53-03 Ordinance RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
Ordinance No. 53-03 (Amended) Passed 20
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE
ZONING CODE TO ESTABLISH THE HISTORIC
BUSINESS (HB) DISTRICT AND THE HISTORIC
RESIDENTIAL (HR) DISTRICT (CASE NO. O1-113ADM -
HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT)
WHEREAS, Historic Dublin plays an important part in the historical, architectural,
cultural, educational and general significance of the larger Dublin community; and
WHEREAS, properties within Historic Dublin are currently governed by suburban
zoning standards that do not reflect the traditional development patterns of the historic
district; and
WHEREAS, development in Historic Dublin requires the utilization of planned zoning
districts and/or multiple variances to maintain historic character and integrity; and
WHEREAS, new standards will limit the need for variances, reduce instances of existing
legal nonconformance, and promote historically-compatible growth as a whole; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Community Plan promotes the original village as an
economically viable mixed-use, pedestrian center of the City; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent to rezone properties within Historic Dublin to a more
compatible zoning classification; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Board reviewed this ordinance on June 25, 2003,
and recommends approval of the proposed ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this ordinance on August
28, 2003 and recommends adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State
of Ohio, ~ of the elected members concurring as follows:
Section 1. That Section 153.035 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances creating the Historic
Residential District, be enacted as follows:
153.035 HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (HR)
(A) District Intent. The intent of the HR District is to permit the preservation and
development of homes on existing or new lots that are comparable in size, mass
and scale, while maintaining and promoting the traditional residential character of
the Historic Dublin area. Utilization of the HR District is intended to protect the
scale and character of the original platted Village of Dublin.
(B) Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the Historic Residential
District.
(1) Dwelling Structures. One-family dwelling structures.
(2) Home Occupation. Home occupations in association with a permitted
dwelling, and in accordance with the provisions of § 153.073.
(3) Accessory Uses. Accessory buildings and uses in association with
permitted dwellings as specified in §153.074.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
Ordinance No. 53-03 Amended Passed Pale 2 , 20
(4) Public and Private Schools. Public schools offering general educational
courses or private schools offering similar courses ordinarily given in
public schools and having no rooms regularly used for housing or sleeping
of students.
(5) Parks. Parks, playgrounds, play fields or other related park uses.
(C) Conditional Uses. There shall be no conditional uses within the Historic
Residential (HR) District.
(D) Development Standards. The following standards for arrangement and
development of land and buildings are required.
(1) Lot Area. For each dwelling unit there shall be a lot area not less than
8,712 square feet (0.2-acre).
(2) Lot Width. Lots shall be a minimum of 60 feet in width, with a minimum
frontage of 60 feet along a public street.
(3) Front Yards. All lots shall have a minimum front setback as noted on
Table A in Section 153.035(D)(8).
(4) Side Yards. All lots shall have a minimum side yard and a total of side
yards as noted on Table A in Section 153.035(D)(8).
(5) Rear Yard. All lots shall have a minimum rear yard as noted on Table A in
Section 153.035(D)(8).
(6) Height. N o d welling s tructure s hall e xceed 3 5 f eet i n h eight. M aximum
height for other structures shall not exceed a safe height as determined by
the Fire Chief and as reviewed and accepted by the Architectural Review
Board.
(7) Lot Coverage. Combined square footage of all primary and accessory
structures and impervious surfaces shall not exceed 50 percent of the lot
area, unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board.
(8) Table A.
Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum
For Properties Fronting Onto: Front Side Total Side Rear
Setback Yard Yards Yard
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Dublin Road 15 4 16 15
Franklin Street 25 4 12 25
High Street (North & South) 15 4 16 15
South Riverview Street (East Side) 0 3 12 15
South Riverview Street (West Side) 20 3 12 15
North Riverview Street (East Side) 0 3 6 15
North Riverview Street (West Side) 20 3 6 15
Short Street 20 3 12 15
Roads not otherwise noted above: 20 3 12 15
Section 2. That Section 153.036 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances creating the Historic
Business District, be enacted as follows:
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
Ordinance No. 53-03 Amended Passed Page 3 , 20
153.036 HISTORIC BUSINESS DISTRICT (HB)
(A) District Intent. The intent of the HB District is to improve economic viability and
to provide a greater mix of uses with an emphasis on historic preservation and
traditional d evelopment patterns. U tilization o f t he d istrict i s i ntended t o f otter
pedestrian-oriented development that will enhance Historic Dublin as a
community focal point. It is intended to discourage auto-oriented uses, uses with
fleet parking, commercial storage and other uses that would detract from the
visual quality and scale of the district. Its goal is to foster appropriate
development standards to preserve historic character by promoting the re-use of
existing buildings when compatible with the district and the addition of suitable
infill development.
(B) Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the Historic Business
District.
(1) Retail. Retail stores engaged in selling merchandise or rendering services
incidental to the sale of the goods, including the buying and processing of
goods for resale or repair.
(a) General merchandise
(b) Food and catering activities
(c) Apparel
(d) Home furnishings
(e) Arts, crafts and antiques
(f) Miscellaneous retail
(2) Eating and Drinking Establishments. Eating and drinking establishments
that are commercial establishments engaged in furnishing meals on a fee
basis.
(a) Restaurants
(b) Bars and taverns
(c) Ice cream parlors
(d) Coffee shops
(e) Bagel shops
(f) Delicatessens and sandwich shops
(3) Administrative, Business and Professional Offzces.
(4) Medical and Dental Offzces.
(5) Personal and Consumer Services.
(a) Barbers
(b) Beauty salons and shops
(c) Tanning salons
(d) Pedestrian-only ATMs
(e) Tailors and pressing shops
(f) Print shops and copy centers
(g) Photography and framing shops
(6) Institutional.
(a) Government offices
(b) Libraries and museums
(c) Community theaters
(7) Religious. Churches, temples or other places of worship.
(8) Child Care. Kindergarten, childcare, or daycare in accordance with all
applicable state provisions.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
ordinance No. 53-03 Amended Passed Page 4 , 20
(9) Parks and Public Plazas. Parks, public plazas, playgrounds, play fields or
other related park uses.
(10) Bed and Breakfast Establishments. Bed and breakfast establishments with
a resident manager/owner providing eight or fewer guest units.
(11) Dwellings. One-family through four-family dwelling units, including
residences in detached accessory structures (i.e. carriage house units)
and/or residences in conjunction with structures containing other permitted
HB uses.
(12) Outdoor patios. Outdoor seating areas, including but not limited to
outdoor dining and restaurant patio spaces in conjunction with other
permitted HB uses.
(13) Dance, Aerobic, Exercise, Gymnastics, and Related Studios.
(C) Conditional Uses. The following uses shall be conditional uses within the Historic
Business District:
(1) Hotel and Motel Facilities. Hotels, motels and other boarding facilities,
including bed and breakfasts as not otherwise noted in Section
153.036(B)(10).
(2) Recreation Centers.
(3) Lodges, Banquet Halls, and Private Clubs.
(4) Parking Lots. Stand-alone parking lots not in conjunction with other
permitted and/or conditional HB uses.
(5) Open-Air Markets. Farmer's markets or other outdoor markets.
(D) Development Standards. The following standards for arrangement and
development of land and buildings are required.
(1) Lot Area. There shall be no minimum lot area; however, lot size shall be
adequate to meet all applicable development standards. No land may be
subdivided or combined into lots greater than 21,780 square feet (0.5-
acre).
(2) Lot Width. Lots shall be a minimum of 60 feet in width with a minimum
frontage of 60 feet along a public street.
(3) Front Yard. All lots shall have a minimum front yard setback of 0 feet.
(4) Side Yard. All lots shall have a minimum side yard of 0 feet with a total of
_ side yards of 5 feet. Minimum side yards for parking with direct access
onto an alley shall be 0 feet.
(5) Rear Yard. All lots shall have a minimum rear yard of 5 feet. Minimum
rear yards for parking with direct access onto an alley shall be 0 feet.
(6) Height. N o d welling s tructure s hall e xceed 3 5 f eet i n h eight. M aximum
height for other structures shall not exceed a safe height as determined by
the Fire Chief and as reviewed and accepted by the Architectural Review
Board.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
Ordinance No. 53-03 Amended Passed Page 5 , 20
(7) Lot Coverage. Combined square footage of all primary and accessory
structures and impervious surfaces shall not exceed 80 percent of the lot
area, unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board.
Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect on the earliest date provided by law.
Passed this ~ ~h day of Q CAD ~ e , 2003.
Mayor -Presiding Officer
Attest:
Clerk of Council
Sponsor: Division of Planning
I hereby certify that copies of this
Ordinance/Resolution were posted in the
City of Dublin in accordance with Section
731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code.
'
ty Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio
Department of Development
Division of Planning
5800 Shier-Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016
cl~ of nue~iN Phone: 614-410-4600 -Fax: 614-761-6566
Memo
TO: Members of Dublin City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
DATE: October 2, 2003
RE: Second Reading
Ordinance 53-03 (Case No. 01-113ADM -Historic District Code Amendment)
INITIATED BY: Gary P. Gunderman, Assistant Plannir~ctor
SUMMARY:
In May 2003, a series of five ordinances relating to the Historic District were presented to
City Council. Council formally adopted the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines on July 7,
2003, and this ordinance (Ordinance 53-03) will complete the second phase, establishing
the Historic Residential District (HR) and the Historic Business District (HB) within the
Dublin Zoning Code. Residential and business property owners have been confronted by
the need for multiple variances to undertake projects consistent with historic development
in Old Dublin. None of Dublin's zoning districts reflect "historic" building patterns.
This ordinance encompasses a significant public input process that began over two years
ago. Numerous informational meetings and presentations to impacted groups have been
undertaken for substantial input. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed and
approved the proposed ordinance on June 25, 2003, making a positive recommendation to
the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission also made
a positive recommendation for the proposed ordinance on August 28, 2003, with limited _
discussion. Most questions raised during discussions have focused on the potential
boundaries for the Architectural Review District, which is not part of this ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has been working diligently with homeowners, commercial property owners, and
tenants to develop standards that will create a more conducive climate to maintain and
improve properties within the Historic District. Staff strongly believes that the proposed
ordinance will establish base standards that will improve these efforts. Once Ordinance
53-03 goes into effect, staff will immediately move forward with the rezoning of
properties within the Historic District (Ordinances 54-03 and 55-03). Based upon the
significant public input and the positive recommendations from both the Architectural
Review Board and Planning and Zoning Commission, staff recommends adoption of this
ordinance as presented.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
..CITY OE DUBLIN AUGUST 28, 2003
x,D!ivision of Planning
10 Shier-Rings Road
[ ,Ohio 43016-1236
Phc°i~> : D D:614-410-4600
Fax: 614-761-6566
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
2. Administrative Code Amendment 01-113ADM -Historic District Code
Amendments
Request: Review and recommendation of a Code amendment to create the
Historic Residential District and the Historic Business District.
Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald
Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Carson C. Combs, AICP, Senior Planner.
MOTION: To approve this Historic District Code Amendment because the standards are
more compatible with the Historic Dublin development patterns, provide better
consistency with adopted design guidelines for the Architectural Review District, and
enhance the ARB's administration and the public review process, with a request that the
Thomas McDowell letter be included in the Council or ARB packet.
VOTE: 6-0.
RESULT: This Historic District Code Amendment will be forwarded to City Council
- with a positive recommendation.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
~tJO~Af f T!D 10 COUNCIL
/p ~ !OR MEEK ON lv Q
µ
THOMAS A. McDOWELL
August 26`h, 2003
Re: Administrative Code
Amendment 01-113 ADM
(Historic District Code
Amendments)
Members of the Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
5800 Shier-Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236
Dear Commission Members:
Thank you for individually notifying me of your August 28`h meeting and I also
appreciate the time Carson Combs spent with me explaining the background to this Amendment,
as well as other related Historic District amendments.
The purpose of this letter is to request that you consider revising the proposed boundaries
of the Historic Residential District (HR) by letting the southern boundary of the HR District
follow the centerline of Cosgray Ditch, rather than extending it south to the property line
separating my property from that of the Karrer Place subdivision.
Historically, the north-south boundaries of the old Village of Dublin followed the
"natural" boundaries of Indian Run and Cosgray Ditch (Attachment 1), and this has also been the
codified boundary of the Architectural Review District (ARD) for many years (Ref: Section
153.170 of Dublin Zoning Code).
I understand that administratively it would be more efficient to have the HR District
boundaries correspond to property boundaries (Attachment 2), but this hardly justifies changing a
long-standing historical and legal precedent.
Thusly, request that the southern boundary of the HR District that falls on my property be
re-drawn so that it continues to follow the centerline of Cosgray Ditch, as it has since the ARD
was first created.
Respectfully,
Attachments: Existing ARD Boundaries Thomas A. McDowell
Proposed ARD/HR Boundaries 5742 Dublin Road
Dublin, Ohio 43017-1510
(614)889-8833
cc: Carson Combs, AICP, Senior Planner
Zoning Regulations 345
APPENDIX F: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
~
hdlen R
v
t
~ -
~
'
e~~~~ `
+ ~0
~ O P' t
~ b 1
me O ~ r
Q
eet
e ~ y J
p Q ~ ~ t~ e / R-'~
I ~ a ~ o a °
N
Ou III
C me ry d
o
Q
O
d ~ Q~
~
0
J
c~'9t~
o
a
('80 Code, Appendix F)
NORTH
Nol//to Scale
PROPOSED HISTORIC DISTRICT REZONING
I
~ ~
~ ~ ~ I
i ~ \
_
~
4
e. ~ ~ ~
i t=f--
` .
f_
- ` ~idg Street -
W. Bridge Street ~ - - _
;
i~
- ~3~- -
~i'~
~ ~ I ,fir , _ -
\ I
1 ~ ~Q ~
1 ` ~ ~ - l l,~U
----~__~--`~____~~J l r l ~ l ~ \ ~
~
N ~ It0 - _
A ~v
HB- Historic Business District
0 300 600 Feet
~ HR- Historic Residential District
~{~i.~ch~P~v 2
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 11
2. Administrative Code Amendment 01-113ADM -Historic District Code Amendments
Request: Review and recommendation of a Code amendment to create the Historic
Residential District and the Historic Business District.
Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway,
Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Carson C. Combs, AICP, Senior Planner.
BACKGROUND:
This is a request for the review and positive recommendation of revised zoning standards for
properties located within the Architectural Review District [Ordinance #53-03 (Amended)]. This
ordinance is part of staff efforts that have been ongoing since 1997. The zoning classifications
are proposed to create historically appropriate base zoning standards that will enhance the
administration of the Architectural Review Board process, and the following report addresses the
proposed ordinance in sequence. Once these districts have been adopted, land in Historic Dublin
is .expected to be rezoned (Ordinances #54-03 and #55-03) into the proposed districts as the next
step in revising all Code standards for Historic Dublin. The map included on the following page
indicates the proposed district boundaries.
Staff has conducted and attended various public meetings with stakeholders in the Historic
District over the past two years, generally receiving positive feedback. A final public
informational meeting was held on July 23, 2003 to gain additional input from residents and
business owners. Input regarding the proposed ordinance has been generally well received. The
Architectural Review Board reviewed the proposed ordinance on June 25, 2003, and
recommended adoption with one modification (See Board Order #01-113). Two- to four-family
dwellings were eliminated as conditional uses within the HR, Historic Residential- District.
Following a recommendation from the Commission, the ordinance will be forwarded to City
Council for a public hearing.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Reasons for Creating the HR, Historic Residential District:
• The proposed zoning district will clearly indicate a property's inclusion within the
Architectural Review District and the special architectural and design requirements that
sustain historic character. All current zoning districts reflect suburban character, while
the proposed standards will be consistent with the historic development patterns.
Permitted and Conditional Uses for the HR District:
Current R-4 zoning permits two to eight-family dwellings. The proposed Code will permit
only single-family dwellings. No other residential uses will be considered for conditional
use.
The existing Code permits religious uses within residential districts. Due to the possible
off-site impacts of churches and the small size of historic sites, religious uses will be
permitted in the HB, Historic Business District, not within the HR District.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 12
Childcare and wireless communication towers are not appropriate to residential portions of
the Historic District and have been eliminated as conditional uses from this zone. All other
uses remain the same as the current zoning classifications.
PROPOSED HISTORIC DISTRICT REZONING
Planning Commission Draft- Rugust 28, 2003
.r^1-=
~ ~ * ~
sxtvY it-~ 9~t~k~~
-sue c
w
.,;~<.y ..s ~ .r
u:
Y~
Y'%
J iyi
~ j ..4.
r ~1
~
N
HB-Historic Business Distract
0 300 600 Feet
HR-Historic Residential Distra
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 13
Development Standards for the HR District:
• Most residential lots in Historic Dublin are currently required to have a minimum lot size
of either 8,500 or 10,000 square feet (R-4 District). A limited number of properties aze
zoned R-2, requiring a minimum azea of 20,000 squaze feet. In order to combine all
properties into one residential zoning classification, a minimum lot azea of 0.20-acre
(8,712 square feet) is proposed to better reflect existing pazcel sizes. The intent is to
provide for a minimum that will retain the existing residential character and limit non-
conformities.
• General procedures for lot splits require a minimum frontage of 60 feet on a public right-
of-way. The proposed frontage minimum matches this standard.
• Minimum front setbacks have been specified according to the individual street and range
from zero (0) feet to 25 feet. Depending upon period of construction and geographical
constraints, very different development patterns occur within the Historic District. Staff
has utilized aerial photography to study individual streets to arrive at appropriate setbacks
that retain the existing pattern and limit non-conformity.
• Many residential structures are currently non-conforming with regazd to minimum side
yards. The proposed Code would create a minimum side yazd of three feet for most
properties, with the minimum side yazd along major streets of four feet. This is intended
to provide for greater consistency with residential Building Code standards. Current
Code requirements denote minimums of five and eight feet, which are generally not
possible under existing conditions.
• Minimum rear yazd requirements for homes in Historic Dublin are currently 20 percent of
the total lot depth. Most existing outbuildings, however, cannot meet this standazd.
Many structures are located neaz, on, or even across property lines. Adopting a standazd
of fifteen (15) feet will accommodate parking for sites with reaz gazages and alley access.
The proposed reaz yard setback for Franklin Street, however, is 25 feet,. which is more
reflective of the post-waz development pattern unique to that street. Elimination of
percentage requirements will improve administration and provide better equity between
properties.
• The Zoning Code currently limits the height of residential structures to 35 feet. Taller
structures must currently be accepted by the Fire Chief and be approved by the Planning
and Zoning Commission. The proposed ordinance would utilize the Architectural
Review Boazd instead of the Planning and Zoning Commission for this review. The
Architectural Review Board is specifically charge with addressing architectural issues
such as size and scale for structures within the Historic District. Review by the Fire
Department will remain.
• The current Zoning Code requirement for lot coverage (including all impervious
surfaces) on residential properties in Historic Dublin is 45 percent. Development
according to historic patterns and the smaller residential parcels found in the district
necessitate more flexibility. A 50 percent maximum lot coverage is a more reasonable
standard. Additionally, the Architectural Review Board is empowered to approve higher
coverage is there is good site planning, design, and architecture consistent with the intent
of the adopted design guidelines.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 14
Reasons for Creating the HB, Historic Business District:
The proposed ordinance will create standards more consistent with historic development
patterns. Current zoning designations on commercial properties are numerous and create
confusion as to which standards apply. [PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Town
Center I and Town Center II plans); SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District; CCC,
Central Community Commercial District; CB, Central Business District; and R-2,
Limited Suburban Residential District].
• The proposed zoning district will indicate a property's inclusion within the Architectural
Review District and is intended to facilitate mixed-use development and to broaden
permitted uses that are compatible within Historic Dublin.
Permitted and Conditional Uses for the HB District:
Religious uses and daycare facilities have been excluded from the HR District and are
added within the HB classification due to lot sizes and potential off-site impacts.
Small-scale bed-and-breakfasts (eight units or less) are permitted due to their
compatibility in a historic district. Larger bed-and-breakfasts and other lodging facilities
have been provided as a conditional use also due to greater off-site impacts. Other
potential uses that generate large amounts of traffic or have high turnover rates have also
been included within the conditional use category, such as recreation centers, banquet
halls, stand-alone parking lots, and outdoor markets.
• Appropriate residential uses are being encouraged to provide for a mix of uses and
increased pedestrian activity. There has been substantial public support for allowing
residential uses within the proposed HB District. Staff has modified the proposed
ordinance since the ARB review, and it now permits one- through four-family dwelling
units as a permitted use.
• Ordinance #68-99 (Amended) regarding Outdoor Services and Auto-Oriented Facilities
will not apply to the Historic District. Proposed modifications to the HB District include
the utilization of outdoor patios for pedestrians as permitted uses and conditional use
status for stand-alone parking lots and open-air markets due to the visual character and/or
off-site impacts of such uses.
Development Standards for the HB District:
The proposed ordinance attempts to find an appropriate maximum permitted lot area of
0.5-acre to maintain historic scale. The primary future issue facing the Historic District is
the ability to limit the potential size and scale of retail uses ("big box" or strip retail
development), while limiting non-conformities.
General procedures for the administrative approval of lot splits require a minimum public
street frontage of 60 feet. The proposed minimum frontage matches this standard.
• A significant component of commercial structures within the District have been
developed with a minimum front setback of zero (0) feet along both High Street and
Bridge Street. The proposed front setback standard of zero (0) feet will provide
maximum design flexibility. The review power of the Architectural Review Board can
evaluate the specific placement of buildings according to the Guidelines and the design
merits of each development proposal.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 15
Historic Dublin has a diverse mix of commercial building types. In order to provide for
flexibility, permit some continuous storefronts, but provide for some separation, the
minimum permitted side yard is zero, with a total combined side yard of five feet. A
substantial number of businesses are located on or over existing property lines. Any
proposed development must meet any applicable Building Code provisions for fire safety.
A minimum rear yard of five feet is required. However, all side and rear yards for
parking with direct access to the alley will be permitted a zero setback to accommodate
the design ofpull-in parking for smaller sites.
The Zoning Code currently has no limit on the height of commercial structures. Due to
the proximity of buildings and the scale of the Historic District, staff proposes that the
Fire Department and the Architectural Review Board approve all structures greater than
35 feet in height, repeating the standard for properties in the HR District.
Maximum permitted lot coverage (all impervious surfaces) for commercial properties
within Historic Dublin is generally 80 percent. Staff recommends that the ARB have the
ability to approve any proposed development exceeding the lot coverage standard when
good site planning, design and architecture consistent with the intent of the Guidelines
and Zoning Code are used.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has been working on a Code with a variety of stakeholders and interested parties for several
years. The proposed Code amendments will protect the existing character of Historic Dublin,
while providing flexibility and reducing hurdles that hinder the maintenance and improvement of
properties within the District. Staff believes that the Historic Residential District and Historic
Business District will substantially improve awareness of the Architectural Review District, as
well as provide standards that are far more appropriate for historic properties and traditional
development patterns. Staff requests a positive recommendation on the proposed ordinance.
Bases:
1) The proposed standards will permit development more compatible with the overall
development patterns found in Historic Dublin, providing better consistency with adopted
design guidelines for the Architectural Review District.
2) The proposal provides a more appropriate set of standards for the Architectural Review
District that will enhance administration and improve the public review process.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 28, 2003
Page 2 ~ ~A~T
2. Administrative Code Amendment 01-113ADM -Historic District Code Amendments
Carson Combs said these are standards that replicate the patterns in Old Dublin. He showed
several maps. The current zoning in Historic Dublin is expected to change to one of the two new
districts. Most buildings and structures closely approximate the standazds now.
Mr. Combs said the residential azeas are currently either zoned R-2 or R-4. The multi-family
component is being eliminated from the proposed Historic Residential District. The current side
and rear yard standards are suburban in nature. Many historic buildings aze on or near the
property lines. The side yards will reflect the minimum for good administration of the Building
Code, and there is some flexibility for buffering and layout. A minimum required reaz yard of 15
feet is proposed. This standard allows for new detached garages, but it will still allow cars to be
parked off the alley without causing a safety or setback problem.
He said the minimum R-4 lot is as little as 8,500 square feet, and the R-2 District can require
20,000 square feet. The staff measured properties in the entire district and determined that 0.2
acre includes almost all parcels and will preserve the existing pattern. Some pazcels may be non-
conforming as to site, but development will still be permitted. He said the existing Code requires
reaz yards to be 20 percent of lot depth, and the existing conditions vary widely. It is being
changed to an absolute number, 15 or 25 feet. Residential lot coverage is currently 45 percent
maximum, and this is being raised to 50 percent for more flexibility.
He said the review power for building height is being switched from the Planning Commission to
the Architectural Review Board. The Code maximum height is 35 feet. Because the ARB
reviews all the azchitectural aspects, the building height is being included for its review.
Mr. Combs said the Historic Business District sets standazds that really match the patterns of
development in place. It facilitates a better mix of uses throughout the district and makes the
review process easier. He noted that one resident wanted to keep her residential zoning, even
though the area is commercial at 63 South High Street.
Religious and daycare uses have been shifted into the Historic Business District due to their
impacts in the confined area of the Historic Dublin. Wireless communication was removed due
to incompatibility. Residential uses were added within the Business District to create a broader
mix of uses and to facilitate pedestrian activities.
Mr. Combs said a maximum lot size of 0.5 acre is proposed for the Historic Business District.
Some retail uses are just too large for the old district. They want to assure that commercial
development is at an appropriate scale. Big box and strip retail are not appropriate in scale. For
consistency, a zero front setback is proposed. He said one goal is to severely limit the number of
non-conformities being created by these new standards.
Mr. Messineo asked how the zero front setback affected sidewalks. Mr. Combs said in general,
more or less the right-of--way is behind the backside of the sidewalk.
Mr. Gerber asked if this followed the Community Plan. Mr. Combs said yes. The Community
Plan emphasizes pedestrian activity, and these follow the area plan.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission ~
Minutes -August 28, 2003
Page 3
Mr. Combs said the feedback stressed that the established residential character is single-family,
not multi-family. This Code process for Old Dublin was started in 1997, and there has been
input from the Historic Dublin Association, ARB, business owners, and residents. He noted the
letters, from Roger Headlee and Vito Checchio, requesting their residential properties be placed
in the Historic Business District. He said the goal here is to adopt new districts, then to establish
zoning based on existing development. Changing properties to commercial would need a
separate process. Mr. Gerber noted the property owner could make that application at any time.
Mr. Combs noted the Thomas McDowell parcel at the south end of the district. The current
boundary for the Architectural Review District follows natural features and metes and bounds
lines. The south ARB boundary is the baseline of the creekbed in the middle of the McDowell
site. Mr. Combs said this proposal would convert to a parcel-based description because parcel
numbers are very easily tracked, and the old description requires some interpretation. He said
Mr. McDowell did not think his whole parcel (undeveloped) should be placed within the
Architectural Review District. He noted the actual boundaries are not addressed in this
ordinance. Staff understands this concern. As part of a future administrative case, it will be up
to the Commission and City Council to decide. Mr. Gerber said they appreciated that.
Jane Jacoby, owner of owned the building at Eberly Hill and Dublin Road, wanted to know if
these changes deal with new construction and/or what is already established. Mr. Combs
responded that, if adopted, they will cover new development and any alterations. Anew addition
will need to comply with the new standards. These standards should require fewer variances.
Mr. Messineo if modifications could be made without meeting the new requirements. Mr.
Combs said generally for anon-conforming building with respect to a side yard, etc., the addition
(but not the original building) would need to comply. These standards would not affect re-
roofing or any other maintenance. However, anon-conforming use cannot be expanded.
Tom McDowell said Mr. Combs had spent a lot of time with him and had been very helpful. He
asked for direction as to what to do next if this administrative code is passed tonight.
Mr. Gerber said the Commission is to make a recommendation to City Council who will act on
it. He said that the Council public hearing will be published.
Mr. Combs said the Historic Residential District is not the same as the Architectural Review
District. He said the Historic Residential District governs the development standards. The ARB,
however, would have purview over any exterior architectural or site modifications.
Mr. Gerber did not think Mr. McDowell wanted those to match. Mr. Combs agreed and said this
issue will arise again when the administrative case to rezone properties is considered. Mr.
Gerber said it was within the Commission's realm to make a recommendation to City Council
that they look at this issue. Mr. Zimmerman agreed.
Clay Bryan asked about changing from a residential to a commercial district in the future. He
also asked if requests to do so had been made, and what was the procedure to do so.
Mr. Gerber said it would be like any other rezoning application. It would be publicized and
adjacent property owners would be notified to participate in the hearing process.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 28, 2003
Page 4
Carl Karrer, owner of the Karrer barn at the south end, said the few R-2s in the Historic District
were generally single-family residences with wider frontage. He said that constraint went away
immediately. He wondered if those adjacent to R-2 parcels had been involved in this process,
which could create smaller lots. He thought the business district would allow townhouse-style
multi-family, similar to early Dublin hotels. He asked if there was still an option for those with
R-2 now to keep things as they are.
Mr. Combs said the task was to look at the district and to come up with consolidated zoning
classifications if possible. These try to balance flexibility with protection of property character,
etc. He said the R-2 is located on the west and southern sides of the district. Most properties on
Franklin, South Riverview, and North Riverview Street are R-4. He said that currently, R-4 also
permits two- to eight-family dwelling units. The proposed Code compromises the R-2 and R-4
standards into the proposed HR District. The major change has been to eliminate the two- to
eight-family dwellings, taking out the religious and childcare uses placing them within the
Business District, and to eliminate wireless communications.
Mr. Messineo asked if two- to four-dwelling units will be conditional uses; these did not seem
offensive. Mr. Combs said there was a lot of feedback at a number of meetings, and it really
stressed single-family. The ARB agreed. For that reason, these are conditional uses in the HB,
Historic Business District. Abed and breakfast would be permitted in the Business District for
up to eight guests. If it is larger, it will require a conditional use.
Mr. Combs clarified that tonight's case is about putting new standards into the Zoning Code.
This is not the rezoning process. There will be additional ordinances for this to set the
Architectural Review District boundaries and to redo the design standards.
Tom Holton, ARB and Historical Society member, commented that the residents made the point
that the density and amount of concrete, etc. associated with multi-family dwellings is
inconsistent with the character of the Historic District. Adopting these standards would be more
in character with maintaining the Historic District. Multi-family is in the Commercial District .
Mr. Combs said there are a few duplexes along South Riverview and perhaps along Franklin.
Brian Jones, a South Riverview resident, said the size limits will prohibit him from adding a
garage and living space and making it a carriage house. He said a carriage house is a good
support use in the Historic District.
Ms. Clarke said the whole purpose of this particular administrative hearing is to add two districts
to the Code. The HR and HB were drafted to be more compatible with the development pattern
in place in the Historic District. The Dublin Zoning Code has only "suburban" standards and
does not work for the Historic District. It requires a minimum 30-foot setback, which is totally
inconsistent with High Street or Riverview Street. She said an R-2 lot has 20,000 square feet,
but that is not how Old Dublin developed. These two chapters have standards that replicate what
was built in the Historic District. Dublin's historic area is smaller and less commercial than
many other communities, and those other zoning codes did not seem to match Old Dublin. She
said Dublin's present code states a goal of removing non-conforming uses over time. That is in
direct conflict with what everyone really wants to happen in Old Dublin. Historic structures
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission ~
Minutes -August 28, 2003
Page 5
should be able to stay forever and new development allowed in the area. She said Mr. Combs
had done a good job of both incorporating citizens' comments and encapsulating those standards.
Mr. Combs said a lot was defined as a parcel. Several recent developments are over half an
acre-the library and 94 North High Street, for instance, and are more contemporary.
Mr. Ritchie asked if he wanted to develop four parcels (two acres), were they considered four
lots or one. Ms. Clarke said that was four half-acre lots. A development can only be a half-acre.
[Question from the audience] Can a variance be requested, if it is rezoned? Ms. Clarke said
those processes were always available. Usually, a lot size variance does not go to BZA, but that
would have to be considered. Generally, people want smaller, not bigger lots than the Code
permits. She said Mr. Banchefsky should think about that.
Mr. Messineo asked administratively, what problems arise from splitting this Residential District
along the centerline of Cosgray Ditch at the McDowell property. Mr. Combs said no boundaries
are being determined tonight. It would, however, create a little difficulty administratively.
Mr. Gerber reiterated that the Commission needs to make a recommendation to City Council on
the two districts.
Ms. Clarke said City Council may never change the zoning. However, staff thinks that is the
right thing to do and will sponsor a rezoning application for that purpose. These are separate
assignments. She wants to be honest about having rezoning proposal in the works. The first step
in the .process is to establish the new zoning districts.
Mr. Zimmerman made a motion for approval because the standards are more compatible with the
Historic Dublin development patterns, provide better consistency with adopted design guidelines
for the Architectural Review District, and enhance the ARB's administration and the public
review process, with a request that the Thomas McDowell letter be included in the Council or
ARB packet. Mr. Messineo seconded the motion. Ms. Boring asked why the boundaries were
not being established. Ms. Clarke said no properties were being rezoned by this action, it only
adds two districts to the Zoning Code. No boundary lines are being set by this.
The vote for approval was as follows: Mr. Ritchie, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr.
Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; and Mr. Zimmerman, yes. (Approved 6-0.) Mr. Gerber
thanked everyone for giving input. Mr. Ritchie said Mr. Combs had done a good job.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
JULY 31; 2003
Division of Planning
*'~00 Shier-Rings Road
0 ,,Ohio 43016-1236
Phdher ADO: 614-410-4600
fax: 614-761-b566
Web Site: www.duhlia.oh.as
The Planning and Zoning Commission took no action on the following case at this meeting:
5. Administrative Code Amendment 01-113ADM - Historic District Code
Amendments
Request: Review and recommendation of a Code amendment to create the Historic
Residential District and the Historic Business District.
Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald
Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Carson C. Combs, AICP, Senior Planner.
RESULT: This case was postponed. There was no discussion or vote taken.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
. - ,
Barbara. M. Clarke
Planning Director
01-113ADM
Historic District Code Amendment
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -July 31, 2003
Page 6
Mr. Gerber said the Planning Director will make the first call as to whether a modification is
minor or not. Then it will be brought to the Commission for approval.
Mr. Messineo said if the vote was 3-4, there is the question whether the change was "minor."
Mr. Zimmerman said the original rezoning texts are approved without asuper-majority vote. He
did not think this needed to be different. _
" Mr. Messineo restated his position that a minor modification should be so obvious that it would
have no problem getting asuper-majority vote. If there is a problem, it is probably not "minor."
Cynthia Reed, a resident, was concerned that the Planning staff would be empowered to make a
decision on density changes without notifying the residents.
Mr. Gerber said there would be a public meeting, and all affected residents would be notified of
minor modification cases. Mr. Banchefsky and Ms. Clarke agreed.
Mr. Gerber preferred Definition #1, and a majority vote being required. Mr. Ritchie and Mr.
Zimmerman agreed. Mr. Messineo said to try it and see how it worked.
Mr. Ritchie made a motion to make a recommendation to City Council to adopt Ordinance 76-
03, defining a minor plan modification, as submitted, because it confirms to the direction given
on this issue. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Messineo, yes;
Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; and Mr. Ritchie, yes. (Approved 4-0.)
Mr. Gerber assured Ms. Reed that minor modifications will come before the Commission for
approval, and like any other case, the adjacent property owners will .be notified of the hearing.
' S. Administrative Code Amendment 01-113ADM -Historic District Code Amendments
This case was postponed prior to the meeting because Senior Planner Carson Combs is central to
this discussion. He was unable to attend. There was no discussion or vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
R'/espectfully' s/ubmitted,
Libb Farle ~
Y Y
Administrative Secretary
Planning Division
O1-113ADM
Historic District Code Amendment
RECO(~D OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of._._.__ - Dublin_City_CounciL Mee~ng_
onriorv iccra einu,c. u+c . ronM rro wi ~e -
Ij May 19, 2003 Page 4 ~
Held 20 j~
is
Ordinance 53-03 i~i
Amending Portions of the Zoning Code to Establish the Historic Business (HB) it
District and the Historic Residential (HR) District (Case No. 01-113ADM -Historic
District Code Amendment)
Ordinance 54-03 - i!
Rezoning Approximately 83 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 72.7 ~i
- Acres in Historic Dublin and Vicinity, To: HR, Historic Residential District (Case No.
01-1142 -Historic Development District Rezoning I).
Ordinance 55-03 ;
Rezoning Approximately 74 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 28.11 ~I
Acres in Historic Dublin and Vicinity, From: CCC, Central Community Commercial
District and CB, Central Business District, To: HB, Historic Business District (Case ij
No. 01-1142- Historic Development District Rezoning II).
Ordinance 56-03 ~
it Amending Portions of the Zoning Code to Establish the "Architectural Review
District" and to Re-Organize the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Repealing j
Sections 153.170 through 153.187 (Case No.03-049AOM -Architectural Review j
I District and Architectural Review Board Procedures).
Ordinance 57-03
i Adopting the Old Dublin Design Guidelines (Case No. 00-118ADM).
Mr. Kranstuber moved to introduce Ordinances 53-03 through 57-03 and to refer them to
the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner,.yes; Ms.
Salay, yes; MayorMcCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes.
Ms. Salay asked for an estimated hearing date at P&Z.
Ms. Clarke responded that the HB and HR districts must first be established before any
properties can be rezoned to those districts. The architectural guidelines have been in
use for about five years, and this formally adopts the guidelines. The reorganization of the
ARB would then follow, and finally the rezoning of the parcels identified. She expects the
process to begin in June and continue through Labor Day.
Mayor Kranstuber asked that the titles of Ordinances 58-03 and 59-03 be read together,
as they both relate to the appearance code.
Ordinance 58-03
Amending Ordinance 123-97, by Adopting Modifications to the City of Dublin
Community Plan to Incorporate Findings, Policies, Issues and Strategies Relating
to Community Character and Residential Neighborhood Development. (Case No. 03-
050ADM -Community Plan modifications)
Ordinance 59-03
Amending Portions of the Zoning Code by Amending Section 153.133 (Minimum
Landscape Requirements), Section 153.134 (Street Tree and Public Tree
Requirements), and Adopting Section 153.190, Residential Appearance Standards.
(Case No. 03-014 ADM -Landscape Code Amendment and Adopting Residential
Appearance Standards)
Mr. Kranstuber introduced Ordinances 58-03 and 59-03.
Ms. Brautigam noted that at the last study session, the recommendations of the
Appearance Code Committee were presented in part. Tonight's presentation includes the
remainder of the recommendations.
Mr. Harvey presented the recommendations to Council.
Vinyl Siding
The first recommendation relates to vinyl siding and the question of the proper thickness
of the material. (He showed slides of the various examples of installation of vinyl siding in
communities around the Greater Columbus area.) The Vinyl Institute recommends the 4F1
mills as a desirable standard. Some of the upper-end housing developers use 50 mills.
The durability of 44 and 50 mills is expected to be 40 years. The cost differences
between 44 to 50 mills is not substantial -fora 2,500 square foot home of 44 mills, the
material cost is $3,600. At 40 mills, the savings is $900. Taking it from 44 to 50 mills
brings an increase of $1,100. The Village of Highland Lakes houses shown in the slides
use 50 mills, and the same developer building now at the Reserve at Ballantrae uses 50
mills: The restricted covenants for the original part of Ballantrae require 44 mills as a
minimum. He added that proper installation is required to prevent warping and
01-113ADM
Historic District Code Amendment
ARCHITECTURAL RCVIEW BOARD
BOARD ORDER
June 25, 2003
..Gil'l' (IF D1iRL1N
Division of Plaaaiag
5800 Shier-Rings Road
• Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236
Phone/iD0:614-410-4600
Fax:614-761-6566
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.uz
The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting:
3. Administrative Code Amendment 01-113ADM - Historic District Code
Amendments
Request: Review and recommendation of a Code amendment to create the Historic
Residential District and the Historic Business District.
Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway,
Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Carson C. Combs, AICP, Senior Planner.
MOTION: That a positive recommendation for this Ordinance be forwarded to the Planning
and Zoning Commission, and that conditional uses for two to four-family dwellings be
eliminated from the Historic Residential (HR) District.
VOTE: 5 - 0.
RESULT: A positive recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
RECORDED VOTES:
Janet Axene Yes
Allan Staub Yes
Richard Taylor Yes
David Larson Yes
Thomas Holton Yes
STAFF' CERTIFICATION
. -
Carson C. Combs, AICP
Senior Planner
01-113ADM
Historic District Code Amendment