The design of new structures and of additions to existing structures, including new site improvements, shall take into account the architectural style, general design, arrangement, texture, materials and color of other structures and site within the District and immediate vicinity. (b) Where changes have taken place in the course of time as evidence of the history and development of adjacent or nearby buildings, structures or sites, if these changes are deemed to have acquired significance and would be compromised by the proposed new development, then this significance shall be recognized and respected in the design of the new development. (4) Architectural Style. There are a number of intermixes of architectural styles, as well as a larger number of buildings of such modest nature or so extensively remodeled to effectively lose all architectural importance. It is with reference to the basic architectural character of the key buildings noted above that the need for compatibility in the future construction in the District should be made. Compatibility does not infer imitation, but rather an appropriate design in terms of scale, building materials and detail. The architectural character of the various areas of the District consists mainly of four themes: (a) Simple rectangular commercial buildings with exterior construction of rubble or random Ashlar limestone, one, one and one -half, or two stories high with gable roof and ridgeline parallel to the street, mainly of the era of 1820 to 1890. (b) Simple rectangular commercial buildings and outbuildings with exterior construction of frame with horizontal siding and corner trim, one, one and one -half, or two stories high with gable roof and ridgeline parallel to the street, mainly of the era of 1820 to 1890. RECORD OF ORDINANCES 76 -08 Amended Page 11 of 17 Ordinance No. Passed . 20 (c) Residential buildings with exterior construction of rubble or random Ashlar limestone, or red brick laid up in common bond, or frame with horizontal siding and corner trim, mainly of the era of 1820 to 1890. (d) Residential buildings with stone on facades, one to one -half stories, mainly of the era 1950 -1970. (5) Massing and Building Form. Massing of new buildings shall be generally similar to those in adjacent and nearby buildings. Building forms should generally reflect those of the architectural style of the building and the Historic District. Variations of gabled roof forms are preferred. Window to wall ratios should be appropriate to the type and use of building constructed. (6) Color. Traditional colors and combinations of those colors that are both identified with the origin or the era in which the structure or property was originally built and approved by the Architectural Review Board shall be used for exteriors for all new structures to be built, and reconstruction, remodeling and exterior maintenance of existing structures within the Architectural Review District. Fluorescent or luminescent colors are prohibited. (7) Signs. Signs should be designed to complement the nineteenth century Early American character of the district by incorporating design features common to signs from the 1800s. Materials should complement the architectural character of the District and colors should be consistent with the era of the building. Sign types consistent with the character of the Historic District include wall, projecting, window, awning, and sandwich boards. (8) Landscaping. The landscape design of the site should be consistent with the overall architectural and historic character of the structures on the site. Plant material and methods for installation shall be selected respecting the nature of the urban environment and the survivability and diversity of the plan species. Non -plant material shall be of a type associated with the origin or era in which the structure was originally built. Significant features of the original landscape, e.g., stone walls, shall be preserved. (9) Archaeological. Every reasonable effort shall be made to record, protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to, any project. (C) Alterations to Buildings, Structure and Site. In addition to the General Review Standards, the following shall be met by applications for alterations to existing buildings, outbuildings, structures, and sites prior to approval of a Board Order. (1) Every reasonable effort shall be made to ensure that the use of the property will involve minimal alteration of an existing building, structure or site and its environment. (2) The alteration shall conform to the distinguishing, original exterior qualities or character of the structure, its site, and its environment. (3) The distinguishing original qualities or character of a period building, structure, site and/or its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural or environmental features should be avoided when possible. (4) All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to RECORD OF ORDINANCES 76 -08 Amended Ordinance No. Page 12 of 17 Passed 20 create an earlier appearance inconsistent or inappropriate to the original integrity of the building shall be discouraged. (5) Whereas changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure or site and its environment, if these changes are deemed to have acquired significance, then this significance shall be recognized and respected. (6) Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure or site shall be treated with sensitivity. (7) Significant architectural features which have deteriorated should be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities whenever possible. Repair or replacement of architectural features should be based on accurate duplication of the feature, and if 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. (8) The surface cleaning of structures, if provided as part of the application, shall be undertaken with methods designed to minimize damage to historic building materials. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials should be avoided. (D) Additions to Existing Buildings, Structures, and Site. In addition to the General Review Standards, the following shall be met by applications for additions to existing buildings, outbuildings, structures, and site prior to approval of a Board Order. (1) Materials for additions should be traditional to the District, but need not match those of the original structure to which the addition is attached. (2) Contemporary design for additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when they do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural materials, and the design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. Roofline additions are discouraged or should be placed and designed to have the least amount of visual impact. (2) Additions should be clearly distinguishable from the original structure by keeping additions at a smaller scale where appropriate or other similar measures. The intent of an addition should be that if the additions or alterations were removed the essential form and integrity of the original structure would be unimpaired. Additions should generally be located to the rear of the original building so that the most significant and visible faces of historic properties are given priority. Additions to the front should be clearly separated from the original building and simplified in design to not detract from the historic aspects of the structure. (3) All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own rime. Additions with no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance inconsistent or inappropriate to the original integrity of the building shall be discouraged. § 153.175 PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING FUTURE HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, PROPERTIES, AND LANDMARKS. (A) Requests to establish or remove an area or an historic property or properties not included in the District or to designate an individual property or site as a landmark RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 76 -08 Amended Page 13 of 17 Passed . 20_ for protection, or to remove or otherwise change a designation, may be initiated by the Board, or the owner of the proposed properties. Upon initiation of the request by the Board, the owner shall be notified by the City by registered mail of the request. The notification shall include a request for the owner's written comments and written consent for designation. (B) In the event the owner(s) written consent to the proposed designation for the property is not received, the Board shall schedule a public hearing on the proposed designation with notice as provided for Board hearings. In addition, the Board shall cause the notice to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. (C) In considering the designation of any area, place, building, structure, or similar object in the City as a landmark or preservation site, the Board shall consider the proposal in terms of the following criteria prior to making a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission: (1) Its character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, or United States; (2) Its location as a site of a significant historic event; (3) Its identification with a person who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the region; (4) Its exemplification of the cultural, economic, social or historic heritage of the region; (5) Its portrayal of the environment of a group of people in an era of history characterized by a distinctive architectural style; (6) Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type or specimen or the embodiment of distinctive styling features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building and/or outbuilding; (7) Its identification as the work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has influenced the development of the region; (8) Its embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship which represent a significant architectural innovation; (9) The effect of the designated area on the surrounding areas, and the projected development of the community; and (10) Its unique location or singular physical characteristic representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, the community or the City. (D) After review the Board shall forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission which shall review the proposal, the recommendation of the Board, and the criteria of (C), above, and make a recommendation to the City Council concerning the proposed designation. (E) The City Council shall consider the findings and recommendations of the Board and the Commission in making its determination with respect to the proposed designation of an area, property or site as a landmark or preservation district. (F) The City shall notify any owner or any person having a legal or equitable interest in the affected property of the decision by Council. All affected City departments, boards, and commissions shall also be notified. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. § 153.176 76 -08 Amended DEMOLITION. Page 14 of 17 Passed 20 (A) In cases where an applicant applies for a Board Order to demolish a structure within the Architectural Review District, the application may be approved when the applicant is able to demonstrate economic hardship or unusual and compelling circumstances, or at least two of the following conditions prevail: (1) The structure contains no features of architectural and historic significance to the character of the area in which it is located. (2) There is no reasonable economic use for the structure as it exists or as it might be restored, and that there exists no feasible and prudent alternative to demolition. (3) Deterioration has progressed to the point where it is not economically feasible to restore the structure and such neglect has not been willful. (4) The location of the structure impedes the orderly development, substantially interferes with the Purposes of the District, or detracts from the historical character of its immediate vicinity; or, the proposed construction to replace the demolition significantly improves the overall quality of the Architectural Review District without diminishing the historic value of the vicinity or the District. (B) A request for demolition may be transferred with the sale of the property. A new owner shall not be required to re- apply. However, the requirements of this section shall continue to apply to any new owner(s). (C) If the Board considers an application for demolition or removal of a historically and architecturally significant structure within the District, the Board may impose a waiting period not to exceed one year. During this period the ARB and the applicant shall make every reasonable effort to find an alternative to demolition. During the waiting period the owner of the structure shall maintain and preserve the structure to prevent further deterioration. If the Board and the applicant do not agree on a means of preserving the structure within the specified waiting period, the application for demolition may be approved or disapproved. The imposition of the waiting period is subject to appeal in accordance with the provisions of § 153.180. § 153.177 ECONOMIC HARDSHIP OR UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES. (A) For any application relating to property in an area covered by this subchapter the applicant bears the burden for demonstrating that an application is related to economic hardship or unusual and compelling circumstances in accordance with the standards of this section. The applicant is encouraged to seek assistance from the City in determining information helpful in demonstrating this burden. (B) It is recognized that the level of documentation of economic hardship or unusual and compelling circumstances required of an applicant may vary as may be appropriate to each case. The following documentation may be required as deemed necessary by the Board. (1) The amount paid for and date of purchase of the property if purchased within two years prior to the application; copies of the two most recent appraisals of the property; real estate tax bills or receipts for the two years immediately preceding the application; any listings of the property for sale or rent; any written offers to purchase or rent the property; any consideration of the applicant for adapting the property to a new use; and a detailed cost comparison of the work proposed by the applicant and any RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 76 -08 Amended Page 15 of 17 Passed . 20 alternative consistent with architectural standards and guidelines for the property. (2) For all income - producing property: annual gross income from and itemized operating expenses for the property for the past two years; and evidence that the owner or applicant has made a reasonable effort to obtain an economic return thereon. (3) For showing substantial reduction in the value of the property: estimates of the value of the property with applicant's requested proposal and with alternatives consistent with the architectural standards and guidelines for the property. (4) For showing that alternatives are not within applicant's financial means: a statement of applicant's annual income and expenses either as an income tax return and budget or as an accountant's statement; and an estimated differential in initial and annual costs between applicant's proposal and conformity to architectural standards and guidelines for the property. Actual bids shall be preferred. (C) In addition to the materials required by this subchapter and (B), above, an applicant who desires to present a case for economic hardship or unusual and compelling circumstances may provide the following as appropriate: (1) A statement of relevant circumstances. (2) For showing that no other reasonable means exist for saving the property: copy of condemnation or housing order based on deteriorated condition of property; a structural analysis by a licensed architect, engineer or contractor experienced in alterations to historic properties as to the structural soundness of the property or architectural feature accompanied by the individual's or firm's qualifications for making such analysis; documentation that property has been offered for sale. (3) For showing that the property cannot be reasonably maintained in the manner desired by the Board: a report by a licensed architect, engineer or contractor experienced in alterations to historic properties that the unusual design, materials, texture or details prohibit the reasonable maintenance of the property or exterior architectural feature with an explanation as to how the property's location is not conducive to its reasonable maintenance accompanied by the individual's or firm's qualifications for making the report. (D) The following criteria shall be used for all applicants to determine the existence of a substantial economic hardship: (1) Denial of a certificate will result in a substantial reduction in the economic value of the property; (2) Denial of a certificate will result in a substantial economic burden on the applicant because the applicant cannot reasonably maintain the property in its current form; (3) No reasonable alternative exists consistent with the architectural standards and guidelines for the property; (4) The owner has been unable to sell the property. (E) The following criteria shall be used for all applicants to determine the existence of unusual and compelling circumstances: RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 76 -08 Amended Page 16 of 17 Passed 20 (1) The property has little or no historical or architectural significance. (2) The property cannot be reasonably maintained in a manner consistent with the pertinent architectural standards and guidelines. (3) No reasonable means of saving the property from deterioration, demolition or collapse other than applicant's proposal exists. (F) A non -profit organization shall submit information demonstrating that in meeting the requirements of this Chapter it cannot financially or physically achieve its purpose. To demonstrate this requirement, the organization shall submit in addition to materials of (C) and (D) above, a copy of its charter and bylaws or mission statement; an explanation of how the applicant's proposed construction, alteration or demolition is essential to the purposes of the organization and how the Board's recommendation conflicts therewith; an estimated differential in costs between applicant's proposal and consistency with the architectural standards and guidelines for the property (actual bids preferred); and documentation of the organization's tax- exempt status. § 153.178 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN. The owner of a structure or property within the Architectural Review District shall provide sufficient and reasonable care, maintenance and upkeep appropriate to ensure any building's upkeep and to prevent its destruction by deterioration. Any parking area, pedestrian way, landscaping, sign, or other site element shall also be properly maintained in a safe and functional condition, and be maintained to ensure its historical value. This provision shall be in addition to all other applicable code provisions. By resolution the Architectural Review Board may present evidence of a violation to the City for appropriate action. § 153.179 ORDINARY MAINTENANCE Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prevent any ordinary maintenance or repair of an exterior architectural feature or site now or hereafter located within the Architectural Review District which involves no change in material, design, arrangement, texture or color; nor shall anything in this Chapter be construed to prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, modification, or demolition of any feature which the Chief Building Official shall certify, pursuant to appropriate provisions of the Codified Ordinances or state law regarding public safety, as being an unsafe or dangerous condition. § 153.180 APPEALS. Any applicant aggrieved by a decision of the ARB may appeal the decision to the City of Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals in accordance with the requirements of § 153.231. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall forward a copy of its minutes regarding the appeal decision to the ARB. REPEALS: 153.181 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF APPLICATION FOR ARB BOARD ORDER 153.182 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 153.183 SIGNS 153.184 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN 153.185 DEMOLITION 153.186 ORDINARY MAINTENANCE 153.187 APPEALS RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. 76 -08 Amended Page 17 of 17 Ordinance No. Passed 20 Section 2 . APPENDIX F: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DISTRICT BOUNDARIES of the City of Dublin Zoning Code is hereby amended and shall provide as follows: APPENDIX F: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DISTRICT BOUNDARIES . -1 f Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect on the earliest date provided by law. Passed this day of , Z 1 2010. Ir Mayor - Presidj ATTEST: Clerk of Council Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 CITY OF DUBLIN_ Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614- 410 -4490 Memo To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Terry Foegler, City Manager Ir Date: February4, 2010 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director, Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Ordinance 76 -08 (Amended) - Amending Sections 153.170 - 153.189 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) Regarding Operations of the Architectural Review Board (Case No. 07- 096ADK History This ordinance was introduced at the October 20, 2008 City Council meeting and following discussion, Council referred this item back to the ARB and PZC asking that Section 153.173(E) (4) of the proposed Code dealing with Administrative Approval be reconsidered. The ARB reviewed the Administrative Approval section on November 12, 2008 and December 17, 2008 and did not recommend any changes to the manner and type of regulation but did amend two particular items that had previously been in the ordinance. The two items included deleting review of lot line adjustments and review of changes to 10% of the total floor area. The ARB recommendation was then considered by the PZC on November 12, 2009 and on January 21, 2010. The Commission made no changes to the Administrative Approval Section but did request minor changes to three other sections of the proposed Code dealing with Landscaping, Failure to Maintain and Permitted Uses as listed on Appendix G. These changes are highlighted in the attached documents. Summary Land Use and Long Range Planning proposed modifications to the City of Dublin Zoning Code related to the operations of the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The chapter relating to the ARB was reorganized and expanded to more effectively deal with process, standards, and application processing and review. Provisions were added to reflect current requirements and eliminate conflicting language regarding conditional use and Planned District approval, as directed by City Council during the 2008 Council Retreat. These amendments were also prompted by the need to clarify the role of the Architectural Review Board in areas where the existing Code authorized both the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) and the ARB to take action on the same applications. Description The following is a summary of the most substantial ARB Code changes. • Revisions and reorganization of definitions. Many were simplified or reworded for clarity. Some were eliminated where they were already defined elsewhere in the Code and not specific to the District (Section 153.171). • The organizational aspects of the Board were consolidated into a single section (Section 153.172). The provision declaring Land Use and Long Range Planning as the listed office of "secretary" were removed. Memo re. Ordinance 76 -08 — Amendments to ARB Operations February 4, 2010 Page 2 of 2 • The duties were defined more precisely. Some of the more vague "duties" were incorporated as "purposes" of the Board (Section 153.172, (H)). • The hearing requirements are noted, consistent with existing practice, but not currently in the Code (Section 153.173(E)(2)). • Specific application requirements, similar to those for other zoning approvals, have been added. The "informal review" application and review process is clearly outlined (Section 153.173 (D)(E)). • A provision for administrative modifications, very similar to those already adopted by City Council for planned developments, is included for your consideration (Section 153.173(E)(4)). • Perhaps the most significant addition is the incorporation of specific review standards related to applications under consideration. In addition to a set of general standards that apply to all applications, individual provisions are added for alterations and another set for additions. (Section 153.174(B) -(D)). The bulk of the language and intent for the review standards are lifted from the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. This section also consolidates other related provisions of the existing Code. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Architectural Review Board While the Zoning Code does not specifically require new Code language to be reviewed by the ARB, Planning felt that it was appropriate for the ARB to have the opportunity to comment on these proposed changes prior to review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC). The ARB reviewed the proposed Code amendments on June 25, July 23, and August 27, 2008 and recommended approval with modifications. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed Code Amendment on September 19, 2008 and recommended approval to City Council with no changes. Annotated Draft Text The attached copy of the draft ordinance uses different colors to identify the level of change in the draft as compared to the existing Code and who made the suggested language. • Wording in black is identical language and was not changed other than its location within the ordinance. • Wording in blue paragraphs contains the same paragraph organization and same intent as the existing Code but has revised wording for clarity and consistency. • Wording in red is new to this Code even though it may reflect currently used process or current language from the Design Guidelines (largely on pages 6 -15). • Wording in r� is new wording suggested by City Council after the first PZC review and deletions by the ARB in their second review. • Wording in Rurpk is new wording now recommended by the PZC at their last review. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 76 -08 ( Amended). Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 1 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language § 153.170 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. Jurisdictional Boundaries for the Architectural Review District. The Architectural Review District generally applies to properties in the original Village of Dublin and vicinity as identified on Appendix F, as well as other outlying, historic properties specified in Appendix G which may be added in accordance with Code section 153.175. § 153.171 DEFINITIONS. The following definitions shall apply to the provisions of this Chapter applicable to the Architectural Review District, unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. (A) Definitions "A" (1) ALTERATION. Any change, addition or modification in construction or any change in the structural members of a building, such as walls or partitions, columns, beams or girders, the consummated act of which may be referred to in this Chapter as "altered" or "reconstructed." Any action to change, modify, reconstruct, remove or demolish any exterior features of an existing structure or of the site within the Architectural Review District. Ordinary maintenance to correct any deterioration, decay or damage to a structure or site and to restore the structure as nearly as practicable to an original state prior to its deterioration, decay or damage is excluded from the definition of alteration, provided the work does not involve a change in type and/or color of building materials. (2) APPLICANT. Any person who applies for an Architectural Review Board Order in order to undertake any change on property subject to review by the ARB. (3) ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER. The architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior of a building or other structure including the type of the light fixtures, signs and other associated fixtures. (4) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DISTRICT, or DISTRICT. The Architectural Review District of the City. The term may also be used to refer to Ohio Historic Inventory Properties as provided in § 153.170, where appropriate. Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 2 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language (5) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD or BOARD, or ARB. The Architectural Review Board of the City, as created in § 153.172. (6) ARCHITECTURAL STYLE. The predominant historic architectural styles within given areas of the District, as described in § 153.174 (13)(4). (B) BOARD ORDER. The official document issued by the Architectural Review Board containing the official record of a final action or recommendation on an application for a review required by the ARB in accordance with this Chapter. (C) Definitions "C" (1) CHANGE. Any new construction, alteration, demolition, or removal or other construction involving any property subject to the provisions of this Chapter including signs, landscaping, and tree removal. Change shall not include ordinary maintenance or repair of any property if no change in material, design, color, or outward appearance is undertaken. (2) CITY. The City of Dublin, Ohio. (3) CITY COUNCIL, or COUNCIL. The legislative body of the City. (D) Definitions "D" (1) DEMOLITION. The complete or substantial removal or planned destruction of any structure located in the District. (2) DETERIORATION. The impairment of value or usefulness of a structure or site through action of the elements or lack of maintenance or upkeep. (3) DIRECTOR. The Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning for the City. (E) EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. A prominent or significant part or element of a building, structure, or site. Features include the architectural style and general arrangement of the exterior of the structure including building materials, windows, doors, lights, signs, dry -laid stone fences and other fixtures appurtenant thereto. "Feature" shall include the style, material, color, height, area, and lighting, and location of a sign regulated by this Chapter. (F) Definitions "H" Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 3 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language (1) HISTORIC SITE. The location, structures, features or other integral part of a city, state, or United States designated archaeological or historic site. (2) HISTORIC DISTRICT. The portion of the Architectural Review District generally referred to as Historic Dublin, or the original Village of Dublin and its immediate vicinity. (G) Definitions "L" (1) LANDMARK. 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. (2) LANDSCAPING. Site modifications subject to ARB review of plant cover or materials, excluding sites used for single - family residential purposes. (H) Definitions "N" (1) NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION. A private, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to saving historic places and revitalizing America's communities. (2) NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. A list of properties by the National Park Service that includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. (1) Definitions "O" (1) OWNER. The legal person(s) of record having ownership of a property. (2) ORDINARY MAINTENANCE. Exterior work which does not involve any change in material, texture or color, design, or arrangement. Examples include repainting a house with the same color; residing a wood building with wood - siding and painting the same color. Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 4 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language (3) OHIO HISTORIC INVENTORY. A program of the State of Ohio developed to serve as an accurate and continuing record of the architectural and historic properties existing in the state. (J) Definitions "P" (1) PERSON. Includes any association, firm, partnership, trust, governmental body, corporation, organization, as well as an individual. (2) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION or COMMISSION. The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City. (3) PRESERVE or PRESERVATION. The process, including maintenance, treating an existing building to arrest or slow future deterioration, stabilizing the structure and providing structural safety without changing or adversely affecting the character or appearance of the structure. (K) SITE. Any space or ground within the District, including ground occupied by buildings, parking areas, service areas, undeveloped lands, and ground adjacent to structures. § 153.172 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD, PURPOSE, MEMBERSHIP, AND OPERATION (A) Purposes. (1) The purpose of the Board shall be to promote the educational, cultural and economic well being of the community through the preservation and maintenance of the District and historic sites as landmarks and tangible reminders of early architecture in Dublin; and to prevent the deterioration of the District and historic sites. (2) The purposes of the Board shall be accomplished through the review of construction, alteration, maintenance and demolition within the District and individual sites subject to ARB review; to preserve their architectural features and characteristics; to make recommendations as to land use within the District and historic sites; to restore and maintain their basic character together with other uses appropriate to the District or a historic site's unique nature; and to recommend legislation designed to promote these purposes. Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 5 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language (B) Establishment; members. The Architectural Review Board shall consist of five voting members appointed by Council. (1) Membership of the ARB shall consist of the following: (a) A member of the Dublin Historical Society recommended by the Society. (b) A person who maintains his /her personal residence within the District or one of the designated landmark properties as herein defined. (c) A person who owns commercial property within the District. (d) A person who has architectural training or has had extensive building or building inspection experience. (e) A person who operates a commercial business within the District. (2) Members shall have a demonstrated interest knowledge or expertise in historic preservation. At least two members should be preservation related professionals, to the extent they are available, such as the professions of architecture, architectural history, history, archaeology, landscape architecture, planning or related disciplines. (3) Members shall serve without compensation, unless otherwise provided by Council. (C) Terms of office. Each member shall hold office from the date of his /her appointment for a term of three years. Any member may continue in office after his /her term expires until an appointed successor takes office; or until 60 days has elapsed, whichever occurs first. (D) Vacancies. All vacancies created by the expiration of the terms, resignations, or other means shall be filled in accordance with the requirements of (B) above. In the event the requirements of (B) cannot be met, Council may fill vacancies as it may deem appropriate. Vacancies shall be filled within 60 days as prescribed in Article VII of the City Charter. A member appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve out the term of the previous member. (E) Rules of Procedure and Guidelines. The Board shall establish its Rules of Procedure and Guidelines with approval from City Council. (F) Organization. The Board shall elect a chairperson and vice - chairperson as set forth in its Rules of Procedure and Guidelines. Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 6 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language (G) Meetings. The Board will hold a regular monthly meeting unless there is no business to come before the Board. Special meetings may be called at any time by the Chair. At least 48 hours written notice of the time and place shall be given by the City or by the Chair to each member of the Board. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public as prescribed in Article VII of the City Charter. (H) Duties. The Board shall have the following duties: (1) Review and act upon all applications for an ARB Board Order as required by this Chapter. (2) Make recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for additions or revisions to this Chapter or recommend other legislation that would best serve to develop, preserve, restore and beautify the District. (3) Maintain guidelines (in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings) concerning the conservation of historic areas, buildings, and resources. In so far as practicable, these guidelines shall be considered in the Board's decisions with respect to approvals of alterations, demolitions, and new construction as appropriate for historic structures or historic sites within the District. (4) Maintain an inventory of all landmarks and preservation districts. The Board may use existing inventories by the Ohio Historic Preservation Office or other recognized agency to fulfill this requirement. The inventory shall be updated periodically to reflect changes, alterations, and demolitions. All inventory materials shall be recorded on Ohio Historic Inventory and /or Ohio Archaeological Inventory forms and shall be available through duplicates to the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. This inventory shall be made available to the public upon request. (5) Conduct, cause to be conducted, or assist in a continuing survey of all properties, sites, or areas of architectural, archaeological, historic and aesthetic interest in the city when it deems necessary. (6) Undertake efforts to improve the education of the citizens of the city with respect to Dublin's architectural and historical heritage. Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 7 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language (7) Act as a liaison as directed by Council on behalf of the City to individuals and organizations concerned with historic preservation. (8) When requested by the City, review all proposed historic registry nominations for properties within the City. When expertise not represented on the Board (e.g. archaeologist) is necessary for review of a proposed nomination, the Board shall seek expert academic or consulting advice before rendering a decision. (9) Provide a written annual report to the City Council which shall address at a minimum the Board's activities, cases, decisions, and special projects. The annual report shall be kept on file and available for public inspection. § 153.173 BOARD ORDER PROCEDURE (A) No building permit or Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval shall be issued by the Chief Building Official or the Director and/or their designees for any proposal which is subject to ARB review unless a Board Order has been issued in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. (B) Board Order Requirements. A Board Order shall be required for the following: (1) Recommendations to City Council to establish areas for an historic property or properties not included in the District or to designate an individual property or site as a landmark for protection in accordance with the requirements of Section § 153.175. (2) Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission for: (a) Rezonings to Historic Residential and Historic Business Districts in accordance with the requirements of § 153.234. (b) Amendments to the Zoning Code provisions of the Historic Residential and Historic Business Districts in accordance with the requirements of § 153.234. (c) Rezoning and preliminary development plans and final development plans for Planned Development District applications in accordance with the requirements of § 153.052. (d) Conditional Use applications in accordance with the requirements of Section § 153.236. Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 8 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language (3) Requests for new construction or additions to existing sites and structures for the following, unless excepted in (C), below: (a) Permitted Uses in the Residential District, excluding requests for home occupations and accessory uses. (b) Permitted Uses in the Business and Commercial Districts. (c) Permitted Uses listed on Appendix G. (d) Signs (4) Requests for demolition of a structure in accordance with the requirements of Section § 153.176. (5) Requests for alterations or changes to architectural features of existing sites and structures, including signs. (C) Board Order Not Required. The following do not require a Board Order. (1) Ordinary maintenance to correct any deterioration, decay or damage to a structure or site and to restore the structure as nearly as practicable to an original state prior to its deterioration, decay or damage. (2) Interior building improvements that do not involve any exterior changes, alterations, or modifications, including minor mechanical items such as residential roof vents and plumbing pipes. (3) Landscaping for single - family dwellings. (D) Application. (1) Applications for review by the ARB shall be filed in accordance with the procedures and forms required by the City. In conducting its inquiry and review, the City and Board may request from the applicant any additional information, sketches and data as it shall reasonably require in making a determination. (2) Informal Review Application. An application for an informal review shall consist of the following material, unless deemed unnecessary by the Director. (a) One copy of: Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 9 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language (i) Legal description of the property. (ii) Tax parcel identification map (11 inch by 17 inch) indicating property owners and parcel numbers for all parcels within 500 feet of the site. (iii) List of contiguous property owners within 150 feet of the perimeter of the property based on the County Auditor's current tax list, including parcel number, owner name. (b) Fourteen, 11 inch by 17 inch copies and one, 24 inch by 36 inch copy of scaled site and architectural plans showing: (i) North arrow and bar scale. (ii) Location, size and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping for commercial projects, structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking). (iii) Proposed uses (development density, number of dwellings, building types and square footages, parking, open space, etc.). (iv) Size of the site in acres /square feet. (v) All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights -of- way, easements, and other information related to the site. (vi) Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries. (vii) Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties. (viii) Scaled, architectural elevations (if applicable) with proposed colors and materials noted. (3) An application for a Board Order shall include the following information unless deemed unnecessary by the Director. (a) One (1) original signed and notarized application, if necessary. (b) One copy of: (i) Legal description of the property. (ii) Tax parcel identification map (11 inch by 17 inch) indicating property owners and parcel numbers for all parcels within 500 feet of the site. Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 10 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language (iii) List of contiguous properly owners within 150 feet of the perimeter of the properly based on the County Auditor's current tax list, including parcel number, owner name. (c) Fourteen, 11 inch by 17 inch copies and one, 24 inch by 36 inch copy of scaled site /staking plans showing: (i) North arrow and bar scale. (ii) Location, size and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping, structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking). (iii) Proposed uses (development density, number of dwellings, building types and sizes, parking, open space, etc.). (iv) Size of the site in acres /square feet. (v) All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights -of- way, easements, and other information related to the site. (vi) Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries. (vii) Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties. (d) Fourteen copies of the following scaled plans (if applicable): (i) Grading Plan. (ii) Landscaping Plan. (iii) Lighting Plan. (iv) Utility and /or Stormwater Plan. (v) Tree Survey, Tree Preservation and Tree Replacement Plans. (vi) Architectural elevations (if applicable) with proposed colors and materials noted. (e) One set of material /color samples (swatches, photos, plans, or product specifications), including manufacturer name and product number, as applicable. (f) For signs, 14, 11 inch by 17 inch copies and one, 24 inch by 36 inch copy of scaled drawings showing: (i) Location of signs and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window). Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 11 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language (ii) Sign dimensions, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grade. (iii) Copy layout and lettering styles (fonts). (iv) Materials and manufacturer to be used in fabrication. (v) Total area of sign face (including frame). (vi) Type of illumination, if provided. (E) Process: The following procedures will be used to review an application for a Board Order. (1) Informal Review (a) An application for an informal review may be submitted by an owner or applicant for projects for which general direction and comments from the ARB are desired. (b) The Board shall cause to have notices setting forth the date, time, and place of the informal review mailed to the owner(s) or any person having a legal or equitable interest in the property, and to owners within 150 feet of the subject property, not less than seven days prior to the meeting. (c) The ARB shall review the basic concept of the proposal and provide non - binding comments to the applicant addressing the applicable review considerations for the proposal. After the informal review the applicant may submit an application for a Board Order. (2) Hearing (a) A public hearing shall be conducted prior to action on a request for a Board Order. The Board shall cause to have notices setting forth the date, time, and place of the hearing mailed to the owner(s) or any person having a legal or equitable interest in the property, and to owners within 150 feet of the subject property, not less than seven days prior to the hearing. (b) The Board shall consider the applications, plans and specifications and render its determination in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter within a reasonable time after receiving a complete application. (3) Decisions Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 12 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language (a) A Board Order shall require approval by a majority vote of a quorum of members. The Board shall cause notice in writing to be provided to the applicant stating the reasons for the decision. (b) The Board shall keep a record of its proceedings, including copies of information, sketches and data needed to clarify the record or any amendment to it. The Board in its consideration may require any additional materials it deems necessary to evaluate the application's conformance to the review standards of § 153.174. (c) The Board may consider the advice of those consultants whose opinion is sought by the Board with respect to any application for a Board Order. (d) Period of Validity (i) A Board Order shall be valid for a one year from the date of final approval by the Board. The Board Order shall become null and void unless the construction or other action authorized by the decision has been started within one year after the final approval is granted and is being carried forward to completion or occupancy of land, site, or buildings. (ii) The ARB may approve one six -month extension of the final approval upon written application prior to the expiration date of the approval. The extension may be granted provided the Board finds that the reasons for the extension were beyond the immediate control of the applicant. (iii) If the final approval expires a new application shall be required. (e) Conditions. In making any decision provided for in this Section, the ARB may attach any conditions regarding the location, character and other features of the application as it may deem reasonable to ensure that applicable standards of review for the decision are met. Conditions attached shall be stated in the motion for approval, including the reasons for each condition imposed. (4) Administrative modifications. The Director, in administering the Board Order may authorize minor plan modifications to building layouts, parking arrangements, sign locations, lighting, and other building and site - related improvements that are required to correct any undetected errors or address changes to the site made necessary during construction, Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 13 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language provided the modifications remain consistent with the purpose of the Board Order. (a) No modifications shall be made that increases the permitted density of development or make any change to a permitted or conditional use. (b) Modifications deemed minor may include such changes as: (i) Minor adjustments in the location of and layout of parking lots provided the perimeter setbacks, yards and buffers are maintained; Minor adjustfflefAs in building feotfrif4s tip to 10 in 1...:1,7:..,. 1.,.i g h4( s ) Of i g eo « p l a- .., th ,1,...,.t alter tl.,. or i444A44s4y 4the use. (ii) Substitution of landscaping materials specified in the landscape plan with comparable materials of an equal or greater size; (iii) Redesigning and/or relocating stormwater management facilities provided that general character and stormwater capacities are maintained; (iv) Redesigning and /or relocating landscaping, provided that the same level and quality of screening is maintained; (v) Minor modifications to the sign face, landscaping and lighting, provided the other sign requirements of the Board Order are maintained; (vi) Minor changes in building material or colors that are similar to and have the same general appearance comparable to or of a higher quality as the material approved with the Board Order. (vii) Changes required by outside agencies such as the County, State, or Federal departments. (viii) Other minor modifications deemed by the Director that do not alter the basic design or any specific conditions imposed as part of the original approval, or are a minimal structural modification necessary to protect the structure due to Acts of God and requiring immediate attention and repair prior to an ARB review. Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 14 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language (c) The Director shall report approved modifications to the ARB. The Director may submit any modification to the ARB that might otherwise be considered minor if the Director finds that the overall extent and effect of the proposed modification should be reviewed by the ARB. § 153.174 BOARD ORDER STANDARDS OF REVIEW. (A) A Board Order as required in § 153.173 shall be approved only after a finding by the Board that the Review Standards of this Section have been satisfied. All applications that comply with the Review Standards shall be approved by the Board. (B) General Review Standards. The following general review standards shall be met by every application prior to approval of a Board Order. (1) The Board shall determine whether the request will be appropriate to the preservation of the historic and architectural character of the District, or of the historic property pursuant to the criteria specified in this Section. (2) Decisions of the Board shall: (a) Improve the quality of life in the city and achieve the spirit and purpose of this Chapter as described in § 153.172; (b) Consider the protection of property values in order to further the City's goals of sound economic and community development; and (c) Consider the Standards and Recommendations of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. (3) General Character (a) The design of new structures and of additions to existing structures, including new site improvements, shall take into account the architectural style, general design, arrangement, texture, materials and color of other structures and site within the District and immediate vicinity. (b) Where changes have taken place in the course of time as evidence of the history and development of adjacent or nearby buildings, Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 15 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language structures or sites, if these changes are deemed to have acquired significance and would be compromised by the proposed new development, then this significance shall be recognized and respected in the design of the new development. (4) Architectural Style. There are a number of intermixes of architectural styles, as well as a larger number of buildings of such modest nature or so extensively remodeled to effectively lose all architectural importance. It is with reference to the basic architectural character of the key buildings noted above that the need for compatibility in the future construction in the District should be made. Compatibility does not infer imitation, but rather an appropriate design in terms of scale, building materials and detail. The architectural character of the various areas of the District consists mainly of four themes: (a) Simple rectangular commercial buildings with exterior construction of rubble or random Ashlar limestone, one, one and one -half, or two stories high with gable roof and ridgeline parallel to the street, mainly of the era of 1820 to 1890. (b) Simple rectangular commercial buildings and outbuildings with exterior construction of frame with horizontal siding and corner trim, one, one and one -half, or two stories high with gable roof and ridgeline parallel to the street, mainly of the era of 1820 to 1890. (c) Residential buildings with exterior construction of rubble or random Ashlar limestone, or red brick laid up in common bond, or frame with horizontal siding and corner trim, mainly of the era of 1820 to 1890. (d) Residential buildings with stone on facades, one to one -half stories, mainly of the era 1950 -1970. (5) Massing and Building Form. Massing of new buildings shall be generally similar to those in adjacent and nearby buildings. Building forms should generally reflect those of the architectural style of the building and the Historic District. Variations of gabled roof forms are preferred. Window to wall ratios should be appropriate to the type and use of building constructed. (6) Color. Traditional colors and combinations of those colors that are both identified with the origin or the era in which the structure or property was originally built and approved by the Architectural Review Board shall be Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 16 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language used for exteriors for all new structures to be built, and reconstruction, remodeling and exterior maintenance of existing structures within the Architectural Review District. Fluorescent or luminescent colors are prohibited. (7) Signs. Signs should be designed to complement the nineteenth century Early American character of the district by incorporating design features common to signs from the 1800s. Materials should complement the architectural character of the District and colors should consistent with the era of the building. Sign types consistent with the character of the Historic District include wall, projecting, window, awning, and sandwich boards. (8) Landscaping. The landscape design of the site should be consistent with the overall architectural and historic character of the structures on the site. Plant material and methods for installation shall be selected respecting the nature of the urban environment and the survivability and diversity of the plant species. Non -plant material shall be of a type associated with the origin or era in which the structure was originally built. Significant features of the original landscape, e.g., stone walls, shall be preserved. (9) Archaeological. Every reasonable effort shall be made to record, protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to, any project. (C) Alterations to Buildings, Structure and Site. In addition to the General Review Standards, the following shall be met by applications for alterations to existing buildings, outbuildings, structures, and sites prior to approval of a Board Order. (1) Every reasonable effort shall be made to ensure that the use of the property will involve minimal alteration of an existing the building, structure or site and its environment. (2) The alteration shall conform to the distinguishing, original exterior qualities or character of the structure, its site, and its environment. (3) The distinguishing original qualities or character of a period building structure, site and /or its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural or environmental features should be avoided when possible. Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 17 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language (4) All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance inconsistent or inappropriate to the original integrity of the building shall be discouraged. (S) Whereas changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure or site and its environment, if these changes are deemed to have acquired significance, then this significance shall be recognized and respected. (6) Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure or site shall be treated with sensitivity. (7) Significant architectural features which have deteriorated should be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities whenever possible. Repair or replacement of architectural features should be based on accurate duplication of the feature, and if 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. (8) The surface cleaning of structures, if provided as part of the application, shall be undertaken with methods designed to minimize damage to historic building materials. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials should be avoided. (D) Additions to Existing Buildings, Structures, and Site. In addition to the General Review Standards, the following shall be met by applications for additions to existing buildings, outbuildings, structures, and site prior to approval of a Board Order. (1) Materials for additions should be traditional to the District, but need not match those of the original structure to which the addition is attached. (2) Contemporary design for additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when they do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural materials, and the design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 18 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language environment. Roofline additions are discouraged or should be placed and designed to have the least amount of visual impact. (2) Additions should be clearly distinguishable from the original structure by keeping additions at a smaller scale where appropriate or other similar measures. The intent of an addition should be that if the additions or alterations were removed the essential form and integrity of the original structure would be unimpaired. Additions should generally be located to the rear of the original building so that the most significant and visible faces of historic properties are given priority. Additions to the front should be clearly separated from the original building and simplified in design to not detract from the historic aspects of the structure. (3) All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Additions with no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance inconsistent or inappropriate to the original integrity of the building shall be discouraged. § 153.175 PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING FUTURE HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, PROPERTIES, AND LANDMARKS. (A) Requests to establish or remove an area or an historic property or properties not included in the District or to designate an individual property or site as a landmark for protection, or to remove or otherwise change a designation, may be initiated by the Board, or the owner of the proposed properties. Upon initiation of the request by the Board, the owner shall be notified by the City by registered mail of the request. The notification shall include a request for the owner's written comments and written consent for designation. (B) In the event the owner(s) written consent to the proposed designation for the property is not received, the Board shall schedule a public hearing on the proposed designation with notice as provided for Board hearings. In addition, the Board shall cause the notice to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. (C) In considering the designation of any area, place, building, structure, or similar object in the city as a landmark or preservation site, the Board shall consider the proposal in terms of the following criteria prior to making a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission: Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 19 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language (1) Its character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, or United States; (2) Its location as a site of a significant historic event; (3) Its identification with a person who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the region; (4) Its exemplification of the cultural, economic, social or historic heritage of the region; (5) Its portrayal of the environment of a group of people in an era of history characterized by a distinctive architectural style; (6) Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type or specimen or the embodiment of distinctive styling features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building and /or outbuilding; (7) Its identification as the work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has influenced the development of the region; (8) Its embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship which represent a significant architectural innovation; (9) The effect of the designated area on the surrounding areas, and the projected development of the community; and (10) Its unique location or singular physical characteristic representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, the community or the city. (D) After review the Board shall forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission which shall review the proposal, the recommendation of the Board, and the criteria of (C), above, and make a recommendation to the City Council concerning the proposed designation. (E) The City Council shall consider the findings and recommendations of the Board and the Commission in making its determination with respect to the proposed designation of an area, property or site as a landmark or preservation district. Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 20 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language (F) The City shall notify any owner or any person having a legal or equitable interest in the affected property of the decision by Council. All affected City departments, boards, and commissions shall also be notified. § 153.176 DEMOLITION. (A) In cases where an applicant applies for a Board Order to demolish a structure within the Architectural Review District, the application may be approved fef sew when the applicant is able to demonstrate economic hardship or unusual and compelling circumstances, or at least two of the following conditions prevail: (1) The structure contains no features of architectural and historic significance to the character of the area in which it is located. (2) There is no reasonable economic use for the structure as it exists or as it might be restored, and that there exists no feasible and prudent alternative to demolition. (3) Deterioration has progressed to the point where it is not economically feasible to restore the structure and such neglect has not been willful. (4) The location of the structure impedes the orderly development, substantially interferes with the Purposes of the District, or detracts from the historical character of its immediate vicinity; or, the proposed construction to replace the demolition significantly improves the overall quality of the Architectural Review District without diminishing the historic value of the vicinity or the District. (B) A request for demolition may be transferred with the sale of the property. A new owner shall not be required to re- apply. However, the requirements of this section shall continue to apply to any new owner(s). (C) If the Board considers an application for demolition or removal of ahistorically and architecturally significant structure within the District, the Board may impose a waiting period not to exceed one year. During this period the ARB and the applicant shall make every reasonable effort to find an alternative to demolition. During the waiting period the owner of the structure shall maintain and preserve the structure to prevent further deterioration. If the Board and the applicant do not agree on a means of preserving the structure within the specified Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 21 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language waiting period, the application for demolition may be approved or disapproved. The imposition of the waiting period is subject to appeal in accordance with the provisions of § 153.180. § 153.177 ECONOMIC HARDSHIP OR UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES. (A) For any application relating to property in an area covered by this subchapter the applicant bears the burden for demonstrating that an application is related to economic hardship or unusual and compelling circumstances in accordance with the standards of this section. The applicant is encouraged to seek assistance from the City in determining information helpful in demonstrating this burden. (B) It is recognized that the level of documentation of economic hardship or unusual and compelling circumstances required of an applicant may vary as may be appropriate to each case. The following documentation may be required as deemed necessary by the Board. (1) The amount paid for and date of purchase of the property if purchased within two years prior to the application; copies of the two most recent appraisals of the property; real estate tax bills or receipts for the two years immediately preceding the application; any listings of the property for sale or rent; any written offers to purchase or rent the property; any consideration of the applicant for adapting the property to a new use; and a detailed cost comparison of the work proposed by the applicant and any alternative consistent with architectural standards and guidelines for the property. (2) For all income - producing property: annual gross income from and itemized operating expenses for the property for the past two years; and evidence that the owner or applicant has made a reasonable effort to obtain an economic return thereon. (3) For showing substantial reduction in the value of the property: estimates of the value of the property with applicant's requested proposal and with alternatives consistent with the architectural standards and guidelines for the property. (4) For showing that alternatives are not within applicant's financial means: a statement of applicant's annual income and expenses either as an income tax return and budget or as an accountant's statement; and an estimated Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 22 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language differential in initial and annual costs between applicant's proposal and conformity to architectural standards and guidelines for the property. Actual bids shall be preferred. (C) In addition to the materials required by this subchapter and (B), above, an applicant who desires to present a case for economic hardship or unusual and compelling circumstances may provide the following as appropriate: (1) A statement of relevant circumstances. (2) For showing that no other reasonable means exist for saving the property: copy of condemnation or housing order based on deteriorated condition of property; a structural analysis by a licensed architect, engineer or contractor experienced in alterations to historic properties as to the structural soundness of the property or architectural feature accompanied by the individual's or firm's qualifications for making such analysis; documentation that property has been offered for sale. (3) For showing that the property cannot be reasonably maintained in the manner desired by the Board: a report by a licensed architect, engineer or contractor experienced in alterations to historic properties that the unusual design, materials, texture or details prohibit the reasonable maintenance of the property or exterior architectural feature with an explanation as to how the property's location is not conducive to its reasonable maintenance accompanied by the individual's or firm's qualifications for making the report. (D) The following criteria shall be used for all applicants to determine the existence of a substantial economic hardship: (1) Denial of a certificate will result in a substantial reduction in the economic value of the property; (2) Denial of a certificate will result in a substantial economic burden on the applicant because the applicant cannot reasonably maintain the property in its current form; (3) No reasonable alternative exists consistent with the architectural standards and guidelines for the property; (4) The owner has been unable to sell the property. Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 23 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language (E) The following criteria shall be used for all applicants to determine the existence of unusual and compelling circumstances: (1) The property has little or no historical or architectural significance. (2) The property cannot be reasonably maintained in a manner consistent with the pertinent architectural standards and guidelines. (3) No reasonable means of saving the property from deterioration, demolition or collapse other than applicant's proposal exists. (F) A non - profit organization shall submit information demonstrating that in meeting the requirements of this Chapter it cannot financially or physically achieve its purpose. To demonstrate this requirement, the organization shall submit in addition to materials of (C) and (D) above, a copy of its charter and bylaws or mission statement; an explanation of how the applicant's proposed construction, alteration or demolition is essential to the purposes of the organization and how the Board's recommendation conflicts therewith; an estimated differential in costs between applicant's proposal and consistency with the architectural standards and guidelines for the property (actual bids preferred); and documentation of the organization's tax- exempt status. § 153.178 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN. bein No pefsen, The owner of a structure or property within the Architectural Review District shall b- �r � "�et, €awe provide sufficient and reasonable care, maintenance and upkeep appropriate to ensure any building's upkeep and to prevent its destruction by deterioration. Any parking area, pedestrian way, landscaping, sign, or other site element shall also be properly maintained in a safe and functional condition, and be maintained to ensure its historical value. This provision shall be in addition to all other applicable code provisions. By resolution, the Architectural Review Board may present evidence of a violation to the City for appropriate action. § 153.179 ORDINARY MAINTENANCE Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prevent any ordinary maintenance or repair of an exterior architectural feature or site now or hereafter located within the Architectural Review District which involves no change in material, design, arrangement, texture or color; nor shall anything in this Chapter be construed to prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, modification, or demolition of any feature Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 24 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language which the Chief Building Official shall certify, pursuant to appropriate provisions of the Codified Ordinances or state law regarding public safety, as being an unsafe or dangerous condition. § 153.180 APPEALS. Any applicant aggrieved by adecision of the ARB may appeal the decision to the City of Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals in accordance with the requirements of § 153.231. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall forward a copy of its minutes regarding the appeal decision to the ARB. REPEALS: 153.181 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF APPLICATION FOR ARB BOARD ORDER 153.182 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 153.183 SIGNS 153.184 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN 153.185 DEMOLITION 153.186 ORDINARY MAINTENANCE 153.187 APPEALS Section 2 . APPENDIX F: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DISTRICT BOUNDARIES of the City of Dublin Zoning Code is hereby amended and shall provide as follows: Black — Existing Wording Blue — Revised Wording same intent Red — New Wording Green — Changes since first PZC review Purple - Changes since Nov PZC meeting Page 25 of 25 Ordinance 76 -08 Amended - Proposed Language Zoning Regulations Ch. 53, App. F APPENDIX F: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 345 Indian Run sl m _ o N (0 A Si. N °1 3 � \ a 0 d 1N Bn89e St ► 2 I N in t? Q City of Dublin - l Cemetery M ° A 7 _ I southern houndary o /cemetery extended east m o c m N G N — a � Ditch.. W I 345 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Architectural Review Board 07- 096ADM Administrative Request Zoning Code Amendment Proposal: Code modifications to Code Sections 153.170 through 153.187 to amend the review standards and processes for the Architectural Review Board. Request: Review and recommendation for approval to City Council under the provisions of Code Section 153.234. Applicant: Terry Foegler, City Manager. Planning Contact: Gary P. Gunderman, Planning Manager. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4682, gunderman @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To recommend approval to City Council for this Zoning Code Amendment. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This Zoning Code Amendment was recommended for approval. STAFF CERTIFICATION Gary P. Gunderman Planning Manager PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION CITY OF DUBLIN - Land Use and JANUARY 21, 2010 Long Range Planning 5809 Shier-Rings Road Dublin. Ohio 4301 6 -1 236 Phone/ iDD: 614- 410 -4600 Fax: 614- 410.4747 Web Sile: www.dublin.oh.us Creating a Legacy The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Architectural Review Board 07- 096ADM Administrative Request Zoning Code Amendment Proposal: Code modifications to Code Sections 153.170 through 153.187 to amend the review standards and processes for the Architectural Review Board. Request: Review and recommendation for approval to City Council under the provisions of Code Section 153.234. Applicant: Terry Foegler, City Manager. Planning Contact: Gary P. Gunderman, Planning Manager. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4682, gunderman @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To recommend approval to City Council for this Zoning Code Amendment. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This Zoning Code Amendment was recommended for approval. STAFF CERTIFICATION Gary P. Gunderman Planning Manager Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 21, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 1 DRAFT 1. Architectural Review Board Administrative Request 07- 096ADM Zoning Code Amendment Ms. Amorose Groomes said the first case on the agenda is a City application to amend the Zoning Code Sections related to the Architectural Review Board. Gary Gunderman stated this application was last discussed in November 2009 and three issues were brought up at that meeting. He said these items have been addressed and include amending the previous language to now list the permitted uses on appendix G, adding language to ensure better planting specifications for landscape material within the District, and clarifying the Code requirements regarding property maintenance. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was anyone who would like to speak with regard to this application. [There was none] .Admupoq Mme. 6166106600 W 610.610 470 We65M1k. &W-O M SECTION I - CASE INFORMATION 2. Architectural Review Board 07- 096ADM Administrative Request Zoning Code Amendment Proposal: Modifications to Code Sections 153.170 through 153.187 to amend 71 PLANNING REPORT CITY Or DUBLIN_ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION u...e Review and recommendation for approval to City Council under 5e I" M1m n..m.y JANUARY 21, 2010 60003MuN Terry Foegler, City Manager, City of Dublin. 1..0M1b93016836 WM NW2 Gary P. Gunderman, Planning Manager. Mme. 6166106600 W 610.610 470 We65M1k. &W-O M SECTION I - CASE INFORMATION 2. Architectural Review Board 07- 096ADM Administrative Request Zoning Code Amendment Proposal: Modifications to Code Sections 153.170 through 153.187 to amend the review standards and processes for the Architectural Review Board. Request: Review and recommendation for approval to City Council under the provisions of Code Section 153.234. Applicant: Terry Foegler, City Manager, City of Dublin. Planning Contact: Gary P. Gunderman, Planning Manager. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4682, gunderman@dublin.oh.us Update This case was postponed from the January 7, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, which was canceled due to inclement weather. The content of this report has not been changed. The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled the proposed Code amendment for the Architectural Review District on November 12, 2009 to change what properties are subject to Architectural Review Board (ARB) review, particularly properties on the Ohio History Inventory and on Appendix G in the Code. The Commission also requested that the Code address planting methods in an urban setting like Historic Dublin and to add more specifics regarding property maintenance. Planning has included the modifications (in purple) as requested by the Commission. Case Background The proposed Code amendment was introduced at City Council on October 20, 2008. City Council discussed the Administrative Modification language within the draft ordinance (Section 153.173 (E) (4)). Council requested that the proposed amendments be referred back to the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission for additional consideration of the administrative approval process. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the language and supported the administrative approval process and did not recommend any changes to this procedure. ARE did request two minor deletions to the proposed Code dealing with lot line adjustments and building footprint relocations. In early 2008, Planning and the ARE discussed the relative roles of the Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was noted that City Council had discussed the issue of jurisdiction between the two bodies, particularly with respect to planned developments and conditional uses, at the 2008 Council Retreat. Prior to that discussion, Planning had reviewed the ARE provisions Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 10, 2010 — Planning Report Case No. 07-096ADM — Page 2 of 3 of the Zoning Code and noted a number of inconsistencies and areas of ambiguity that needed to be addressed. In light of both of these issues, Planning proposed revisions to Zoning Code Sections 153.170 through 153.187 to reflect the decisions made by City Council and clarify any inconsistencies and ambiguities within the Code. The proposed Code modifications were reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board on June 25, July 23, and August 27, 2008 and by the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 18, 2008. Following City Council consideration on October 20, 2008 a second discussion of the procedures for administrative approvals process took place at the November 12, 2008 ARB Meeting. Three new ARB members were appointed in early 2009 and a review of all the proposed ordinance changes was conducted on May 27, 2009. Two minor modifications were recommended by the ARB to the administrative procedures but no changes were made to the process. Administrative Approval Process Summary The Administrative Modification Section (153.173 (E) (4) page 12 and 13) is intended to provide the ability to administratively approve minor modifications to approved projects. These modifications can occur as a result of the building permit review process, as well as during construction and after a project has been fully developed. The administrative approval process for the ARB was taken from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District language, adopted in December 2007. The proposed language outlines eight modifications that can be approved by Planning without returning to the Board for formal approval. This provision requires that the administrative approval be reported to the ARB to ensure consistent communication throughout the development of the approved project, as is the practice with administrative approvals in PUDs at the Planning and Zoning Commission. The ARB recommended that two of the previous minor modifications listed in 153.173(4)(b) be deleted, one concerning lot line adjustments and one concerning building footprint relocations. The instances that would allow Planning to make these decisions are now as follows: 1. Minor adjustments to parking lots; 2. Substitution of landscape materials provided the landscape is comparable material types and sizes; 3. Redesigning and/or relocating stormwater management facilities provided the general character and capacities are maintained; 4. Redesigning landscaping provided it maintains the same level of quality; 5. Minor modifications to sign faces; 6. Minor changes to building materials; 7. Changes required by other state and federal agencies; and 8. Any modification deemed minor by the Director but do not alter the basic design of the original project. Other Updates to Proposed Language A minor Code revision was suggested by City Council concerning a cross reference to the City Charter in Code Section 153.172 regarding (D) Vacancies and (G) Meetings. Modified language has been included in the attached draft that incorporates these revisions. In all other respects, the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 10, 2010 —Planning Report Case No. 07-096ADM — Page 3 of 3 draft Code is the same as was recommended for approved by the Planning Commission in September of 2008. Several items were discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their November 12, 2009 meeting. In consideration of that discussion the following items have been amended: 153.173 (B) (3) (c) regarding reviewable properties by the ARB, has been revised to read — "Permitted Uses listed on Appendix G." 153.174 (B) 8 — The standard regarding Landscape installation has been revised to read — "Landscaping. The landscape design of the site should be consistent with the overall architectural and historic character of the structures on the site. Plant material and methods for installation shall be selected respecting the nature of the urban environment and the survivability and diversity of the plant species. Non -plant material shall be of a type associated with the origin or era in which the structure was originally built. Significant features of the original landscape, e.g., stone walls, shall be preserved." 153.178 regarding Failure to Maintain Property has been revised to read - person, being "The owner of a structure or property within the Architectural Review District shall 4� �_ i"fi�et, fail to provide sufficient and reasonable care, maintenance and upkeep appropriate to ensure any building's upkeep and to prevent its destruction by deterioration. Any parking area, pedestrian way, landscaping, sign, or other site element shall also be properly maintained in a safe and functional condition, and be maintained to ensure its historical value. This provision shall be in addition to all other applicable code provisions. By resolution, the Architectural Review Board may present evidence of a violation to the City for appropriate action." SECTION II - REVIEW STANDARDS Case Procedure The current Code Section 153.232(B) grants the ability to review amendments to the Zoning Map and the Zoning Code to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Attached to this Planning Report are the proposed Code modifications as most recently approved by the Architectural Review Board. This draft contains only four changes from the version approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission during the most recent reviews of the Code. The Board should review this draft Ordinance as it pertains to administrative modifications and provide feedback as desired. The draft amendments will then be forwarded to the City Council for final review and approval. SECTION III - RECOMMENDATION Planning is requesting that the PZC review the revised Code language regarding the administrative approval process and recommend approval to City Council. The draft amendments will then be forwarded to the City Council for final review and approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 5. Architectural Review Board Administrative Request 07- 096ADM Zoning Code Amendment Proposal: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION CITY OF DUBLIN. Board. Land Use and NOVEMBER 12, 2009 Long Range Planning the provisions of Code Section 153.234. 5800 Shier -Rings Road Terry Foegler, City Manager, City of Dublin. Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Gary P. Gunderman, Planning Manager. Phone/ TDD:614- 410 -4600 (614) 410 -4682, ggunderman @dublin.oh.us Fax: 614 -410 -4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us Creating a Legacy The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 5. Architectural Review Board Administrative Request 07- 096ADM Zoning Code Amendment Proposal: Modifications to Code Sections 153.170 through 153.187 to amend the review standards and processes for the Architectural Review Board. Request: Review and recommendation for approval to City Council under the provisions of Code Section 153.234. Applicant: Terry Foegler, City Manager, City of Dublin. Planning Contact: Gary P. Gunderman, Planning Manager. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4682, ggunderman @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To table this Zoning Code Amendment to further review the recommendations and incorporate urban landscape guidelines and adding the color purple to the palette. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This Zoning Code Amendment was tabled. STAFF CERTIFICATION /� � �Z' 4 — - i (iad4 Gunderman Planning Manager Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 12, 2009 — Minutes Page 1 of 5 5. Architectural Review Board Administrative Request 07- 096ADM Zoning Code Amendment Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this City application for an Administrative Request to amend several Code sections dealing with the operations of the Architectural Review District. She explained that this was a Legislative item and the Commission is to make recommendations to City Council for a final decision. Gary Gunderman presented this rewrite of the entire section that deals with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the procedures and policies currently used. He said all the changes and additions were approved and referred to City Council by the ARB and the Commission. He pointed out two minor amendments were made by City Council in the front of the Code where they requested reference be made to the City Charter. He said at City Council, the Administrative Approval Section, Page 11, Paragraph 4, received much discussion, and as a result, the whole item was referred back to the ARB and the Commission for reconsideration. He said City Council's discussion was about whether the Administrative Approval section was appropriate for the ARB, or whether there was a better procedure. Mr. Gunderman said ARB determined that they still preferred the basic procedure as outlined in the original Code however; they did review the particulars of that section, and chose to delete two items originally in the first draft. He said the section was drafted around the procedure that the Commission has in the PUD Administrative Approval section of the Code. He said that typically ARB items are on a shorter timeframe, and they are more likely to run across issues at the Building Permit stage, whereas with PUD cases they may present themselves sooner, at the Final Development Plan stage for example. He said the ARB more frequently deals with individual property owners and businesses, and sometimes there is not the same level of professionals dealing with projects, and that was a factor mentioned at City Council and the ARB as being a reason why they were concerned about getting anything that would lengthen the process. Mr. Gunderman said that the ARB recommended that the rest of the drafted Code remain as proposed. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comment regarding this application. [There was none.] Amy Kramb referred to Section 153.173B3(C), addressing New Construction - Permitted Uses on Ohio Historic Inventory Properties. She expressed concern that the only criteria for being listed on the Inventory was that something was 50 years old, or older. Mr. Gunderman suggested that Appendix G lists the particular properties that have been determined to be covered with these regulations. He said this would have referred to a substantially longer list. Ms. Kramb pointed out that Appendix G was not attached. She said by saying Permitted Uses on Ohio Historic Inventory (OHI) properties, anyone could fill out an OHI form on a property if it was 50 years old or older for a variety of reasons such as being state mandated, for federal funds, or just that the neighborhood historian wants to do it. She clarified that her concern was that it was going to subject certain property owners to doing more than they really would have to do, just because their house had been recorded on the OHI form. She said the form could be completed by someone other than the owner of a property. She said it opened up a group of properties covered elsewhere and did not add anything or cover anything additional than Appendix G. She said it would open up many properties to a potential hardship that they really did not need to do. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 12, 2009 — Minutes Page 2 of 5 Mr. Gunderman said this topic was discussed at the first ARB meeting. He suggested if the Commission wanted to change this section; it would be useful to take it back to the ARB. Mr. Langworthy said the ARB had looked at it in terms of properties that did have some historical significance that are not on the National Register that should be reviewed as long as they are in the Appendix. He said the difference may be how the Appendix is treated. He explained that the ARB's Annual Items of Interest List included updating the Appendix. Ms. Kramb said the Ohio Historic Inventory was very different from being eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Langworthy explained that it would not be the entire list, but the City list on Appendix G. Ms. Kramb reiterated that according to this, it was anything on the OHL Mr. Langworthy asked if it should be eliminated or be more specific. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested "...as listed in Appendix G" could be added to solve the problem. Kevin Walter asked why properties were placed on Appendix G. Mr. Langworthy said it was determined by the ARB. He agreed that the list might end up too large by the time the Appendix is updated. Ms. Kramb said that if the list of properties potentially eligible for the National Register is created, though not actually listed, and it includes how the City made the determination to add it, she wanted to make sure that there is an actual Secretary of the Interior Standard Historian or Architectural Historian approving or agreeing with the list. Mr. Gunderman said if they embarked on amending Appendix G, the City's consulting historian would review it. Ms. Kramb said she did not see Appendix G attached and did not know how it was created. She said it was Code and it should be specific. Mr. Langworthy said all that the ARB will be doing is creating the list to put into an ordinance and then the ordinance would be brought to the Commission because it was an amendment to the Zoning Code, and then to City Council for adoption. Ms. Kramb said she was okay, if "...as listed in Appendix G" were added to Section (C). Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed it should be added. Ms. Kramb said the grammatical changes and typos she found in the draft were on Page 15(C)(1): deleting the word the between existing and building structure, Page 17(C): The Board shall consider the proposal in terms of the following criteria, and Page 18 — Demolition (A): The application may be approved femme when the applicant is able to demonstrate... Kevin Walter suggested that (C), the OHI property portion, be stricken even if it had to go back to ARB because it seemed redundant to have to look to another appendix just to find out that it was just the things on the Appendix. He said it adds unnecessary complexity to say that it is on the Ohio Historical Inventory List. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed that they should just be listed in Appendix G. John Hardt asked for ARB's rationale regarding the two paragraphs they struck from Page 12 of the draft. Mr. Gunderman said the first was an issue a Board member felt was confusing, and it Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 12, 2009 — Minutes Page 3 of 5 occurred to him while in that discussion that it was not likely a topic that came to the ARB in any event. He said there was a consensus that leaving that out would make it simpler. He said that on the second item, ARB determined that the ten percent number as applied to small dimensions could be dealt with frequently in Historic Dublin, therefore it could be significant. He said for that reason, ARB was legitimately saying that they did not want to deviate that much without a review. Todd Zimmerman recalled that a long time ago the Commission discussed that the trees along the streets in the District were girdled with grates on top. He asked if the ARB had authority over that when it was redone. Mr. Gunderman said the street trees were in the rights -of -way and did not fall under the ARB responsibilities. Mr. Gunderman said that landscaping was mentioned by City Council. He said it came up often and the ARB does not deal with residential landscaping, as they do on commercial projects in the District. He said when at the Building Permit stage, when plant material or screening is not available, substitutions are reviewed by Planning and it is common to have landscaping plan modifications. He said these minor issues come up occasionally. Warren Fishman indicated he had no comments to add. Mr. Taylor agreed that Section 153.173133(C) was redundant. Mr. Langworthy asked for further clarification. Ms. Amorose Groomes explained that the Commission was looking to strike on Page 7 of 23, Item 3, Line C — Permitted Uses on the Ohio Historic Inventory Properties. She said if Appendix G was revamped, updated and reviewed with respect to the properties they are interested in maintaining, that the requirement has been placed in there twice. She said they are blanketing every structure on the Ohio Historic Inventory Properties List and then singling out another list, a subset of that first list of Items of Importance. Mr. Langworthy said he did not think that was right. He said that Appendix G was simply a list of properties. Ms. Kramb said that the intention was that this Code was going to regulate what is listed on Appendix G. Mr. Langworthy reiterated that Appendix G would just be a list of those properties and will not have a process saying that ARB shall review them. Ms. Amorose Groomes questioned why ARB should have the further burden if properties needing to be addressed are going to be on Appendix G. Mr. Langworthy explained that they would not be addressed just simply because they are on the Appendix. He said the Appendix itself does not do anything. Mr. Taylor asked if it would help to say instead of Properties on the OHL Properties on Appendix G. Mr. Langworthy said he thought that was what they were asking. Ms. Kramb said she thought a reference to a list of what properties they were talking about was necessary. She said if that was the intention, it should say as shown in Appendix G. Mr. Walter suggested the words Ohio Historic Inventory Properties be deleted and replaced with Properties Listed on Appendix G. Claudia Husak said the Code read Permitted Uses, so if Appendix G has no permitted uses the entire sentence needs to be stricken, and then say something like ... and for those properties on Appendix G. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that they wanted to eliminate all references to the OHI properties and go strictly with Appendix G. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 12, 2009 — Minutes Page 4 of 5 Mr. Taylor referred to Page 18, and said he remained concerned that there are not enough teeth in this. He said because this says if a property is deteriorated to a certain point, it is eligible for demolition, typically for outbuildings and garages, the owner has the option to allow it to deteriorate to the point where it becomes eligible for demolition by A(3). He said he was not sure what a "willful' negative demolition was. He asked if someone buys a property, and the building has an outbuilding and they do nothing to it and allow it to exist as it did, was that willful neglect. Jennifer Readler said that "willful' is going to indicate some sort of knowledge and intent to disregard the upkeep of it, and so they would have to look at it on an actual bases. She said there is a standard that defines "willful' in case law, so there is a frame of reference for it. Mr. Taylor said in some cases, it could be difficult to define and administer when someone purchases a property with a deteriorating part of it already. He said he would rather see something that made it incumbent upon an owner that they must maintain it so that it does not become demolished by neglect; that they have a responsibility to maintain it, and not allow it to deteriorate. Ms. Readler pointed out that Dublin has a Property Maintenance Code, which would apply if someone bought a property and any structure was deteriorating. She said with the criteria of the Property Maintenance Code, a Code Enforcement action, separate from this could take place. Mr. Taylor said the problem was that because they are unique historic properties, once a historic structure is gone, it is gone. He said he would rather see something that made it incumbent upon a property owner to make sure that they do maintain a property. He reiterated that there were not enough teeth in this, beyond the Property Maintenance Code to indicate that. Mr. Langworthy asked if it would work on Page 21, Section 153.178, if the references to "willful neglect' were eliminated and it just said Property within the Architectural Review District shall be provided basic reasonable care, maintenance and upkeep appropriate...., making it a more positive statement and back on the property owner. Mr. Walter said that "by willful neglect' should be replaced with "no person shall fail." Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not see standards specific with urban areas for landscaping preparation. She said in many of these areas, if they wanted the landscape to be successful, there would have to be some special preparation of the areas for survivability. She said she would like to know how many times the boxwood was planted on High Street in the Historic District. She said it seemed that they were replaced every two to three years because they were incapable of surviving given the media in which that they are planted. She said the landscape would never reach maturity, which was really the most beautiful thing they saw about Greenville, South Carolina. She said the storefronts and all those things were nice, but had it not been for the landscape planters, the mature trees and all of those things along Main Street, it really would have been pretty vanilla She said that the City is not providing a suitable media for urban plantings to be successful. Mr. Gunderman asked if Ms. Amorose Groomes felt that is specialized to Historic Dublin. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it was specialized to urban areas, and that is the only one the City has now. Mr. Hardt agreed, but said that was better covered in the Landscape Code. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 12, 2009 — Minutes Page 5 of 5 Ms. Amorose Groomes said aside from embarking on changing the Landscape Code, she would like to at least get it in here for now until there was the opportunity to get to the Landscape Code. She said if the Bridge Street Corridor Study goes through and some of those things get started before there is an opportunity to change the Code, we would miss that opportunity. She said her comment applied to Page 14, Item 8, Page 12, (B) (ii and iv), as well as others. She said if landscaping is planted without providing for survivability, it is going to die and become a Code Enforcement issue that could be avoided if there was something referencing the quality of the media in which the plantings would be planted. Mr. Gunderman said he did not think staff would have difficulty requiring that if it were elsewhere in the Code. He said in terms of not having it in the first section on Page 14 that an addition to this Code may be helpful. Mr. Langworthy agreed and said he thought it would be more effective in Paragraph 8. Ms. Amorose Groomes said there should be some sort of policy. Mr. Walter said Section 8 mentioned landscaping, but it really was discussing hardscape. He suggested it said something like, "That the planting beds be sensitive to the overall health of the plant in respect to the urban environment." Ms. Amorose Groomes said she would like to see it say something like: That the plant bed preparation would be such that it would be likely that a plant could reach maturity in its present location. Mr. Walter and Mr. Langworthy agreed. Mr. Langworthy said this was a standard as opposed to a requirement and if some intent language was in the standard, it could be used to rewrite the landscape section to make it more specific to this. He suggested something saying that landscape preparation will respect the nature of the urban environment and the survivability and diversity of plant species. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she would like to see more teeth than that, but it was certainly a step in the right direction. She reiterated that as the landscaping is now, nothing will reach maturity and the City will never get to where they want to be if they do not change the way it is done now. Mr. Langworthy agreed to work on it and bring it back to the Commission and to report to the ARB what the changes were. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the Commission would look for it at the neat meeting. She requested that purple be added to the color palette. Motion and Vote Mr. Walter made the motion to table this Zoning Code Amendment to further review the recommendations and incorporate urban landscape guidelines. Mr. Fishman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Taylor, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. Walter, yes. (Tabled 7 -0.) The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 4. Zoning Code Amendment Administrative Request 07- 096ADM Proposal: Modifications to Code Sections 153.170 through 153.187 to amend the review standards and processes for the Architectural Review Board. Request: Review of a previously approved Code amendment prior to final approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Applicant: Terry Foegler, City Manager, City of Dublin Planning Contact: Gary P. Gunderman, Planning Manager Contact Information: (614) 410 -4682, ggunderman@dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Board reviewed the previously approved Code amendment prior to final approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. STAFF CERTIFICATION — "".,7 Z45i Gard W. Gunderman Planning Manager ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BOARD ORDER CITY OF DUBLIN„ MAY 27, 2009 Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD: 614-410-4600 Fax: 614 -410 -4747 Web Sile: www.dublin.oh.us The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 4. Zoning Code Amendment Administrative Request 07- 096ADM Proposal: Modifications to Code Sections 153.170 through 153.187 to amend the review standards and processes for the Architectural Review Board. Request: Review of a previously approved Code amendment prior to final approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Applicant: Terry Foegler, City Manager, City of Dublin Planning Contact: Gary P. Gunderman, Planning Manager Contact Information: (614) 410 -4682, ggunderman@dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Board reviewed the previously approved Code amendment prior to final approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. STAFF CERTIFICATION — "".,7 Z45i Gard W. Gunderman Planning Manager Dublin Architectural Review Board May 27, 2009 — Minutes Page 14 of 19 / Incorporation of odified trim details t �atch existing Distri street signs. he e was as f ows: Mr. Souders es; Mr. Karrer, yes r. Schisler, yes; and s. King, yes. (Approv —0.) 4. Zoning Code Amendment Administrative Request 07- 096ADM Gary Gunderman explained that in light of the three new members on the Board, this was a review of the proposed changes to the Code that may govern actions by the Board. He said the substantial changes to the Code sections being proposed regarding the Architectural Review Board were approved by the Board in 2008, and that the Code modifications were reviewed by City Council October 20, 2008, and were referred back to the Board and revised again. Mr. Gunderman reviewed the major elements of the proposed Code amendment which included revisions and additions. He said it needed to go again to the Planning and Zoning Commission for final review and again back to City Council. He said that Planning is currently in the process of beginning to revise the entire Zoning Code which may take approximately one year. Mr. Gunderman referred to Pages 2 through 4 — Definitions in the Proposed ARB Code Modifications. He said many are exactly the same as in the current Code, some have been revised slightly, and few have been added. He referred to Page 3, and said Ms. King had questioned the term `ordinary maintenance.' He said it was not a term defined in the previous Code, so it has been added. He said that there is another section later where the same philosophy was regurgitated. He said the fundamentals of the Maintenance section were on Page 299 of the old Code and the real detail for ordinary maintenance has really not changed. He said the current Code language was in one section and did not have a definition, and it was pulled apart and given a definition in the Definition section, and left it in other sections of the Code where it said ordinary maintenance could be done. He said however, the Code does leave a little vagueness and the Board has struggled with it. He said he was not sure it addressed exactly the point of this evening's question, but he thought it important to note that they have always been able to deal with this reasonably well. Ms. King said she found it difficult to review this draft of the Code because she could not tell what was added and why some things were in red. Mr. Gunderman explained that things in red are those things that have changed since it first went to City Council. He said two of those were actually things that were requested by City Council and the other two were the items that changed on the particular topic that Council asked to have reconsidered. Mr. Gunderman agreed that it was a little difficult to follow. He said in most occasions, when there is a change in Code, a strikeout version of the existing Code is done. He said this is completely wiping out, reorganizing the bulk of the sections, and redoing everything, so there was really no way a strikeout version would work. He said that made this a harder topic to review and he appreciated what Ms. King was talking about. Mr. Gunderman said the consolidated consideration which began on Page 4 was substantial. He said the organization is different wording for quite a few sections including a new definition of the Duties of the Board. He said that it is a much cleaner, better organized section than the old one, but it does not make radical differences in terms of the real intent. Mr. Gunderman said Dublin Architectural Review Board May 27, 2009 — Minutes Page 15 of 19 Page 7 gets to the requirements of Board Orders, which again is really nothing new in comparison to what has actually been done, but it is a change in the wording in the Code. He said the wording in the current Code was briefer and did not cover all the procedures that have been adhered to typically. He said a particular one was Item 2 on Page 7, Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC). He said there was a conflict between the authority of the Board and the authority of the PZC and City Council took this up approximately one year ago and decided which the -procedure. Mr. Gunderman said Item 2 is a change from what the previous Code said; that it really is a clarification and for the most part was putting the Board in a recommending role to either City Council or the PZC. Mr. Gunderman referred to the bottom of Page 7 — Board Order Not Required, and said that number 1 was the other part of the ordinary maintenance discussion. He said it is laid out in a little different detail than the old language as far as what is expected or what is anticipated to be `ordinary maintenance'. Mr. Gunderman said if more clarification of that is needed, this would probably be the section to do it in. Mr. Schisler confirmed that if the same color was used to paint a structure that would be considered ordinary maintenance. Mr. Gunderman said that specific applications that are required are given on Pages 8 and 9, and is what the Board has traditionally done. He said things that had not been in the Code previously such as the application materials were included. He said on Page 10, Hearing Requirement should look like what the Board has become accustomed to in terms of the properties contacted, but it is the first time that any of the Boards or Commissions have had the hearing actually in the Code as a requirement. He said it was common in most cities and it was an important change for Dublin. Mr. Gunderman said the Validity Period on Page 11 has been clarified. He said occasionally there were questions on that. He said it starts at a one year period and makes clear that the Board may approve a six month extension, which was vague previously. He said below that, Item E on the top of Page 11 was a Condition section. He said this would put it in the Code, essentially giving the Board clear authority to add conditions to applications. He said the Board could add a condition whether the applicant agreed to it or not and that was why this section maybe is noteworthy. Mr. Gunderman said Administrative Modifications, on Page 11 is the section that City Council asked to be reconsidered and Items i and iii have been deleted. He said those were the changes that the Board recommended last time that had not yet gone up to the PZC or City Council. Mr. Gunderman said the rest of this section is really the important item in that it is an addition to the Code. He said it is somewhat similar to a provision in the Planned Unit Development Code that the PZC deals with and it is really an attempt to understand some of the more minor modifications. He said he did not know if this touches the concern about terms of maintenance, but this is a new section and potentially, this would address more directly some of the issues raised by Ms. King. Mr. Gunderman said the Review Standards on Page 12 through 15 is again, another fairly substantial body of information that was not in the old Code. He said it was important because it reflects a lot of the standards that are in the Guidelines, and that is important because they are putting it into Code. Mr. Gunderman said there was nothing new in terms of the technical Dublin Architectural Review Board May 27, 2009 — Minutes Page 16 of 19 aspect. He explained that the Guidelines are still a much longer document and still have a great deal of information. Mr. Gunderman said administrative issues begin at the bottom of Page 15. He said in terms of future Landmarks in the City, this is really the same as the previous Code, with improved language, as well as the items on Page 16. He referred to Page 17 — Demolition and said it had an important change. He said the Demolition section used to read very much the way this section did down to Item 3. He said a fourth item has been added. He said as you understand the Demolition section and read the last paragraph, the standard is that you must find that two of these four standards apply. He said previously, two of the first three had to apply. He said the fourth standard changed the tone of that discussion and he thought there had been enough situations come before the Board that it was felt this was a needed additional provision. He said this had been discussed by the Board previously and there was no objection to it. Mr. Gunderman said on Page 20, the Appeal Process was changed to line up with similar revisions done for the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), and clarifying how the appeal process would work should anyone want to appeal a decision that the Board has made. Mr. Gunderman invited questions from the Board members. Mr. Schisler referred to Page 11 where the Board could apply a condition and the applicant could still not accept it. He asked if the applicant did not accept the condition would the Board vote no. Mr. Gunderman explained that if the applicant did not accept the condition, and the Board put it on anyway and it was voted on, the applicant essentially has a decision to make when they leave, which is, do they want to accept the Board's condition and proceed, or do they not want to proceed at all. Mr. Souders confirmed that the applicant still had the appeal process available to use. Mr. Gunderman said the appeals process really speculates on the Board having made a procedural error or taken authority beyond where the Code says the Board can take it. Mr. Souders asked if the applicant considered the condition to be unreasonable, could they appeal. Mr. Gunderman said if the applicant felt it was unreasonable, that would probably get them before the BZA. Ms. King referred to Page 11 (E) — Conditions, last sentence, Conditions attached shall be stated in the motion for approval, including the reasons for each condition imposed. She asked if technically on tonight's school case, they needed to read each of the conditions into the record. Mr. Gunderman said the conditions did not literally have to be read into the record, but any conditions that the Board may propose during consideration need to be included with the motion. He said the Board member needs to state a reason for their recommendation. Ms. King said that she had found that many years later people do go back to the minutes and read their words verbatim as translated and approved, and that was what is relied upon by people and the court. Dublin Architectural Review Board May 27, 2009 —Minutes Page 17 of 19 Ms. King said if just the Planning Report is citied and the Report cannot be found 15 years from now, then you are glad you have it in the minutes. Mr. Schisler said he understood the point. He said the meeting minutes reflect the stipulations based on a Planning Report. He said the meeting minutes indicate what those stipulations are. He asked if instead of the Board member repeating them, should those stipulations be incorporated into it, either copied into it or attached. Jennifer Rauch explained that after the meeting is over, a Board Order is created which is a summary listing out all the conditions, plus the motion made. She said typically, a Board Order would say that the motion was made because it met the intent of the Guidelines, with the following conditions. She said the Board Order summarizes the motion with those specific conditions for the record. Ms. Rauch said Planning has a process to keep all these documents. Mr. Gunderman said the filing system is considerably better these days, but Planning still runs across the situation mentioned where documents are not available. Mr. Karrer pointed out that on the City's website, the Planning Report is posted and in most cases, it reflects the Report presented at the meeting. Ms. Rauch said it was exactly the same. Mr. Karrer asked if a change was made after the Planning Report was posted, did that get reflected on the Web. Mr. Gunderman said that very occasionally, some topic and some new information would become available perhaps as a result of the applicant reading the Report. He said if that happens, usually, the Board will find a different colored sheet at their seat that would tell them what Planning would present differently. Ms. Rauch explained that the content of any update given to the Board at the meeting was related to the conditions, not the content of the Report. Mr. Karrer asked if the City had a document retention policy for the Planning Report, the Board Order, and the Minutes, and did they become permanent records. Mr. Gunderman and Ms. Rauch assured him that there was a City document retention policy and that those documents became permanent. Mr. Karrer said with electronic storage and a backup procedure he did not think the circumstance of having to find them in manual files was as much a liability as it used to be. Mr. Gunderman said a motion was not needed if the Board was satisfied. Ms. King asked if the Board would review this again and make a decision to recommend it. Mr. Gunderman said if there was a particular change they thought was useful, they could suggest a change. He did not know how soon this item might be going forward. Ms. Rauch said a formal recommendation had already been made by the Board, so Planning is waiting either to take it to the PZC for their recommendation and on to Council, or wait to just fold it into the new Code. She said it was undetermined. Dublin Architectural Review Board May 27, 2009 — Minutes Page 18 of 19 Mr. Schisler recalled that at the beginning of the meeting the Board discussed potential goals for the coming year and discussed the incorporation of sustainable principles within the Historic District. He asked if the Board members could provide Ms. Rauch with any ideas to incorporate within the proposed ARB Code or within the Code update. Ms. Rauch said that would be most appropriate as part of the entire update to the Code because the purpose is to incorporate more sustainable principles. She said if the Board members have any suggestions or thoughts they definitely should let Planning know what those might be. Mr. Souders said that every year the Board runs into new materials, especially simulated materials that normally would not have been accepted but for maintenance. He said they literally could put wires on all the glass and all the shingles so that every part of your house could become solar collectors without actually putting in solar panels. Mr. Schisler said there were alternatives to concrete paving, especially if there is a small yard and you want greenery still. He said the Board should be open to those, especially on small lots. Ms. Rauch said part of the discussion about what types of materials the Board would be interested in looking at for the Historic Preservation side as well as the sustainable side would be a good way to address that issue. Mr. Souders said with engineering you could get into the whole storm water collecting and recycling water for either irrigation. He said you would have to get into changing codes, but allowing gray water collection including the way we collect water on our streets to hold it and reuse it. He said there is a whole area they could discuss. Mr. Karrer asked if Dublin's Historic Preservation Consultant, Jeff Darbee, periodically sat down with the Board to discuss these areas. Ms. Rauch said Planning had discussed with the Board at the last meeting that Mr. Darbee could do some type of training or tour of the District, providing pointers or ideas of what he looks for when looking at various proposals, not project specific, but projects in general. Mr. Karrer said that would be constructive. Mr. Schisler referred to Page 13, Item 6 — Color and said as stated, it was fairly general. He said there were Victorian houses that could get pretty wild in paint jobs. He said maybe there are a couple of Victorian -style houses in the District. Mr. Gunderman said that Mr. Darbee had a handle on just that type of distinction between real Victorian and things that have maybe a certain age that is similar, but really do not have the style. Eugenia Martin pointed out that the Guidelines ask that the original colors to the home be researched, so the Board always has that to fall back on as far as the colors within the Guidelines. She said the Code does talk about traditional colors, but there is a more extensive description within the Guidelines. Ms. Rauch said it also ties back to what Ms. King suggested at the beginning about giving some guidance to homeowners or business owners about what is appropriate for the house. Dublin Architectural Review Board May 27, 2009 — Minutes Page 19 of 19 Motion William Souders made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Robert Schisler seconded the motion. There was no objection to the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m. CITY OF DUBLIN. Land Use and Long Range Planning 5600 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD: 614-410-4600 Fax: 614-410-4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.u5 Creating a Legacy PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JANUARY 15, 2009 The Planning and Zoning Commission took no action on the following case at this meeting: 4. Architectural Review Board Administrative Request 07- 096ADM Zoning Code Amendment Proposal: Code modifications to Code Sections 153.170 through 153.187 to amend the review standards and processes for the Architectural Review Board. Request: Review and recommendation for approval to City Council under the provisions of Code Section 153.234. Applicant: Marsha I. Grigsby, Interim City Manager, City of Dublin. Planning Contact: Gary P. Gunderman, Planning Manager Contact Information: (614) 410 -4682, ggunderman @dublin.oh.us RESULT: This case was postponed prior to the meeting. STAFF CkRTIFICATION Tammy . Noble - Flading Senior Planner Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 — Minutes Page 10 of 10 the omnlission thought was appropriate to ep the sign as propo d, the Commission uld that. She confirm the existing sign di of have routed letter . Steve Langwo ly stated the use o a blue background dnon- routed lette` g should be specifically ermitted. He said it uld be specifi ed in t motion that this ap val applies only to this sl 1. in the audiega6 wishing to speak on case to come no one Motion and V to Mr. Zinun lean made the motion o approve this AmeJ� ed Final Developn propos sign meets the desi intent of the apprcy d development text�a the iew criteria with th following two conditions. ,t 1) That the a icatlt utilize the Marine Blue color for the /proposed copy b eliminated from the / p'roposed awning and laced on the appl' ant's option; and i 2) Tat the final developmee t plan be amended per non- routed white 1�0ering for this sign. / Beck agreed to too conditions listed abgY . Mr. Taylor the use of a tit'Plan because the the proposal meets awning, and'that the exterior door at the background and the motion. The vote was follows: Mr. Fishn 1, yes; Ms. Amoros roomes, yes; Mr. ter, yes; Mr. Freiman, s; Ms. Kramb, yes; Taylor, yes; and M immerman, yes. (Approved 7 — 0) 4. Architectural Review Board Administrative Request 07- 096ADM Zoning Code Amendment This Administrative Request was postponed prior to the meeting. There was no discussion or vote taken. Administrative Business A Oe Mr..Fieimann recognize le members of Lea �rship Dublin Class o 009 and thanked th l for Bing to see how th ' government works Mr. Zinnnermn adjoumed the meet g at7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �o,�� Libby Farley Administrative Assistant 7 t CITY OF DUBLIN, Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD: 614-410-4600 Fax: 614 -410 -4747 Web Sile; www.dublin.ah.us DECEMBER 17, 2008 The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 3. Architectural Review Board Administrative Request 07- 096ADM Zoning Code Amendment Proposal: Code modifications to Code Sections 153.170 through 153.187 to amend the review standards and processes for the Architectural Review Board. Request: Review and recommendation for approval to City Council under the provisions of Code Section 153.234. Applicant: Marsha I. Grigsby, Interim City Manager, City of Dublin. Planning Contact: Gary P. Gunderman, Planning Manager Contact Information: (614) 410 -4682, ggunderman @dublin.oh.us MOTION: Thomas Holton made a motion, seconded by Tom Currie, to recommend to City Council approval of this Administrative Request for modifications to the Zoning Code Sections 153.170 through 153.187 with the changes suggested and the Administrative Modification Section 153.173 with minor modifications. VOTE: 4-0. RESULT: The Board recommended that City Council approve this Administrative Request for modifications to the Zoning Code Sections 153.170 through 152.187. RECORDED VOTES: Thomas Holton Yes Clayton Bryan Absent William Souders Yes Linda Kick Yes Tom Currie Yes STAFF C;PTIFIC TIf? Gary P - underman Planning Manager ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Dublin Architectural Review Board December 17, 2008 — Minutes Page 15 of 17 BI smith Lane, it w d be one -story an on the west side it uld be two stories ith the rage and main liv' space, which wou give the saltbox loo . Mr. Souder/equested ed out the el ations as he su ed for Mr. Korts s benefit. Mr. Phillabau a copy of J�1 p r Souders' sketch b gg included in the rec0 . /eadd ck reviewed the conditions listed in th lanning Report a d"noted that a cond' 6n to the location for refuse collection to a residential units nd commercial use eeded to d. Mr. Gun de AA / asked if the Board wanted to table xh'is item in order tp/ee the revisions discussed., e said it sounde9ke there were a number of potential items,that they might not�bd able to e accomplished wjthout another review by the ARB. He said the easement was a con rn for Planning w,p ld require some verification prior to the submission for jaunding Motion and Voy n Mr. Holton de the motion to ble this applicatio. - r. Souders secon4eA the motion. Th vote was follows: Mr. Ho on, yes; Mr. Soude , yes; Ms. Kick, y , and Mr. Currie, s. (Table 4 — 0.) f 3. Architectural Review Board Administrative Request 07- 096ADM Zoning Code Amendment Gary Gunderman presented this Administrative Request for an amendment to the Zoning Code with regards to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) which was a continuation of the Board's review last month. Mr. Gunderman said he had provided in the meeting packets examples of cases where administrative determinations were effectively made, although there was no Code dealing with the subject. Mr. Holton reported that on 58 South High Street, the applicant may have already installed a deck with materials different than those approved by the Board. Mr. Gunderman noted Mr. Holton's comment. Mr. Gunderman said regarding the strictly administrative arrangement, City Council decided to let the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission reconsider it and recommend alternative language or recommend that the original draft language be approved. Mr. Gunderman said the only changes made by City Council were minor, cross referencing the City Charter in regard to terms of Board appointments, and similar issues to make the Code and the Charter compatible. Mr. Holton noted that the pages of the draft were not numbered. He pointed out that the reference to the National Register of Historic Places, should be corrected to the National Parks Service. Mr. Gunderman agreed to make the correction. Dublin Architectural Review Board December 17, 2008 — Minutes Page 16 of 17 Mr. Holton referred to 153.172(H),Duties (8), and said in August, the Board had agreed, that "...when requested by the City" and "outlying historic properties ", would be added. After further discussion, Mr. Holton agreed that it had been sufficiently addressed, and withdrew his comment. Mr. Holton said regarding 153.173(E)(4)(b), Other Minor Modifications by the Director, that in August the Board August agreed to add the phase, "...due to acts of God and requiring immediate attention and repair. Mr. Gunderman agreed to make the addition. Mr. Currie said considering how City Council had directed the Board regarding Minor Modifications, he would like to remove 153.173(4)(B)(i), "...modifications deemed minor may include such changes as... ". He said he did not think that in the case of the Historic District changing lot lines is a minor item, therefore he suggested deleting the examples (i), (iii), (vii) and (ix). Mr. Gunderman did not think the ARB would be involved in lot line adjustments. He said it was not unusually for an ARB application to bring up the subject and for a property owner to want to adjust a property line, and most of them have not come to the Board for approval, and for that reason, example (i) could be deleted. Mr. Currie said he wanted the Board to review and approve changes in building height, (b)(iii). Mr. Gunderman agreed that if (iii) was eliminated, that was one option that would no longer be reviewed administratively, so presumably, the Board would see more of that type of situation. He said this is a rule borrowed from a similar section of language in the PUD ordinance that applies to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said this would probably come up a little less frequently at the ARB, so the elimination of (iii) might not be a problem. He said given the tight lot arrangements that the Board deals with, a ten percent deviation probably is not as likely as it would be in some of the large lot footprints dealt with by the PZC. Ms. Kick said she thought (vii) sign face should remain in the amendment, because it was a minor modification to one that was already approved. Mr. Langworthy assured the Board that if any minor modification were made in the Board's jurisdiction, Planning would bring it to their attention. Mr. Currie agreed that (ix) should remain in the proposed Code Amendment. Mr. Holton referred to the August meeting minutes: Mr. Souders asked that the building permit form include a line indicating whether or not the structure was in the Historic District. He said that would put Planning and the Board in a more proactive stance relative to businesses in the Historic District. Mr. Langworthy said the City's Review Services are revising their checklists and Planning would meet with them to see if there is a line item included for that. Dublin Architectural Review Board December 17, 2008 — Minutes Page 17 of 17 Mr. Gunderman summarized the Board's decisions: That in 4(B)(i) and (iii) should be deleted, but the remainder should be left with a modification to (x), as discussed earlier. He said with the Board's changes, their recommendation to City Council is that this draft version language remain as is with administrative operations handled by Planning with a report to the Board after the fact. Motion and Vote Mr. Holton made the motion to approve the Code Amendments with the changes noted, 153.173(E)(4)(b), and that the rest of Section 153.173 — Minor Modifications language and intent remain with only the item deletions of 153.173 E(4)(i), (iii), and modifications to (x). Mr. Currie seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Souders, yes; Ms. Kick, yes; Mr. Currie, yes; and Mr. Holton, yes. (Approved 4 — 0.) A mistrative Busine r. Langworthy rep ted that there had n a joint meeting City Council and t lanning and Zoning Co fission regarding th ' trip to Greenville outh Carolina. He rd Planning would like to are with the Boar 'formation, issues items brought bac o City Counci and the Co mission. He said t re would be anothe 'oint meeting on Jan y 26, 2009 an e invited e Board members. Iv Kick adjourned th eeting Z As approved y the Architectural d on Mar 18, 2009. �l Libby Parley Administrative Assistant CITY OF DUBLIN. Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 430161236 Phone: 614 - 4104600 Fax: 614 - 410 -4747 Web Site: w .dublin.oh.us ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD 6 : : 1 8 _19 01.7 November 12, 2008 The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 3. Architectural Review Board Administrative Request 07- 096ADM Zoning Code Amendment Proposal: Code modifications to Code Sections 153.170 through 153.182 to amend the review standards and processes for the Architectural Review Board. Request: Review and recommendation for approval to City Council under the provisions of Code Section 153.234. Applicant: Marsha I. Grigsby, Interim City Manager, City of Dublin. Planning Contact: Gary P. Gunderman, Planning Manager. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4682, ggunderman@dublin.oh.us MOTION: Linda Kick made a motion and William Souders seconded to table this Administrative Request so that the Board could compare the revised draft Code amendments to the ones previously presented at the next meeting. VOTE: 4-0. RESULT: This Administrative Request was tabled. RECORDED VOTES: Thomas Holton Yes Clayton Bryan Absent William Souders Yes Linda Kick Yes Tom Currie Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION onathan Papp Planner Dublin Architectural Review Board November 12, 2008 — Minutes Page 7 of 12 Mo '6n and Vote ISommerfeld a Mr. Souders m4dc the followinwfive with the five the motion and M lolton seconded the,approval of this conditions as listed in the Planning Report: with 1) hat the directory so be hung to the left of the rear door; 2) That Option 2 be sed for the projectit'sign; / That the prop ed paint colors be atte or flat finish; j 4) That a si erm/al. '6r to installation; a 5) Any fit re lightenants /owners ns must be subjec to Architectural Rev' Board r The v e was as follows; Ms. 'ck, yes; Mr. Sou/,yes; d Mr. Holto ,yes. (A roved 4 — 0.) 3. Architectural Review Board Administrative Request 07- 096ADM Zoning Code Amendment Ms. Kick and the Board members discussed this request for a review of an Administrative Request of a Zoning Code Amendment regarding Administrative Approval. Tom Holton provided copies of a flow chart which he described his interpretation of what he thought City Council was wanting. He said when they approve an application, often the Board says there is further Planning action needed to clean up minor details. He said the applicant then proceeds with the plans and then staff discovers that they have to make some minor modifications, so if a potential problem arises, then there is some question how significant is it. He said if it is not significant, then the applicant proceeds and there is really no problem. Mr. Holton said that was what the Board saw probably 90 or 99 percent of the time and there was no cause for concern or alarm. However, Mr. Holton said he thought City Council's and the Mayor's concern in particular is that every once in a while, the answer might be that there is a significant issue. He said that staff might take a little more discretionary action than they should, in Council's mind. He said if the action was not significant, then the plan proceeds. However if the issue is significant, before Planning moves ahead they should stop. Mr. Holton said. perhaps what is not being done by Planning and what Council was concerned with was the stopping of any action, and bring it back to the Board for further review. He said it was an issue that went counter to the Guidelines or it was in a gray area. Planning has no code section to refer to in regards to instances like this, so they may be looking for guidance from the Board prior to the final code update approval. Mr. Holton said they've been hesitant to do that in the past because they recognized that the applicant had put a lot of time, money, and urgency into getting things done. He said sometimes the applicant comes to the meeting not wanting anything to hold them up, so the Board tells the applicant to go ahead and that Planning will work it out with them. Mr. Holton suggested that was not the right thing to do. He suggested, that the Board should, in the interest of consistency or future actions, actually tell or require Planning to bring those issues back because the Board Dublin Architectural Review Board November 12, 2008 — Minutes Page 8 of 12 does not know what might come up in the future. He surmised that was what City Council was saying. Mr. Souders said he understood, but the question becomes how to write a text that defines every situation. He said they were looking to the Board to modify what was written to put more definitive language into it, and that was where he was having a hard time because he did not know what was "significant" or what Planning considered to be "significant ". Mr. Souders said unless you say "everything" they are looking for special meetings which could become an ongoing issue. Mr. Holton said he was confident there was an answer. He said this had been done somewhere before we had a guideline. Mr. Currie said one of the answers would be to take a lot of the examples out of the proposed Code. He said Mr. Bryan had mentioned changing the color or materials used would never be a minor modification. He suggested to strike that one. Mr. Currie said regarding a ten percent change in the footprint, the Mayor said that sounded pretty significant. He said to him, changing the lot line particularly in the Historic District was significant. Mr. Currie said the other answer was perhaps what Mr. Gerber proposed in his motion reflected in the minutes that the director advises the respective board, the board determines whether it is minor or not, and then they determine whether the application should continue or not.. Mr. Souders said there have been situations were the Board considered something to be minor and it came back completely different than what we they expected, but it is rare. He asked if City Council was reacting to a specific situation. Mr. Holton said he did not think Council is reacting to a specific type of situation. He pointed out that the Mayor and Council member Gerber were at one time Chairs of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as other Council members, so they have (as an illustration only) been through situations where they have either been "bitten" by decisions or had situations where they allowed some discretion by Planning to come back with perhaps the applicant of the next case pointing out that another applicant was allowed to do something. Mr. Holton said Council is saying they are trying to give more Board authority, decision - making discretion, or more specific direction so that it is clear to Planning what the Board wants them to do. Mr. Souders noted that in the Council minutes, there were a lot of examples that related to landscaping. He said the Board has learned that they do not actually do anything with landscaping other than around signs. Mr. Holton asked whose decision was it that the ARB not have review over landscaping issues? Mr. Holton thought that it was Planning's guidance. Ms. Kick thought landscaping went to a landscaping committee. Mr. Souders thought it was written somewhere that residential properties where not under their review, but Mr. Holton said he was not sure. Mr. Currie said one of the conditions tonight was that it met the Landscaping conditions. Ms. Kick said she thought landscaping was not the ARB. Mr. Papp said he was not positive, so he was not going to say anything. Mr. Souders said landscaping around signage was a given. Mr. Holton recalled the Board reviewing landscape terracing on a property. Dublin Architectural Review Board November 12, 2008 — Minutes Page 9 of 12 Mr. Holton said landscaping came up also when the retaining wall at 84 High Street or the one next to it was discussed by the ARB. Mr. Souders recalled that it was referred to Planning for proper vegetation for steeper banks. Mr. Holton said that was appropriate because the Board did not know about that kind of erosion or landscaping detail. Mr. Souders said Council would be fine with the ARB referring that back to Planning. Mr. Holton indicated that he needed to look at this again and discuss it further with Mr. Langworthy, but he believed what the Board might want to do is ask if they needed to be careful in exactly what they said. He said instead of saying "Planning will take care of it" the Board might need to be more specific. Mr. Currie suggested said that the direction to staff would be non - negotiable, like "conditions ". Mr. Holton said Planning might appreciate that. Mr. Holton suggested that the Board ask Planning to provide them with a list of actions taken by Planning and include it in the next Board meeting packet, so the members can read what type decisions that Planning has made, so that the Board will know the range of modifications that they are making under the Board's direction. Mr. Souders said if Planning accounts for their action and the Board receives a summary of action pertaining to ARB issues, then that would probably go a long way for City Council being satisfied that somebody is looking over their shoulder. Ms. Kick said the loop would be closed. Mr. Holton said the Board was asking Planning to take on a lot of responsibility for follow - through detail that he thought Mr. Souders was uneasy about. Mr. Currie said he felt uneasy approving the sign a few minutes ago because the Board could not see the sign on the building in the proper scale. He said there was nothing in the packet that even showed which door the sign was being put next to. Mr. Papp said Planning would take that into consideration on future applications. Mr. Holton said a list in the meeting packets would work, but the Board did not want to burden Planning with a lot of reporting. He said the format would need to be discussed, but it would be good to be able to review. Mr. Souders said he thought the review should be at the beginning of the meeting under Administrative Business. Ms. Kick suggested that it be the outcome of previous applications that the Board has given the allocations. Mr. Currie asked if something was considered by the Board to be a significant modification, what should be done. Mr. Souders suggested that it had to go on the next agenda. Mr. Holton said that was a procedural issue the Board would have to discuss: At what point does the Board want that to come back? He said the Board had unofficially been doing this with 54 Dublin Architectural Review Board November 12, 2008 — Minutes Page 10 of 12 South High Street and the applicant has been bringing it on his own and making the changes. He said that was a good example that should be used. Mr. Souders suggested emails to all the members to get an initial response to proposals Planning could send out an urgent email saying there was an issue that was considered important enough to get it on the agenda in time to be reviewed between meetings. He said that way, so it does not just show up in the Administrative Report as items, and then they have to go another month to reschedule it. Ms. Kick said she thought all Planning actions related to something the Board requested on a case should be followed up so as what took place on a certain application would be known. She said she understood that at that point, if there was an issue that Planning thought was significant and needed to contact the Board members, was what Mr. Souders was suggesting. Mr. Souders agreed that would close the loop. However, he asked if something was considered significant and was time - sensitive, how could an applicant's time and money spent be minimized. He said it may be something the Board could actually handle at the meeting, but if it was not on the agenda, a motion is necessary to accept it into the meeting agenda Mr. Holton said the Board wanted to be responsive to the applicants, by trying to avoid them having to incur extra cost and unnecessary delays, so if something did come up and Planning finds something significant and wants to get them before the Board. He anticipated what could happen under this is that the Board could get an applicant into a meeting and put them on the agenda to take care of an issue that Planning says needs to be dispensed with or discussed, but it is not at the level of a case; it is just a review of an item from a previous case. Mr. Holton said it was advancing or bringing up an item from say last month, up to this month because somehow... We would have to have an addendum to the agenda for the public. He said this was the kind of issue the Board needed to discuss when Mr. Langworthy was present so that they could ensure that procedurally, they are following all this. Mr. Holton said he thought City Council would be very happy that the Board was doing this because they were being responsive to the public, they were trying to expedite cases, be very responsible as a Board, give better direction to Planning, and just in general, do all the right things. Mr. Currie referred to Council Minutes where an issue was that there was a director that was not responsive and not following the Board direction, and would perhaps hide these changes. Mr. Souders said that was a situation that did not exist yet, but could exist — a staff person that did not follow through on the Board's direction. He asked if that was an example brought up by Council. Mr. Holton said it was on page 13: Mr. Gerber stated then at the same token, Council entrusts the ARB to make good decisions. If the City had a planning director, theoretically, who did not support what the ARB did, this person could tweak the plans as they desired, and there would be nothing the City could do. Ms. Kick said she thought that what was done or how it was handled or whatever action was taken by the director should be reported back. Dublin Architectural Review Board November 12, 2008 — Minutes Page 1 I of 12 Mr. Holton said this would help tremendously, because then they would give more specific direction and ask for feedback from Planning on the decisions or actions they took. Ms. Kick added that any outstanding modifications waiting to take place could also be reported to the ARB by Planning. Mr. Currie noted that on the proposed draft amendment, shown in red and blue, there were some problems that the Board might want to handle. Mr. Holton asked if this version of the draft amendment was any different than what the Board had already seen. Mr. Souders said it was supposed to be what the Board reviewed page by page, paragraph by paragraph. Mr. Currie did not think it was exactly as the Board had previously seen. He referred to page 3, The National Register of Historic Places, it says A list of properties by the National Park Service... He said as far as he knew, the Park Services is not at all involved in the National Register. Mr. Papp agreed to check on it. Mr. Holton confirmed that the National Park Services was never part of the review. Mr. Souders thought they talked about that before. Mr. Holton said he remembered specifically that the minutes reflected Board corrected that. Mr. Currie said the definition that he had read into the record was also reflected in the minutes. Mr. Papp, said he would check to see if this version of the drafted proposed amendment had been revised, or it was how it currently read. He said Mr. Gunderman was the author of this portion. Ms. Kick suggested this proposed amendment be tabled so that the Board could compare the previous draft to this one for the next meeting. Motion and Vote Ms. Kick made a motion and Mr. Souders seconded to table this Administrative Request. The vote was as follows: Mr. Holton, yes; Mr. Souders, yes; Ms. Kick, yes; and Mr. Currie, yes. (Tabled 4 — 0/) Ad ' tonal Adm Souders said replacement wind for the house n�e back that thev.�ct Mr. Ho n and Ms. Kick a Zla xa e of information th the lYf. Holton said the indowinstalled yet and nless the selected, there wa othing to Mr. Souder said the goal wes repla ent windows can wanted t- -make sure that the o ld th rong type of wind intent as met. ter as a Board to make sure Bridge Street (C. IN followed thrd ue�Kfor Planning to ,the thickness of the No. 08- 047ARB with that reoue . 4 up on the residen for the windows were w to an inch requested that P anning report Board needed. been pretty bad. He and that the Boar 's RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutec of Dublin Citv Council Meeting October 20, 2008 Page 1z Ordinance 75-08 Amending the nual Appropriatio for the Fiscal Ye Ending December 31, 2008. Ms. Grigsby led that there is no tlitional information add. Vote on th rdinance: Ms. Sala , yes; Mr. Lecklider, s; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnic uercher, yes; Vice M or Boring, yes. Ordinance 76 -08 Amending Section 153.170 - 153.189 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) Regarding Operations of the Architectural Review Board. (Case No. 07- 096ADM) Mr. Gunderman stated that this is a complete revision to the ARB Chapter of the Code, although most sections reflect the existing language, the existing practice, or the standards that have been set through the adopted guidelines. Some definitions have been added; organizational items have been consolidated; the duties and responsibilities of the Board have been specified; hearing requirements for ARB have been included; application requirements specified; administrative modifications are allowed for some projects; and review criteria added for ARB decisions. The Council packet includes a color -coded version of the proposed Code revisions. This ordinance was reviewed by ARB, who approved it with some modifications. It was then reviewed and recommended by Planning & Zoning Commission. Planning staff recommends approval at this time. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher noted that there are several typographical errors and misspellings in the document, and they should be corrected prior to finalization of the documents. She asked that he review the administrative modifications proposed, beginning on page 11 of the color -coded version. She is concerned with what is defined and then ultimately implemented as "minor' modifications occurring after lengthy review by the Board. Mr. Gunderman responded that this is part of a process encountered many times in the past. The listing of minor items begins at 4(b) on page 11. Sometimes, at the building permit process stage, there is a need for a modification to the lot line, and it makes little or no impact on all the things discussed during the project. It is this type of situation being accommodated. A similar situation could occur with a minor adjustment in layout of parking lots. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher noted that in 4(b)(iii), it indicates minor adjustments in building footprints up to 10 percent in total floor area of the originally approved building, building height, or floor plans, that do not alter the character or intensity of the use. How does this change not alter these? Mr. Gunderman responded there are some cases where it is not appropriate, such as when historic preservation issues exist. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher asked who is notified of this administrative modification, when it occurs. Mr. Gunderman responded that because it is a minor modification, it would take place after the Board has taken action. Staff would likely take these up as the building permit for the structure comes in. Staff reviews these for zoning compliance with the ARB action. It is not unusual for the review staff to find that it does not match the plans submitted at the Board meeting, but the changes are insignificant. That is likely the process that would take place. Mr. Gerber stated that in a similar manner, minor modifications were discussed with the Planning & Zoning Commission. It appears the same thing applies in this situation, that the Director determines it is a minor modification and advises the board or commission. What would happen if there is a Director in place who does not follow this process, or if the ARB disagrees with the decision? Mr. Gunderman stated that if the ARB disagrees, it cannot be corrected. However, staff is then aware that this should not occur in the future. Mr. Gerber noted that if this occurs in an important project, the City bears the consequences. Mr. Gunderman agreed that is a possibility. Mr. Gerber stated that there should be a mechanism in place to address this. Originally, when a minor modification was identified, it was brought to the Commission and the Commission voted upon whether they agreed it constituted a minor modification, based RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting October 20, 2008 Page 13 Held 20 upon the recommendation of the Director. He felt that process provided a good check and balance. Mr. Gunderman commented that it is more plausible to do this in the PUD process, where it involves larger plans and projects that have a longer review period in the Building department. There is also more opportunity to have minor modifications brought to the P &Z Commission, as they meet twice each month. In the case of the ARB, staff is frequently working with an individual property owner on a tighter timeline, and there is potentially only one meeting per month to address it. Mr. Gerber stated that by the same token, Council entrusts the ARB to make good decisions. If the City had a Planning Director, theoretically, who did not support what the ARB did, this person could tweak the plans as they desired, and there would be nothing the City could do. Mr. Gunderman stated that for a particular project, this point is well taken. These situations do not arise more than three or four times per year. Staff will hear about such issues that are not appropriately handled. Mr. Gerber pointed out that it would take only one project to impact an area, the aesthetic consistency of the neighborhood, etc. Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher noted that what staff is indicating is that an emergency meeting would not necessarily address these issues, as they are not identified until the building permit process stage. Mr. Gunderman agreed. The applicant frequently must complete details on the building plans that were not necessarily submitted for the ARB review. The architect and contractor will have to complete the detailed type of plans needed by the Building Department to ensure compliance with the Building Code. At that time, some minor changes are sometimes needed. Vice Mayor Boring noted concern with 4(b)(iv) and (vi) regarding landscaping materials. There have been occasions when new staff members have requested different materials, when the desire was actually for consistency. If ARB has a vision for the project and landscaping changes are made by staff, it may not result in what ARB had contemplated was approved. The changes in building materials or colors is also problematic. The last item (4(b)(x) provides a blanket authorization for minor modifications. This is too broad, as drafted. Mr. Gerber stated in regard to the review process for P &Z, that the Director of Planning would advise the Commission of minor modifications. P &Z Commission had a choice: to accept the modifications, or disagree that the modifications are minor and the applicant would have to return to P &Z. This item would be reviewed by P &Z in an expedited manner. Mr. Reiner asked about Section 4(b)(vi) and what would constitute an example of "redesigning and /or relocating landscaping, provided that the same level and quality of screening is maintained." Mr. Gunderman stated that he cannot recall an example, but out of this entire list, this is the one most likely to occur. Sometimes, it is a matter of preference of the project's landscape architect. Other times, some of the material is not available, and a substitute is needed. Mr. Reiner asked how the City ensures that there is an equal or better product in a substitution. Who reviews this? Mr. Gunderman responded that it is reviewed by the City's landscape architects. These individuals often have a clear understanding of the intent of the original plan. Ms. Salay stated that she is trying to view this from an applicant's standpoint. They may want to do something slightly different, but are told that they must wait an entire month due to the timing of meetings. The process could potentially impact an applicant. This may be an attempt to strike a balance. She believes that a Dublin Planning Director would understand the standards of the P &Z, Council and ARB, and that any minor modifications would be approved very judiciously. The City Manager would have an even clearer understanding of the expectations. Mr. Lecklider asked what feedback was provided by ARB on this subject. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting October 20, 2008 Page 14 Held 20 Mr. Gunderman responded that once the particulars were discussed and examples provided, they realized that to a large extent, it was for the type of things where there was already some flexibility. In a recent example, the ARB specified a certain type of shingle, leaving the discretion to staff to ensure it was implemented. The architect dropped off some samples which he felt were similar to what was requested. A discussion followed, and staff determined this would not conform to what the ARB had required. When any of these issues arise, staff meets as a group to review them, although the Director ultimately makes the decision. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher asked how the ARB is notified of administrative modifications. Mr. Gunderman responded that it would be included as an item in an administrative report at the outset of a meeting. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher asked if the ARB were opposed to any modification reported, would they then direct staff that this should not occur in the future? Mr. Gunderman responded that is correct. Mr. Lecklider asked if this changes Mr. Gerber's opinion, although he does understand his logic. Mr. Gunderman responded that there were many discussions at P &Z about this, and generally, staff makes a good decision and it helps to expedite the process. There remains a need for a check and balance system. He recalled that there was an example where the Director advised P &Z of minor modifications, most of which the Commission agreed with. However, there were a couple items where the Commission took a vote, and the modification was brought back to the Commission. Vice Mayor Boring asked if he could suggest an amendment to address this. Mr. Gerber suggested that the Director of Planning would advise ARB of the intent to adopt a minor modification, and ARB would decide whether or not it constitutes a minor modification. If it is deemed minor, the Director proceeds with the modification. If not, there is further consideration of the modification by ARB. Vice Mayor Boring stated that the consideration could be done on the same night. Mr. Gerber acknowledged that there may need to be a mechanism for a special ARB meeting, if the modification is time sensitive. ARB has done that in the past on more than one occasion. Vice Mayor Boring supports this recommendation. The modification can be addressed the same evening that it is reported. It would provide a good check and balance, as has occurred at P &Z. Mr. Lecklider asked if there is value in asking ARB to revisit this ordinance. He understands that ARB has reviewed the ordinance and made some changes. Mr. Gerber responded that he believes it would be desirable to have their input again. If the ARB is aware of Council's concerns as expressed tonight, they will want to have an opportunity to discuss them. They may identify a different solution to the issue. Mr. Reiner stated that their willingness to meet is a big component of this process, so it is a good idea for ARB to review this once again to gain their input. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher agreed, asking that the minutes be provided to ARB for their reference. Ms. Salay added that ARB should also understand the consequences of this change, and that it may require an extra meeting in order not to negatively impact an applicant. It is important to be sensitive to the applicant's timeline as well. Vice Mayor Boring pointed out that it is the applicant who is requesting the modification. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher responded that it is the City's responsibility, however, to move the process forward in a reasonable timeframe. Mr. Smith commented that if ARB is reviewing this again, it may be desirable to have P &Z review it as well. Mr. Gerber concurred. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council 1 11 October 20, 2008 Page 15 11 The consensus of Council was to have both bodies review it again. Q Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that there are some errors in the document which should be clarified. On page two, the second sentence of the second bullet point should read, "The provision declaring Land Use and Long Range Planning as the listed office of "secretary" was removed." On page five, third segment, there is a typo in the word "register." Vice Mayor Boring asked that reference be made in the organizational review to Article VII of the Revised Charter. In particular, that a vacancy should be filled within 60 days and the language regarding public meetings. The appropriate Charter sections should be referenced. Mr. Gerber moved to refer this ordinance to ARB and to P &Z to review the respective minor modification practice and look to the feasibility of amending the provision where the Director merely reports approved minor modifications, giving consideration to a practice whereby the Director advises the respective Board; the Board determines whether it is a minor modification or not; if not, then the applicant is required to return with an application to address the issue. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vice Mayor Boring suggested that at the time the Director reports the minor modification, the application should be brought forward so it can be addressed in one meeting. Mr. Gerber clarified that his intent is that if the ARB does not agree it is a minor modification, the proposed change must be heard by the Board. Mr. Gerber moved to add this clarification to his motion. Q Ms. Salay asked if the intent is that any deviation from the approved plan be brought back to ARB. Mr. Gerber responded affirmatively. Mr. Gunderman noted that all the potential minor modifications on the list would be reviewed at some type of meeting, either special or regular, and if the Board believes the modifications warrant more review, it is possible that yet another meeting review would take place. Mr. Gerber stated that it is also possible that the Director advises the Board and the Board concurs that the changes are indeed minor, and no hearing is needed. That will likely occur most of the time. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the original discussion centered on sending the ordinance back to ARB and P &Z to reconsider as it is written, and they could either support this or make changes. Is Mr. Gerber now suggesting the language is not acceptable, and that they must change it? After brief discussion, Mr. Gerber withdrew his motion and moved to refer the ordinance to ARB and P &Z to revisit the issue, consistent with the Council discussion as reflected in the minutes. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Mr. Lecklider pointed out that this still reserves for Council the prerogative to maintain the position Mr. Gerber has expressed tonight. Mr. Gerber stated that ARB or P&Z may propose yet another alternative. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, yes. INTRODUCTION / FIRST READING - ORDIN Ordinance 77 -08 Authorizing the C' Manager to Ent into a Contract for ealth Servic with the Fran County Board o ealth for 2009. Ms. Salay ' roduced the ordina Ms. Gr' by stated that this ' an annual contract h the Franklin card of Health to pro ' e health services r the entire City of D lin, including t areas of Dublin in elaware and Union nties. The contract is ched and reflec an increase in the per RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Vice Mayor Boring s provided. It is not a In terms of a dance footage of "raves," v that would not occur A Pi steel that the minutes of 3 of banning all video g ,he recalls a film in the I took place at dance ver Id not warrant the time Mayor Chinnici- ercher agreed that the s more recreatio opportunities. However, i should participate in, there should be mor — controlle environments that are not v difficult b aviors take place in the pri ate draF t hese facilities is beyond th oom for or anizing and attracting youn people Mo discussions on thite s topi e as/ having appropria re rictic is Court training which in uded s. Controlling this venue ensure expense involved. ury ys indicate the youth in th community want f ouncil believes this is so thing the City activities at schools, rec nters, and churches ately owned and operate . Some of the more venues, where there is limit to capacity. The munity. She would pr er to use other venues/ to activities. Grigsby stated that for th excl reading, staff will prep a information to addres he uestions raised and will pr ide some historical backgr nd. There is not a time ' sue involved /ces.Programming e propose amendments. Ms. Sald that a recalls a similar business as located in The Conti nt in Columbhap he Police Department could heck with that jurisdictio to team if there wees nd what they were. She wo d be interested in feedb k from the law enforcea on this. She agrees that it uld be wonderful if the s ools would take this on, have limited resources in to s of PTOs, faculty and aff who must supervises. Programming for teens t the Rec Center would very welcome b y the Com and Council would need direct the Rec Centers ff to pursue more o these pr . Mr. Sryiith suggested that Council postpone the ordinance infooiation requested. / to �fr. Reiner moved to postpone a ordinance until a Nov ber meeting. Mr. Gerber seconded the mo 'on. Vote on th /emo : Mr. Le lider, yes; Mr. Gerber, y s; Mr. Reiner, yes; ayor Chinnici- Zuercher, Mayo Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan es; Ms. Salay, yes Ordinance Amending al Appropriations for th Fiscal Year Endi December 31, 2008. Mr. Lecklidced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsbthat the memo provides etails on each of t requests made for appropriati most significant relat to the transfer to r ay advances previously made for th improvements; fuel rchases, due to th significant cost increases; legal fees, n the identified cas s; and some minor "ems. Mr. Kee on asked for clarification r garding the fuel the CiV by the School District an the Township. Ms. rigsby stated that 50 perg6nt of the total fuel ti pur Ohased from the City by thd School District or tve and the purchase of fuel from 6 City purchases is subsequently Township. will be a second reading /public hearing at the October 20 Council meeting. Ordinance 76 -08 Amending Section 153.170 - 153.189 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) Regarding Operations of the Architectural Review Board (Case No. 07- 096ADM) Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Gunderman stated that there are some conflicts in the Code relating to conditional uses, planned districts, and how they are dealt with at the Planning Commission. Other changes are revisions and reorganizations of the definition section of the Code. The organizational aspects of the Board were consolidated into one section. The duties were redefined more precisely, and some of the more vague duties were incorporated into the "Purposes" section of the Code. The hearing requirements were made consistent with what Council is familiar with. This is the first of the zoning districts that has the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 6, 2008 requirements in the Code. Specific application requirements were placed in the Code and were standardized based on practices of the Department. Provisions to the administrative modifications were added. These are fairly similar to what was included in the PUD ordinance several years ago, providing staff with some discretion after decisions are made. The most significant addition is the incorporation of specific review standards into the Code. This is based largely on the design guidelines Council adopted many years ago. Most of the changes are not drastic, but provide more clarification to issues which arose over a long period of time. ARB reviewed these changes at their June, July and August meetings, made some revisions, and made recommendation to Planning Commission. The Commission reviewed this at the September 18 meeting and recommended approval. Vice Mayor Boring asked that a redlined version be provided for the next reading. Mr. Gunderman responded it would be difficult, because the sections have been moved around substantially. Vice Mayor Boring stated that staff could at least point out what is new in the Code. Mr. Gunderman responded that he could provide a summary sheet, listing where sections have been moved. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she would like the new portions to be highlighted. Mr. Gunderman responded that one third of the language is identical to the current Code; one third is revised, with no changes made; and one third is new language. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher stated that Council would like to have the new language identified for the next reading. Vice Mayor Boring asked about the difference between criteria and objectives. Criteria is a standard to be met, while objectives are something to target. In reviewing the Community Plan, it contains objectives and not criteria. Are the points defined as criteria? Mr. Gunderman responded that criteria is the correct term. It indicates that this is the benchmark to obtain project approval. The Community Plan would contain softer language than an ordinance. Mr. Gerber noted that over the years, the question has come up of the order of review by ARB and P&Z. He believes this will address the issue. Mr. Gunderman responded that it will do so. In a rezoning, the ARB will make a recommendation only and it will then be taken up by the Planning Commission. Mr. Gerber asked if that also applies to conditional uses. Mr. Gunderman responded affirmatively. There will be a second reading /public hearing at the October 20 Council meeting. INTRODUC /PUBLIC HEARING - R ESOLUTIONS Resolution 70 -0 8 Adopting a Statemeg of Services for a Proposed An xation of 39.08, More Less, Acres from Jerome Township, Union C/ntictober the City of Dublin. (Jackson Reynolds III, Age for Petitioners Celtic Capit Mr. Gerber intr uced the resolution. Mr. Smith requested this item be postpone 20, based n some issues regarding / provision of fire service. A me the issues, ill be provided to Q Council Mr. Gerber moved to postpone the reso tion until October 20. Mr eenan seconded the motion. ote on the motion: Vice Mayor B ing, yes; Mr. Keenan, y ; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Chi ici- Zuercher, yes. Resolution 71 -08 Waiving Competitive B' ding Requirements for t e Emergency Replacement of a Tunnel under Memo I Drive. Mr. Keenan introdu d the resolution. Ms. Grigsby stat that this relates to the r air of a tunnel under Memorial Drive, just east of Holyro Court. The memo includ s information in regard to tunnels previously owned by t Muirfield Village Golf Cl ,, which were transferred to the City. The three 7 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION CITY OF DUBLIN- Use and Long R Manning ng SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD: 614 - 410 -4600 Fax: 614-410-4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 6. Code Amendments — Architectural Review Board Code Amendments 07- 096ADM Administrative Request Proposal: Code modifications to Code Sections 153.170 through 153.182 to amend the review standards and processes for the Architectural Review Board. Request: Review and recommendation for approval to City Council under the provisions of Code Section 153.234. Applicant: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, City of Dublin. Planning Contact: Gary P. Gunderman, Planning Manager. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600, ggundermanaa,dublin.oh.us, MOTION: To recommend approval of the proposed changes to City Council as recommended by the Architectural Review Board. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: These Code Modifications will be forwarded to City Council for adoption with a recommendation for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. STAFF CERTIFICATION Gary ,"underman Planning Manager Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 2008 — Minutes Page 18 of 19 Motion and Vote Mr. Zimmerman ma e the mZnsen this Concept Ph the motion. Ms. Rauch onfirmed that osu of the family us was o kay. The C s agre Mr said t project had /aa had a number re going to be fro - loaded garagee asked if the rshman asked th ommissioners if reed with hi th encourage side- ach garages. Walter and Ms. mor /oros Amorose said s e- loaded garages ould be n confi ed that a general ix of lot sizes mes s as proposed, the Ian provides hou ro m with front load g garages on the rr Mr. Zimmerrp6n concluded the dya�cussion by The vot was as follows: r. Taylor, yes; Fis n, yes; Mr. Freim n, yes; and Mr. Z, applicati/erswas shman seconded ommissi that the /ngle- 0 0 -foot lots, and thought they mmissioners agre with that. Mr. at the lots shoul e large enough to ose said they rd not agree with r. encourage on the 90 -foot lot now proposed now s okay. Ms. g diversity. Mr. aylor indicated ower lots. fy' g that there were other questions. Amorose Groo s, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. rman, yes. (T led 6 — 0.) 6. Code Amendments — Architectural Review Board Code Amendments 07- 096ADM Administrative Request Gary Gunderman presented this Administrative Request for modifications to Code Sections 153.170 through 153.187 to amend the review standards and processes for the Architectural Review Board. He said the Architectural Review Board has reviewed and approved these amendments. He said most of the important changes include reorganizing a number of sections, the addition of standards, and clarifying procedures missing from the current Code. Mr. Gunderman said a new section was added for matters of administrative discretion that was modeled after the planned district section of the Code. Mr. Gunderman said the organizational standard regarding the Board Order requirements is new. He said there were no changes regarding the items that were reviewed by the Board, but application requirements were clearly outlined. He said much of the language added to the Code was borrowed from the historic Dublin Design Guidelines. Kevin Walter referred to the Board Order Review Process - Administrative Modifications section and asked if it was modeled after the review process and the power that the Director has with respect to the COIL. Mr. Gunderman said the process is similar to the Administrative Modifications section within the planned district ordinance. Mr. Walter confirmed that these were administrative modifications to applications that have been reviewed and approved by the Board. 07 — 096 ADM Administrative Request ARB Zoning Code Amendment Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 2008 — Minutes Page 19 of 19 Motion and Vote Mr. Zimmerman made the motion to recommend approval of the proposed Code modifications to City Council for adoption. Mr. Freimann seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Taylor, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Freimann, yes; and Mr. Zimmerman, yes. (Approved 6 — 0.) The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m. y Respectfully submitted, Libby Farley Administrative Assistant 07 — 096 ADM Administrative Request ARB Zoning Code Amendment CITY OF DUBLIN- woa u,. as Law Raw. naxrq 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin. Oho 43016-1236 Phone /iDD: 61 a410 -4600 Fox:61 4410- 474 7 Web Site :.w dublin.oh.us Creating a Legacy BOARD ORDER AUGUST 27, 2008 The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 3. Architectural Review Board Administrative Request 07- 096ADM Zoning Code Amendment Proposal: Code modifications to Code Sections 153.170 through 153.187 to amend the review standards and processes for the Architectural Review Board. Request: Review and recommendation for approval to City Council under the provisions of Code Section 153.234. Applicant: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, City of Dublin. Planning Contact: Gary P. Gunderman, Planning Manager Contact Information: (614) 410 -4682, ggunderman @dublin.oh.us MOTION: Thomas Holton made a motion, seconded by Tom Currie, to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council approval of the Code modifications with the changes discussed at this meeting. VOTE: 4-0. RESULT: The Code Amendments will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. RECORDED VOTES: Thomas Holton Yes Clayton Bryan Absent William Souders Yes Linda Kick Yes Tom Currie Yes STAFF Gary ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Manager 07 — 096 ADM Administrative Request ARB Zoning Code Amendment Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes — August 27, 2008 Page 11 of 16 Mr. Kor'Sen refe to the origina arriage house the oposal and aske if he couydings. it smaller if the he' t was okay with _me space in ic. Mr. Holton s ' it could not be ne if it was clos to Blacksmith L e because it won oo tall. He sai the structure on acksmith Lane w' need to be the s aller of the two b Mr. Koftsen told the Board that it had to be listorically accura Souders said a iistoric carnage h garage, a floor nd a roof, and t se would have e as the height to ave. He said it d lnitely was not ee -car garage, tit was still a g age height of about ine feet, floor jo' s, an eight- or ni e -foot height for e living area, an a roof height that n Id to be at leas :12/agree 2, d 8:12 ratio wo feel even better He said the shone e floor- to- ceilin heightItch there could b without it excee ng what is permitt Mr. Souders sa' that it what a carriage h se concept woul ork, but the hei must be reasona a with a noe height, a fi ' hed floor, 5newas a oof pitch based on a design. He sa" it could not bs too tall b ause that was t a carriage hou as. Mr. Souders id the height loo structure om Blacksmith irrelevant' Mr. Holton r ' erated that the b ding on Blacks structures b ause of the scale Blacksmith La Ms. Ki reque/proc direction fro lannit Phillabaum if the ap icant was in arriage house arking ulled into the generally in fav a in ion was needed f Lane should /ue e two s din tabling t ,nor of the site d as the Board to d / Kortse agreed /tab and to /esubm lan wi/theca ge house as disc sedVote made a Mr. Sded thtable thi application. The follow on, ye ers, ye , y es; nd Mr. Currie , yes. (Tabled 4 — 0.) 3. Code Amendments — Architectural Review Board Code Amendments 07- 096ADM Administrative Request Gary Gunderman stated that at the last meeting the Board reviewed the proposed modifications to the section of the Zoning Code related to the Architectural Review Board and made recommendations which are reflected in this revised version. He said the remaining issues that the Board indicated they wanted to consider further will be reviewed. Mr. Gunderman reviewed the changes made on each page of the revised proposed Code Amendment: Page 1 Mr. Gunderman stated that no changes suggested at the last meeting. Mr. Currie pointed out that A(4), referenced the Ohio Historic Inventoried Properties being provided in Code Section 153.170(B) was inappropriately referenced in the new document because that section no longer existed. Mr. Gunderman agreed. Mr. Currie also pointed out that 07 — 096 ADM Administrative Request ARB Zoning Code Amendment Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes — August 27, 2008 Page 12 of 16 A(6), should refer to 153.174 B(4), where the architectural style is covered in the new document. He suggested that under B, where it first mentioned the Architectural Review Board, the abbreviation ARB should follow in parentheses. Page 2 Mr. Gunderman indicated that the definition in Item (D) had been added at the suggestion of the Board, a dry-laid fence was added to Item B, and the term preferred by the City was Historic Dublin was used instead of Old Dublin. Mr. Currie pointed out Item (H) mentioned the National Trust for Historic Preservation and a National Register of Historic Places. He said the definition for the National Trust of Historic Preservation was correct, but the National Register of Historic Places was not included. He read into the record that definition: The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of properties recognized by the federal government as worthy of preservation for the local, state, or national significance in American history, archeology, engineering or culture. The Board members agreed that definition should be included as H(2). Page 3 Mr. Gunderman said there were no changes suggested at the last meeting. The Board had no further discussion. Page 4 Mr. Gunderman said item B(1) Subarea B, was not shown in red, but it had been changed as requested to read: ...or one of the designated landmark properties. Page 5 Mr. Gunderman said item (8) was modified to read: When requested by the City ...and outlying historic properties, was added as suggested at the previous meeting. Mr. Currie suggested the ARB should review all proposed National Register properties within the City. Mr. Holton suggested it should be broader. Mr. Souders question whether the ARB had that authority outside of the District. Mr. Holton said the Board did, as defined by the list of outlying Historic Properties. He said the ARB was tasked with reviewing these properties, but there was not a mechanism for letting the property owners know. Mr. Currie said he was not comfortable with that being as an ARB duty, but in the end the ARB is the best board to do it. He said he did not believe the ARB had any place in the review process, since the review was a state process. Mr. Gunderman suggested that adding... when requested by the City, would provide the opportunity for City review, and by substituting `City' for `District', the additional phase, of ...and outlying historic properties, will not be needed. Mr. Holton suggested that instead of capitalizing National Register, broadening it to be more general... view all proposed historic registry nominations, would include nomination for any registry. All Board members agreed and said that provided more flexibility. Page 6 Mr. Gunderman said under item (3) two changes were made that had not been previously discussed, and now read ... Permitted uses in the Hisiori e Residential District and Permitted uses in the r'�c— Business and Commercial Districts. 07 — 096 ADM Administrative Request ARB Zoning Code Amendment Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes — August 27, 2008 Page 13 of 16 Mr. Souders asked if the Building Permit form included a line indicating whether or not the structure was in the Historic District. Mr. Gunderman said he did not know. Mr. Holton said there should be a trigger of some kind to indicate it was a special case. Page 7 Mr. Holton asked if there was a legal requirement for notification. Mr. Gunderman said there had not been one until this proposed Code Amendment. He said a notification must be mailed to the adjacent property owners within seven days. Pages 8, 9, and 10 Mr. Gunderman said no changes were suggested at the last meeting. Mr. Holton asked if property owners could go ahead and do maintenance and not have to wait for an application to be approved in the case of an emergency. Mr. Gunderman pointed out that Administrative Modifications (E)(4)(x) could be used in this instance. Mr. Holton suggested that the Code clearly define that the intent is in emergency situations such as an act of God: fire, wind, flood, etc maintenance could take place. Mr. Gunderman suggested adding ... including minimal structural modifications due to acts of God, and requiring immediate attention or repair... Mr. Holton agreed Mr. Gunderman should modify the Code to reflect this situation and clarified that the purpose was to restore the integrity of the structure for safety. Page 11 Mr. Gunderman said no changes were suggested at the last meeting. The Board had no further discussion. Page 12 Mr. Gunderman said the word `outbuildings' was added to (4)(b) as requested at the last meeting, however, it was not indicated in red. Mr. Currie referred to (3)(a) and suggested Planning provide more pictures of adjacent properties at least in the presentations. Mr. Souders agreed that would be beneficial. Mr. Gunderman recalled that the Board members mentioned at the last meeting an inventory of architectural features would be helpful. Mr. Holton suggested pictures taken from the street of buildings once a year would be useful. Mr. Gunderman said Planning would try to get a picture inventory together to use for cases. Page 13 Mr. Gunderman said no changes suggested at the last meeting. The Board had no comments. Page 14 Mr. Gunderman said item (D) the word `outbuildings' was added as requested. The Board had no comments. Page 15 Mr. Gunderman said item (C)(6) was added ... or the embodiment of distinctive styling features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building and /or outbuilding. 07 — 096 ADM Administrative Request ARB Zoning Code Amendment Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes — August 27, 2008 Page 14 of 16 Mr. Gunderman said Mr. Currie had suggested revision of item (A) so that there is a process for removing things as well. Mr. Gunderman suggested: Requests to establish or remove... to designate an individual property or site as a landmark for protection or to remove or otherwise change a designation... He said this amendment would let the ARB remove an area from the District and properties on Appendix G. He said the process would also be the same for adding properties. The Board members agreed on this amendment. Mr. Currie said with regard to item (A) he hoped that the first indication that they would be put under architectural review would not be a surprise registered notification letter. He suggested an informal meeting be held to inform affected property owners. Mr. Currie said there were approximately 85 inventoried properties located outside of the District. He said the current list in the appendix had only ten properties on the list and of these two structures had been demolished and one had the wrong address. He said to be equable, they should go to the other 80 properties on the Ohio Inventory and decide whether or not they should be on that list and if they should be under architectural review. He said there should be meetings to explain what the City is trying to do, what benefit there is in it, and what the problems are in complying. Mr. Currie suggested it needs to be less adversarial and some support from the City. Mr. Holton agreed, but suggested the Board work with Planning on how this could be accomplished within the scope of the ARB duties. He said it could be a future agenda item, for example. Mr. Gunderman said Planning did not want affected property owners to get the registered mail item as the first formal communication regarding their inclusion in the Architectural Review process. He said he did not think a particular process should be in the Code and agreed Planning would review the notification process with the Board. Page 16 Mr. Gunderman agreed with the Board members that item (A) should read ...the application may be recommended for approval, instead of ...approved. Mr. Gunderman said discussion of the addition of item (A)(4) was deferred at the last meeting so Ms. Kick could provide her input. Mr. Holton said he did not like (4). Mr. Currie said the first three lines of (4) were provided in the three items above, and the demolition part was too subjective. Ms. Kick asked for the definition of "orderly development." Mr. Holton said the definition was in the mind of the developer, staff, and ARB. He asked the reason why (4) was added. Mr. Gunderman said on a couple of occasions there were demolitions reviewed with the three existing rules, and it was really stretching it to meet the criteria, even though the demolition was the desired outcome and the addition of (4) supported these situations. He asked the Board members to remember, it still requires two criteria to be met before a structure can be demolished and meeting the second one is not always easy. He said they have not dramatically lowered the bar, but it did open up options not previously available. Mr. Holton and the other Board members confirmed that (4) should be left as proposed. He suggested sending Code Enforcement to look at District properties once every three months would be a good idea to check for those structures that were willfully neglected. 07 — 096 ADM Administrative Request ARB Zoning Code Amendment Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes — August 27, 2008 Page 15 of 16 Page 17 Mr. Gunderman said item (C) was changed to ... the application for demolition may be approved or disapproved. Mr. Gunderman said the intent of the one -year waiting period was to buy time to see if options can be explored to preserve a structure. Mr. Currie asked if the City was covered by this. He posed the question if the City -owned barn on Post Road had been on the Inventory and came to ARB requesting demolition because it was too expensive to maintain, would the Board say that they would maintain and preserve the structure during that year by gluing a tarp on the roof to preserve it. Mr. Gunderman said broadly speaking, if putting a tarp on the roof was needed to preserve it for the year period, he thought that was a reasonable way to do it. After discussion, the Board agreed with the drafted revision. Page 18 Mr. Gunderman said no changes suggested at the last meeting. The Board had no comments. Page 19 Mr. Gunderman said no changes suggested at the last meeting. The Board had no comments. Mr. Gunderman said regarding Mr. Holton's concern expressed at the last meeting about the Appeals process, the BZA section of the Code was recently amended and now limits appeals to 20 days which was even shorter than was suggested. Page 20 Mr. Gunderman said the map was revised, but the final map will be black and white. Mr. Holton said this was a lot of work and it was good. Mr. Gunderman said Mr. Langworthy had prepared most of it. Motion and Vote Mr. Holton made the motion to recommend approval of this draft as presented with the changes as noted. Mr. Currie seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Holton, yes; Mr. Souders, yes; Ms. Kick, yes; and Mr. Currie, yes. (Approved 4 — 0.) Other Administra . e Business Mr. Currie said sed on the fact t there has been update to Appen x G of the City of /tenp n ode in the past 1 years, he asked if e following motio could be made: at erties presently 1' ed on Appendix by Ordinance 93, /ah 5/ be Architectural eview. He con ' ued that said pr erties d to be l added by d tsion of City Con tl according to Co e Section r. Currie ght there w s an inequity right ow that has existe for a long tithe City a lot historic properti and the Board s talked about to the inventory, but it s not happened. e said rather t ha etting into a legae point where someon on the list does n come to the Boar , he thought th 07 — 096 ADM Administrative Request ARB Zoning Code Amendment CITY OF DUBLIN. Land Us* and Long Mange Manning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD: 614 -410 -4600 Fax: 614- 410 -4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BOARD ORDER JULY 23, 2008 The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 3. Code Amendments — Architectural Review Board Code Amendments 07- 096ADM Administrative Request Proposal: Code modifications to Code Sections 153.170 through 153.182 to amend the review standards and processes for the Architectural Review Board. Request: Review and recommendation for approval to City Council under the provisions of Code Section 153.234. Applicant: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, City of Dublin. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600, Langworthy @dublin.oh.us MOTION: Thomas Holton made a motion, seconded by William Souders, to table this application to the next monthly meeting. VOTE: 4-0. RESULT: This application was tabled. RECORDED VOTES: Thomas Holton Yes Clayton Bryan Yes William Souders Yes Linda Kick Absent Tom Currie Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Gary GaryjK Gunderman Planning Manager Architectural Review Board July 23, 2008 — Minutes Page 6 of 9 Mr. Holton asked if ibrex to material mple was availab Ms. Swisher sai at only a color sample for the o side of the windo ad been provide ,although Eibrex© ad been approved by the Board s a framing mate al for other wind sin the Historic istrict. Mr. Hol n suggested t t Planning obtain aterial samples to e when any new terial is proposed. Mr. G derman refereed Mr. Darbee's opi on that for this typ of architecture, th luminum eta ing on the exteri of the windows as acceptable and aid did not think at it was an ception to the Bo s policy. Mr. Bryan co rmed that conditi s cannot be absence. H said that his assu ption was that the alum' um cladding diff d among all of tl new a old, to have the s e color trim. !". ' Souders asked that could be a c dition. Ms. place conditionsX the approval oft 's application, it meeting when e applicant or a r resentative was any conditi s. the application ue to the applican 's v trim woul e painted, but be use he said e w/ows, ed dows, /ersaid that ted to Id have to be tBoard it and given th cc90 Mr. S sa id that he ould like the prop sed replacement w' dow to actually 10 like the cen r window on the s' e elevation. He rd that there is a v pronounced verti 1 separation weep panes in e existing win w, and he woul want to see th same vertical pronouncement it le proposed repla ment window. Mr. Gunde an asked if Mr. uders would be 1 king for four dist' ct panels of equal , /17e. Mr. Sou rs said that the pa is did not have to e equal, but fairly, se to equal. He rd that havin unties that were 1 the same width ould not make the oposed window to like the oth windows on the ont elevation, un ss a wider center untin is installed. e said that cause the propos replacement win w has been propo d to match the c er window, he would expect a si ilar treatment inst d of smaller indict al panels. Mr. Souder asked why the appricant was not pres not there ecause a represen ative from the wit ow expec to /nce. mg instead. otion and Mr. Holton mad n, secon d by Mr. Sot applicant's ote w as follows: Mr. yes; and MrAp ved 4 — 0.) Ms. Swisher s 'd that the applica P111was anufacturer, enewal by Ander n, was to table this ap cation due to the yes; Mr. Br n, yes; Mr. Souders, 3. Code Amendments — Architectural Review Board Code Amendments 07- 096ADM Administrative Request Gary Gundennan continued the review of the proposed Architectural Review Board Code Amendments begun by Steve Langworthy at the June ARB meeting. He asked for any initial questions or recommendations regarding the proposed language. Mr. Gunderman said the first 07 — 096 ADM Administrative Request ARB Zoning Code Amendment Architectural Review Board July 23, 2008 — Minutes Page 7 of 9 section, referenced to the current appendices in the Code to describe the District, and there is no change. Section 170 Mr. Holton requested a better map of the District boundaries. Section 171 Mr. Holton suggested adding a definition of the word deterioration because under the Purpose of the Architectural Review Board, Section 153.172, the word is used as part of the purpose. Mr. Curie questioned paragraph H, National Trust for Historic Places and said it should read Historic Preservation instead. Mr. Holton noted that the historic Dublin Design Guidelines referred to the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Gunderman agreed to research and correct the name of the organization, if needed. Mr. Holton suggested that dry -laid stone fences, which are characteristic be added to the list of the examples of an exterior architectural feature. Mr. Gunderman said that was more specific than the general tone of the paragraph, but given the prominence of those fences, he thought it could be added. Section 172 Mr. Gunderman said Mr. Currie had pointed out that he did not fit into any of those categories for membership listed. He said Item D, which had been utilized by City Council in numerous cases, had been added. Mr. Holton liked the idea of duties (4) and (5), but did not know how that could be done with limited resources. Mr. Currie referred to page 4: Term of Office, and asked if there was a term limit. Mr. Gunderman explained that there was a term limit, and that the language was specified in the City Charter which was two full terms. Mr. Holton requested that item 8 be expanded to include any historic registration property within the District or the outlying area, to ensure the property received the proper kind of notation and preservation attention. He said all of these properties will be reflected in the appendices of the Zoning Code and the proposed language needed to be expanded so it reflected as: Review proposed Historic Registration nominations for properties within the District and outlying historic properties. Mr. Gunderman agreed to include the language to make it a little more encompassing of any historic registration. Mr. Souders suggested 'National' be removed and substituted with 'historic' because `National' could include anything. Mr. Gunderman agreed that some modification to this paragraph would be helpful. He thought it was good to list the National Register as one of the items in the Code. Mr. Currie suggested instead of all nominations, that it read: when requested by the City. Mr. Gunderman confirmed that the Board was fine with the proposed modification. He agreed to work on revised language regarding this for review at the next meeting. 07 — 096 ADM Administrative Request ARB Zoning Code Amendment Architectural Review Board July 23, 2008 — Minutes Page 8 of 9 Section 173 Mr. Holton referred to the requirements listed on page 8, and confirmed with Mr. Souders that they were adequate. Mr. Bryan questioned the need for legal descriptions and notifications for informal reviews. Mr. Holton expressed a concern that any part of process should not have to be repeated any time. Ile suggested there be enough flexibility in the process to allow an applicant to keep the same unchanged items so that they follow through and only those changed items are revised and submitted to avoid additional cost for the applicant. Mr. Souders asked for clarification of C(3) on page 7: Landscaping for single- family dwellings are excluded from review. He said the word landscaping was also used in 2(B)(ii). He said, the word landscaping needed to be better defined since they are not reviewing landscaping. Mr. Souders suggested an applicant would not know what landscaping meant, and it would be confusing what was to be reviewed. Mr. Gunderman agreed to modify item (2) for commercial use properties where the Board dealt with landscaping. Mr. Holton asked for additional comments prior to moving to page 11, Administrative Modifications, which was a new section, and there were none. Mr. Gunderman explained that this would allow for approval of minor modifications to plans that are submitted and reviewed for a building permit. Mr. Bryan indicated he was strongly opposed to substitute designs and materials being approved by the City that were different than those approved by the Board. Mr. Holton said he would like Planning to be proactive and inform the Board of trouble with a particular design or material. Mr. Souders asked if it would be appropriate for Planning to contact the Chair when changes are necessary and the Chair could then inform the other Board members. Mr. Gunderman said this was not appropriate, as all discussion and feedback between members should occur in a public meeting. Section 174 Mr. Holton suggested that on page 13, 4(b), Architectural Style the word outbuildings be added to help retain them as a characteristic of the Historic District. Mr. Currie suggested it read: Simple rectangular commercial buildings and outbuildings. Mr. Holton agreed. Mr. Gunderman said this was a new section which included portions of the historic Dublin Design Guidelines which were reorganized and reformatted so that the Code could be relied upon as the authority instead of referring to the Guidelines. Mr. Holton suggested adding outbuilding to page 15, item (6). Section 176 Mr. Holton said neglect was covered on page 13, item (3). Mr. Holton said the Board did not want demolition to be the result of conscious and willful neglect. Mr. Gunderman agreed to use the tern willful neglect. 07 — 096 ADM Administrative Request ARB Zoning Code Amendment Architectural Review Board July 23, 2008 — Minutes Page 9 of 9 Mr. Gunderman explained that regarding page 17, (Section 153.176), Demolition, a revised rule, item (4), is being considered, which would allow some projects to be more plausible than under the old rules. Mr. Holton said he did not like item (4) and wanted to look at it again next month to hear Ms. Kick's perspective. It was agreed to discuss this item again at the next meeting. Mr. Bryan said there was good logic and rationale for the intent of item (4) but he was afraid the option for misuse was too great. Mr. Gunderman pointed out that the Board would get to interpret the rule on a case -by -case basis. He added that if the language was made more restrictive, it would limit the Board, but perhaps that was what they wanted. Mr. Holton referred to the last paragraph regarding Appeals on page 21 and suggested Appeals be filed within 30 days. Mr. Gunderman suggested it be discussed next month because the section regarding the Board of Zoning Appeals would be added then. He said he would check to see if the timeline was specified universally in the section. Motion and Vote Mr. Holton made a motion, seconded by Mr. Souders, to table this application to the next monthly meeting. The vote was as follows: Mr. Currie, yes; Mr. Souders, yes; Mr. Bryan, yes; and Mr. Holton, yes. (Tabled 4 — 0.) The meeting was adjourned at 10:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Flora Rogers and Libby Farley Administrative Assistants 07 — 096 ADM Administrative Request ARB Zoning Code Amendment CITY OF DUBLIN- Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 4301 6 -1 23 6 Phone/ TDD: 614 -410 -4600 Fax: 614- 410 -4747 Web Slte: www.dublin.oh.us ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BOARD ORDER JUNE 25, 2008 The Architectural Review Board took no action on the following at this meeting: 3. Code Amendments — Architectural Review Board Code Amendments 07- 096ADM Administrative Request Proposal: Code modifications to Code Sections 153.170 through 153.182 to amend the review standards and processes for the Architectural Review Board. Request: Review and recommendation for approval to City Council under the provisions of Code Section 153.234. Applicant: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, City of Dublin. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600, sangworthy@dublin.oh.us RESULT: There was a brief presentation and discussion regarding the newest portions of the proposed Code Amendments. The Board members were encouraged to review the proposed Code Amendments before the next meeting. No action or vote was taken. STAFF CERTIFICATION 'S �w LU W I Steve Langworthy Director Dublin Architectural Review Board June 25, 2008 — Minutes Page 14 of 16 Mr. Bryan noted that ' appeared on the t sheet that the to and bottom rails ach were two to three inches which ortened the wind six inches. Ms. hite said Planni met with a Roset representative a part of the rail w uld be located in e the existing fr e so it would no e seen. She con ed that one -inc of glass on all sid of the window w uld be lo,,t. Mr. HoltX asked if this was in hierarchy of window was it Ae hierarchy men 'oned. Mr. d materials 'n a historic dist i He read a Gui lines that pertain to replacement (hdows specifi s e material, usual wood, as was u din the original ad replacement ndows." He said e section pertain' was for new b tldings or new a itiow to existin b, windows es cially when the are close to th side 11 m historic strucl ndows. AvYntvini ' to vinyl and .dines. He conspicuo locations wood win/nkmen vinyl or aluminu or all vinyl win s are Mr olton mentione his was in ous locati I site did have c racteristics thaund in I of the street, it fa s a park, and em e bri e. Mr. Bryan r erred to the prop sed Code a the same s the current C e: Where a econo c burden on the a licant because t in it current form. Vsaid it went to si ation on the cum 6t windows. Mr. ry plate the existing Ome flab m said it on from the s: "Use of the and aluminum clad windo s "Use ood or oth public way, u ss in 7' are acceptabl , but all Mr. Phillabau agreed and said sites, given at it was at the co mend nt E(2) on page of 20, which he aid was de al of a certifica would result in ubstantial applicant cannot asonably maintai the property aintenance beca e it was a demo � ion by neglect an requested t t the City verify at the header and only loses on -inch of glass all t e way around. Motion Mr. Bryan ade a motion to pprove this e that the have been sign' scant alterations build g prior to the exi ence of the Archi That the are of glass of each ndov the replac ment window as mpared )pl' ation based on C/de Section 153.1 (B), and the historic app6arance of the e rior of the aural Review Bo d with one condi ' n: not be redu ed greater than o inch on all sides to the ex" ing window. Mr. Souder seconded the mot n. The vote was s follows: Mr. C e, yes; Ms. Kic Holton, y ; Mr. Souders, yd and Mr. Bryan, s. (Approved 4 — .) 3. Code Amendments — Architectural Review Board 07- 096ADM Code Amendments Steve Langworthy briefly reviewed the newest portions of the proposed Code Amendments. He stressed that this is not yet the adopted Code and the Board will continue to operate under the currently adopted Code. He highlighted some of the proposed revisions and additions, such as the addition of specific requirements for Board Orders, specific application processes and requirements, a potential for a six month approval extension for delayed projects, and provisions 07 — 096 ADM Administrative Request ARB Zoning Code Amendment Dublin Architectural Review Board June 25, 2008 — Minutes Page 15 of 16 for administrative modifications. He said the most significant change made was to add specific review standards applying to new construction, additions, alterations, and a general set of standards that applied to all. He said if the recommendations are approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, the Board will see in Planning's recommendations not just reliance on the Guidelines, but specific recommendations based on those particular review standards. As many Guidelines as possible are proposed to be codified to make them more specific to these individual situations. Mr. Langworthy said much of the rest of the Code provisions remain the same as before. He explained that when the existing Code sections were distributed, a few pages at the end were missing, therefore, a complete section was given to the Board members tonight. Mr. Langworthy said he hoped the Board members would have an opportunity to review the proposed Code Amendments before the next meeting. He said specific comments or questions could be directed to him via email and he would send any answers to all the Board members. Ms. Kick asked if there was a separate appendix that included a detailed description of the Historic District and the properties in the Zoning Code which would replace the current Appendix F. Mr. Langworthy said the separate appendix would be attached to the next version of the proposed amendments sent in the meeting packets. Mr. Bryan asked about the rationale for changing the first Section and if there were any changes from the physical borders that were initially used. Mr. Langworthy said that being less specific in the Code would mean that if the boundaries are ever changed instead of changing the Code, just the appendix can be changed administratively, that makes it a little easier. He said this was not a critical change and it be added back in if the Board preferred. Mr. Langworthy said there were no boundary changes included in the proposed revision. Mr. Holton said the proposed amendment read as though the Board could be more proactive in making recommendations, including recommending legislation. Mr. Langworthy said that was correct, but that the Board was already permitted to do that. Mr. Langworthy said one recommendation not currently done is a rezoning to the HB, Historic Business and HR, Historic Residential District, and he thought it would be useful to get the Board's input if properties were proposed for the HB or HR Districts. The Board would then present that as a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Holton asked when the whole District would receive a similar rezoning. Mr. Langworthy said the goal was to get the District into two zoning classifications, HR and HB. He said Planning wants to do the HB District rezonings once these code amendments are made and the HB District is revised. At that time an area rezoning could be processed to get the commercial properties into the HB District. He said approximately 80 percent of the HR District rezonings have been completed. Other Administrative Business 07 — 096 ADM Administrative Request ARB Zoning Code Amendment Dublin Architectural Review Board June 25, 2008 — Minutes Page 16 of 16 Mr. Souders commended staff for their good work on the Community Plan. Mr. Langworthy said many people participated and that was part of making it such a success. He said a more public - friendly summary document is being developed that will be easier to use. The meeting was adjourned at 9:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ?&t_ _ (J Libby Farley Administrative Assistant 07 — 096 ADM Administrative Request ARB Zoning Code Amendment The Architectural Review Board took no action on the following at this meeting: 3. Architectural Review District Modification 07- 096ARB Proposal Request: Applicant: _ Planning Contact: Contact Information: Ad . istratire Request Zonilifode Amendment 153.170 through lords and processes for or approval to City Council ection 153.234. Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, City of Dublin. Abby Scott, Planner. (614) 410 -4654, ascott @dublin.oh.us. RESULT: This case was postponed prior to the meeting. There was no discussion or vote taken. STAFF CERTIFICATION Abby Planner ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BOARD ORDER CITY OF DUBLIN- APRIL 23, 2008 Land Use and Long Range Mcmni g 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone / TDD: 614 -410 -4600 Fax: 614 -410 -4747 Web Site: www.dublin,oh.us The Architectural Review Board took no action on the following at this meeting: 3. Architectural Review District Modification 07- 096ARB Proposal Request: Applicant: _ Planning Contact: Contact Information: Ad . istratire Request Zonilifode Amendment 153.170 through lords and processes for or approval to City Council ection 153.234. Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, City of Dublin. Abby Scott, Planner. (614) 410 -4654, ascott @dublin.oh.us. RESULT: This case was postponed prior to the meeting. There was no discussion or vote taken. STAFF CERTIFICATION Abby Planner Dublin Architectural Review Board April 23, 2008 — Minutes Page 4 of 4 3. Architectural Review District Modification 07- 096ARB Administrative Request Zoning Code Amendment This Administrative Request for a Zoning Code Amendment to the Architectural Review District was postponed prior to the meeting. There was no discussion or vote taken. / ADMINIST VE BUSINESS ar t t reminded e Board members at on May 12`" t Way Finding project will be preiewed to City ouncil and the Boa % ff , The meeti was adjourned at 8:,W p.m. Respectfully submitted, r Libby Farley Administrative Assistant Dublin Architectural Review Board March 19, 2008 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10 X sked that Cit ouneit should andled. ZC wil e the final approval proc and a conditi it m mil the ARB has dation to the PZC add this is59 to their retreat age a and and make a A cision ut . Lan ort ' hy said the dec on made by City C ncil was lutho ' for projects that re under a planned evelopment ial se process, but th will not act on th e two types of the opportunity to eview the proposal d submit a formal to final action. said when the or ce language is read brought to the A to peruse,fr Mr. Langwo y hoped to have to the PZC, and ult ately to City Coun ' for language befor e ARB in April or ay. Mr. aske t Bryan al f Z affect commercial op/appr overlap into residenti pr erties. Mr. L orthy said t affecting a residential ere may b few ' stances where ned dev opment. He eximpact this 1 be on the comm but y if it is a conditi l or lanned Ms. Scott c ed the attention of e Board to th e 2 Work Plan for t City of Dublin Archil Rev iew distribute onight on the dais their information Mr ryan asked the re on there were so y items lisork Plan prior o th e tstoric Business Co Update which inch ed signs He saa hot issue e Board had been dealing Oh lately. Ms. Scott e lained that there w e two sections of t Code that dealt and its iew of the area re ' wed. The process r how different itei be u ted prior to the His c Business Distric ode Update, e a so th Syesaid the Historic B mess District Code pdate will follow t AR': nd that the other ite are either already eduled or minor.. Ms. Scott CO50med that the Joint eeting with City C ncil for the W been set fo :00 p.m. on May 1 ` p0fically with ARB /dare addresse/oer. being taken i Code Section Project has Ms. Scott reported that Code Section 153.175 - Procedure for Establishing Future Preservation Districts and Landmarks required the property owners to consent to being under the review of ARB or state reasons why they think they should not be under that review and at that point, it would be taken up at a public meeting. She said it was not automatic. Mr. Currie suggested that Code Section 153.170 — Ohio Historic Inventory Properties, be revised at the Code update to reflect that when an Ohio Historic Inventory Property is annexed into the City, it will be subject to architectural review and will be added to Appendix G. Ms. Scott referred "the Bridge and Hi Streets Sign Plan ' hided /packet nd said it was for review rposes when the si section is reviewed. Ms. Scott r orted in reply to e Board's request or Code infng street performe on public propert , that although Co did not specihe activit' s can be restricted i ey violate the nois r other nuisance or