The URL can be used to link to this page

68-05 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank. Inc. Ordinance No. 68-OS Passed 20 AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 0.4474 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH HIGH STREET AT THE INTERSECTION OF JOHN WRIGHT LANE, FROM CB, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, TO HB, HISTORIC BUSINESS DISTRICT (REZONING - STEELE OFFICE BUILDING - 138 SOUTH HIGH STREET -CASE NO. OS-138Z). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, ~ of the elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit "A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned HB, Historic Business District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Exhibit "C", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this ~_ day of U ~'~n~~ , 2005. Mayor -Presiding Officer Attest: Clerk of Council Sponsor: Land Use and Long Range 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. Duty Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio R-2 ~ '~ R-2 05-1382 N City of Dublin n Land Use and Rezoning /, Steele Office Building ,~`~ Long Range Planning 138 South High Street o 250 500eet t;l t'~:' OF Dl'R[,IN_ EXHIBIT "B" REZONING APPLICATION (Code Section 153.234) TO EXPIRE ORDINANCE NUMBER ~' ° to~R~ CITY COUNCIL (FIRST READING) . (r- 7 - os~ 5800 Shier-Rings Road DubFn.OhSoaJOlbi2~6 CITY COUNCIL (PUBLIC HEARING) ,_ Pha~eliCO:6ia-a16-ab0o CITY COUNCIL ACTION _ Fax: 61 a-ar o-a1<~ wvb Site: www.dublin.oh.~s NOTE: Applicants are highly encouraged to contact Land Use and Long Range Planning for assistance and to discuss the Rezoning process prior to submitting a formal application. r'OR OFFICE USE ONLY: P3Z Dates : P&Z Action: '., .amount f2eceivedr t (y Applico~ o;'~P~ ( ) 1 ~.1 (` D Receipt No: ~ MIS Fee.(`!q: ~ ~ D Receive¢'~ ~~~ Received By: Type of Requesi: t n _ ~{-, o ~ `~,,~~1 tr, ~ ,~, ~ N. S, ~'Fd (Circle) Side of: ~(~h ~ ~~ ~~ 1 ~' Dist<;nce from Nearest Intersection: FEET. N, S, E, i Nearest tntersec>;an: AND PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: __ °D Preliminary Development Ptan (S~7ectrio~n~153.053) -~ Other ;Please Describe) ____ ~t.~~i ~_1_!~ ~_ BILE COPY RECEIVED ~5~; 4 AUG 2 900 PRC7PtK 1 T ttVtVKMH I wiv: i rns secuun uiva~ uc w~nN~~.~..~ Property Address: Tax IDlParcel Number(s): al3 - coo ~ ~ CITY OF DUBLIN LAND USE & LONG RANGE !'CANNING Parcel Size: (Acres) Q y ~ y 1 Existing land Use Development: ~~~~~~ ~~S 4n A S~• ~ ic>~-~~' ~ ©~,~ JL~ Proposed Land Use Development: (.Z~S l ,(~ Q S - © ~ ,~ b1 ~S rui~t.,i. f~ ` ~~JJ Existing Zoning District: ~ ~ Requested Zoning DisU Total Acres to be Rezoned: Alit SVBMR'Rf~11'iQ Cam. ~~~~ 205' rl-7._ f!S ~...»l011 MELRlW3 ~1...............~ W (Circle) from Nearest Intersection rayc ~ v... REZONING STATEMENT: Please attach additional sheets if State briefly how fhe proposed zoning and development relates to the existin~g~an~d(~potential future land use character of tt?e vicinity ~~' ~ t ~ Ctvvtic~ IM-~.. ~L-J~d~ II ~~ State brietiy how tha proposed zoning and development relates to the Dublin Communih/ Plan and, if applicable, how the proposed rezoning meets th° criteria for Planned Districts [Section t53.052(B1): ~~ ~~ ~~~ HAS A PREVIOUS APPLICATION TO REZONE THE PROPERTY BEEid DENIED BY CITY COUNCIL LVITHIN THE LA5~ PrVELVE ivtONTF~S? ./~S ~O if qes. !"sst ..hen and state the basis for reconsideration as noted by Section 153.234(A;(3}: RECEIVED AUG~ 9 200 ~ ~~~ CITY OF DUB11N LAND USE 8r LONG RANGE PLANNING., iF A PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED, IS A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ATTACHED? IF A PtJL'VNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED, IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT ATTACHED? • f ~ r YES ~_ NO ~~ r. YES ^ NO Page 2 of 5 IV. r; C ,i PLEASE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FOR INITIAL STAFF REVIEW: Please submit large (24x36-and small (1 ~ x17) sets of plans. Staff may tater request plans that incorporate review comments. Fourteen (14} additional copies of revised submittals are required for the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. ___ --_-_ ------_---- ----------- T'JYO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS AND THIRTEEN (13) COPIES Please notarize agent authorization, if necessary. FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY rOURTEEN (14) TAX. PARCEL ID MAPS indicating property owners and parcel numbers for a(I parcels within 500 feet cf the site. TEN (SO) SCALED, SITE/STAKING PLANS SHOWING: a_ S•lorth arrow and bar scale. 7 Location, size and dimensions of ail existing and proposed conditions and structures I;significant natural features, landscaping, structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking). ~. ?roposed Uses (Regional transportation sysfem, densities, number of dwealings. building/unit types, square footages. parking, open space, etc.). ,,. Size of the site in aces/square feet. ~. All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights-of-way, easements, e,nd other information related to the site. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries. . Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties. - j IF A+?f'LtCABLE, TEN (10) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING SCALED PLANS: .. Grading Plan. Landscaping Pian. 1_ighting Pian. .. Utility ardior Stormwater Plan. Tree Survey, Tree Preserlation and Tree Replacement Plans. tF APPLECABLE, TEN (10) COPIES OF SCALED, ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS with proposed colors and materials noted. ;~ _ iF APPLICABLE, FOUR (4) COPIES OF SCALED DRAWINGS INDICATING: a Location of signs and sign type {wall, ground. projecting, or •,vindow). ,i '~ ._ Sign aimensions, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grsd^. _ ~~opy Payout and tattering styles (fonts) of signage. ~' "aaterials and manufactursr to be used in fabrication. ~~ _. Tatal area of sign fare (including frame}. i T;~pe of illumination. ?AATERtALtCOLOR SAMPLES (swatches, photos, plans, or product speclficalions}_ Include mar7ufacturer name and number- ~~ V. CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS Please attach _rdd,tic,nal sheets if n~c..ssa _____ __.. _ ,_,. _~_.-_ _ ____ ~ '_ rY , { s r,e policy of the City of Dublin to notify surrounding „rcperty owners of pending applrcatrons under public rn nesv ~ ist all n..ighboring properti i ;~~xrer3 vtihin 300 feet of the perimeter of the property based on the County Auditor's current tax hst. Electronic r..opies of lists are encouraged. PROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATEIZIP CODE inoC L.tortgage Company or tax Service) Ii I C~ ~ ~~ ~~ ^ f~~~~ ~~!~ RECEIVED AU{G~2 ~ ~~ 0 CITY~F DU N LAND USE & LONG RANGE PLANNING Page 3 of 5 VI. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City representatives are essential to process this applie;ation The QttinerlApplicant, as notarized below, hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this appsicatian. Vll. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The City of Dublin •rnll ~~~ake awry effort to provide essential sen.~ices to the prnperryas needed. However, the rapid growth ~~f the City of Dubin and surrounding vicinities has stretched the City's capacity to provide these services to the limit. As such, the Ciry of Dublin maybe unable to make all or part of said facilities available to the applicant until some further date. The Owner/Applicant acknowledges the approval of this reruest for rezoning by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Cornmission and/or Dublin Cihy Council does notconstitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by the said OwnerlAppiicant. VIII. ___ -----_- ~~~ L.. 1 V ~~ Email or Alternate Contact Information; ~~~~e ~i'rJ ~ ~~j1 -~ ~ Daytime Telephone: , /~ ~ _~ ~v/ Fax: y /~ / ~i~~ ~ i j,~ ~ , / Y~ PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT INFORMATION: This section must oe wmpietea. _ _.___ ___,,_ Current Property O ~ er(ApPt~~~~h2~s ~ l ' , dL`L ~ T~'~~`~ ~~ ~ '" --_ /~~ fvtaiting Address: `' (Street City, State, Zip Code} ~ ~ /y +~ ~ ~V ~ ~1 ~ ~r _ ~~~~ _._____ e~~~"" AUU((''~~~ -1 ~~~ Page 4 of 5 CITY DF DUBtIN LAND USE & LONG RANGE PLANNING r IX. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF OWNER: Please complete if j Representative: /`~ , i (Tenant, Architect, Designer, Contractor, eta.} ~* ~ P,tailing Address: i (Street, City. State, yip Code) Daytime Telephone: Email cr Alternate Contact Information: ~~~lho is the PRihtAR.Y CONTACT PERSON for this application? tile. Attach additional sheets for mul Fax: X, AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S AGENTIREPRESENTATIVE~S)_Please complete if applicable_This section must be notarized. die owner, hereby authorize to actas my representative(s) in all matters ,I peraining ~o the processing and approval of this application, including modifymq the project. 1.3g~ ee to be bound byall i eprasentations and agreements i ; maU`e by the desi.3nated representative. ~ ~~gn ur~:cr: ant Property D:rner: Date: + ~ ~~ ~~ . , . ,~/ pub>c:iou anel s.:~~rn to before me this __ ~ 9 - _ -_ day of ~p b1-~-- State <';? ___..._.-- { ~o,,,,t~,~f _ ~ PlotaryPr;bll °~<<~~ X. APPLICANT'S AFFIDA ;he rx;ntents of this application. The inform: respects tn:e and correct, to the best of my Signature of Owner or Avthariz~ representative: must be completed and IA N,ta~ ~iuliC-St8t8OtOhio ~ My Gun iinission Expires f1A~f 19, 2009 the ovti~ner or authorized representative, have read and understand contained in this application, attached exhbits and oth r information :>ubmitted is complete and in a vledge and e' ~~ -, __ - - I - /~ pate: {% ~7~ i Q O~ - - =_.. i ~ ~- ~ 5ubsrx bed and sworn to hefcre me this ___ .._ _..___ ~1ay of _ -- . - - - - State of ~i ~ J ------------ Ccu, ty ,af _r / w_N `- ~ ~ '1 __ Notary Public ___{~V .-I~AE1JCHl~--- Notary Public, State of Ohio Ay Commisslon Expires 11-01-05 NOTE_ TtIE PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON WILL RECEIVE A FACSIMILE CONFIRMING RECEIPT OF 7HIS APPLICATION RECEIVED AUG29205 ~~-/ ~ -~ CITY OF D~BLIN , Page 5 of 5 LAND l1SE & " LONG RANGE PLANNING "d EXHIBIT B1 Situated in the County of Franklin, in the State of Ohio and in the Village of Dublin: Being the West half of the following premises excepting a strip of land twelve feet in width sold off the South side the entire length of the hereafter described by Jonas Harlow to George Evans. Beginning at the Southeast corner of a lot of land formerly owned by Norris Corbin, later owned by Amos Breleford, thence South seven and one-half rods nine inches to the land formerly owned by George Evans, deceased, now owned by his daughter, Ann Thomas, thence with said land West twenty-one rods to High Street, in said town of Dublin, thence with said street North seven and one-half rods nine inches land formerly owned by Jessee Wing, thence with the South line of said land and the South line of Anna Breleford land East Twenty-one rods to the beginning containing one acre of land. The land intended to be conveyed contains one-half acre less the before mentioned strip of twelve feet heretofore sold off the South side of said lot by Jonas Harlow and wife to George Evans. Parcel No. 273-000063 Property Address: 138 South High Street, Dublin, OH 43017 Tax ID No.: 273-000063 y~- ~~i b C ~w3} ~~ Usti?~ C. Rth~~i_ ~: ~~.t_.:~s. .,.o,_ ,~ «- - . r .,, .: ._ __ ., ~. ___. _..j «~ 13~~~ SEP 0 8 2005 General Warranty Deed~'~;; ; „ , _ _, . ___; , p~a9e~,Z aE" EXHIBIT B2 JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR Report of parcels touching irregular area 273-000015 Owner: HEADLEE ROGER & DIANE L Address: 143 S HIGH ST Mail To: HEADLEE ROGER & DIANE L 6922 WOERNER TEMPLE RD DUBLIN OH 43016 DUBLIN OH 43016 273-000034 * Owner: EMSWELLER JOE Address: 113 S HIGH ST Mail To: EMSWELLER JOE 5520 ELLINGER ST COLUMBUS OH 43235 273-000043 * Owner: VILLAGE OF DUBLIN Address: 00129 S HIGH ST Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017-1066 273-000046 Owner: KARRER ROBERT C JR TR Address: 167 S HIGH R ST Mail To: KARRER ROBERT C JR TR 167 S HIGH ST DUBLIN OH 43017 273-000060 Owner: VEELEY THOMAS L & PATRICIA C Address: 109 S RIVERVIEW ST Mail To: VEELEY THOMAS L & PATRICIA C 2710 GLADE RUN RD W JEFFERSON OH 43162 273-000063 * Owner: M & D PARTNERS LLC Address: 0 138 S HIGH ST Mail To: M & D PARTNERS LLC 4804 SHIRE RIDGE RD E HILLIARD OH 43026 273-000066 * Owner: STAUB ALLAN D LANTZ RONALD L Address: 114 S HIGH ST Mail To: THE ARLINGTON BANK ATTN: MATT HOHL 2130 TREMONT CENTER COLUMBUS OH 43221 273-000067 Owner: EGER CALVIN & JOANNA Address: 158 HIGH ST Mail To: EGER CALVIN & JOANNA 156 S HIGH ST DUBLIN OH VAJ47 MMPC07 Page 1 DATE JUN 30, 2005 RECEIVED 43017 -1~~2 S E P 0 8 2005 CITY OF DUBLIN LAND USE 8~ LONG RANGE PLANNING JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR Report of parcels touching irregular area DATE JUN 30, 2005 273-000075 * Owner: MOFFITT DORTHA M 1/2 TR & 1/2 FEE Address: 119 S HIGH ST Mail To: MOFFITT DORTHA M 1/2 TR & 126 FRANKLIN ST DUBLIN OH 43017 273-000078 Owner: EGER CALVIN & JOANNA Address: 156 S HIGH ST Mail To: EGER CALVIN & JOANNA 156 S HIGH ST DUBLIN OH 43017 273-000085 * Owner: PLATINUM MANAGEMENT LLC Address: 126 S HIGH ST Mail To: PLATINUM MANAGEMENT LLC 126 S HIGH ST DUBLIN OH 43017 273-000090 Owner: WOOD-ANDERSEN MARY E Address: 137 S RIVERVIEW ST Mail To: METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST FARETS/BILL PROCESSING 8435 STEMMONS FWY DALLAS TX 75247 273-000091 Owner: RUDY STEVEN W Address: 129 S RIVERVIEW ST Mail To: WELLS FARGO REAL ESTATE MAC X2502-011 1 HOME CAMPUS DES MOINES IA 50328 2~3-000106 Owner: CHECCHIO VITO Address: 155 S HIGH ST Mail To: CHECCHIO VITO 3565 SCHIRTZINGER RD HILLIARD OH 43026 273-000118 Owner: MURNANE WILLIAM J & ANN Address: 143 S RIVERVIEW ST Mail To: MURNANE WILLIAM J & . ANN 695 KENWICK RD COLUMBUS OH 43209 VAJ47 MMPC07 Page 2 JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR Report of parcels touching irregular area DATE JUN 30, 2005 273-000141 Owner: WEBER CHARLES A Address: S RIVERVIEW ST Mail To: WEBER CHARLES A 179 S RIVERVIEW ST DUBLIN OH 4301`7 273-001978 * Owner: ODIG LTD Address: 106 S HIGH ST Mail To: ODIC LTD 5403 RICHLANNE DR HILLIARD OH 43026 273-002075 * Owner: MOFFITT DORTHA M 1/2 TR & 1/2 FEE Address: 123 S HIGH ST Mail To: MOFFITT DORTHA M 1/2 TR & 126 FRANKLIN ST DUBLIN OH 43017 VAJ47 MMPC07 Page 3 JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR MAP AREA :s DATE JUN 30, 2005 \ ~ J ~a ' ,~...- r.~, ~''I ~. ~ - „~ \ ~' 10 18/2000 EAi~ CY ~ ii ~. \ _ 273- T UlC ~~.~; ~ ~I ~ 't i ~ !' ~~ "~ ~ ~ S~TH ROSEL ~ ~. ~'a~1w A ,,~ ~',I ~ 'p731-oodo~h~ z`°: ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~,~~ i ~ - - I ~%% 4/ 5 I ~ P2 i' ~ ~ I i 6,q~a1 III w { ,~c3~ ~` -''61/16 1997 ... -~ hl~G N ~ _ I ~ ~ _ r- ~.4 ' /~ I il~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 2 ` ~~' 01316 0947 ym' OHN / ~ ~ ( - ~ \ \ ~l ~ I 1 ~ I ~I _ ~ / ~ ~ / J -- - - ~ ,>. - - - ~ _ _ _ _ ~.-~~ ~ ~ z3~ ~~ ~ ~'~ C _~ ~~ ail ~~~I, ~ - - -~ ` ~ ~ ~~ '- - 1 ' ~ X8 04 9 ~ , ,~ Iii ~ 1, \ ~1 it 5536) \ ~ 4, I ~ 114 I I ~ ' +_ ~ ~, ~~ D7 a ~ I .~~ ~ ~ ~~ .`~~+ - ~'~06f2 00g~ cD.'~LG ~ I J ~ ~ , ~~ ~., ki 0~~. ,~~I~L Il~t I~~~~~I y ~~ GRABI ' Z_ ' :~ I _p 197 ~ ~ i U ~ ~1 / \ f'1 X ~ ~~ I~S R~302 99r i . .73-000060 ~~ ' ~I~ ~~ ~~ -- _ ~' ~ I ~ ~ DIG u g 18/19 NOMAS u ~' I,~li~i'~ p - -- ~ -. I "U~, Q / pA~RICrIAC X803.7 ~~~ ~1~r ICI un , ~~ -- - ~ _ ~ ~ , ~. ~ ~ ~ ~~)I ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ I `273-000999 ~~~ `-~ \ ~, ` 1~ ~` \ i _ ~ i / ` .~ ~%02/05 ~aoE . I , ,- ~ r ~~~ fi ~ J 4 I (\ I //~ --~\~ EMSWEIIER. ~ ~ -'~ ~ gQ73-OOd~Op \ 7 _ -__ -_ ~ l l G _~ I ~ ~ ° ~ ~ yT AUB/AL A DL ~ 23 171.30 ~~ \~ ..-~4""0, y uANtZ qO~A D ~ ~~ `' ~ ~1 - - ` ~ f 000091 .~ ' X14 ~ h.1 ~ 1 1 I ' ~- ~ 273 ~ 0 98~~`~~' ~~ 2 TR, ~ I ~~ ~:~~ ~: 273- 1998 I I ~ ~ r~ 036,4/ vEN w,, ~~ I ~ ,~ ~ M~ ~~? OR~iHA" M, -1~ ...~ ~ ~ I RU Y ~ STE ; . ~ ', I 4 C i' ~ 2 3~d j~0002 GEME ~ L'~C8 05.2 »>.ao ^~8 e ~ I, \' 1 075, m l`T ~, ~ ~b`/~ ~ MANA i +; 1 ,',I j\1 ~~ FE i ~ ~~ ,i ,~,I~, ~, ~ZSs11G s°s~i4 ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~I o ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I i ~ ~ ~I ~I ` pod N N Pp;RKING = ~~~/G~ G~-ou6 ~~ r, ~~~~ ~ ~ ~05 ao/2oo3 Mn Y E ~ ~~ ~ ~ I ~~'~ I ~2 3 ~ i 165 1 1 .,I',~. '.,Z I ~ ~ „-273- 0063 ~l~dp~JNDERSf I I I ~i9 ~I I ~, ~~ ~ '` ~ 63~ PgRTNERSI B /~ _- ~ i ~ ~ I ~ 1 ~' I ~' `I ~ ~ 8 V ~~ ~~ ~ / ices ~ '~ r ~ i i 165 ~ `~1 0015._. ~ i I ~ i ~. t i. a5 i, I p00118 ~, \ ..273- 60GER~ MANE i1 ,2~~~ !1984 IA19~ ~' \ 1 \w ~ -06/30 E ~ d ~ 11 C MURN7 r! Wlll \ \ i I ~' , 9 000078 ~ \ t65 I ~, I I X8,10{+27314 1959 JDA N~ ~~ ~~ 1 'f ~ ?~ 1 I i~U ~ EG~R ~ALVIN 6 ~g3 to ~ ~,~ ~ i iU ~' 'y !~ ~ ~~8~.5 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1, .•7R ~ .- 73„00010 ~ , , _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~. i i, 2 07 /20~T~0 ~ ~~ ~ ~ zias~t ,~7 SH~GC O ,.~~~~ I i 2'/3-0001pp4„ ~ ~ 2 \ 04/ A° I ~ p ~ W~ER.CHARLES :,. 2°S 2a ~ ~ ~ i ~~_' 2/306/9821 JOANA 1 'Ii '. ~80 0~[,.~.i ER CALVIN ~ 03.0 ~s - ~ . - ~ ;.,x'822.2 ~ I ~ ~~~~ \~ 1 EG 768.90 ~ N ~ G ~ ~i1 ~ X815. ~ ~~~_2z ~~ I ~ ~ 2osss~ ! ;,; ~ ~ ~ ~ ` I ~ ~ I 147.$3 ~ 1 , ;, ~ ~ I ~~ , 273 0/0002 T ~ ' I ~ i 27/3-0/ 99 ~~„~~° ,, ~.. ~~~~~~.~ K7 RER ~OBERT C JR ~ 81J.8 ~ I I2 ~ ° ~~ ~ l~ WEBER RICHARD C ~~ ~ ~ x'273-,0097 ~ i ~--~ ~ ~"P/ ~ d,ICD LLC ~ ~ i~ X8O ~~ i"~ ~~ ~ ~ IGRA LL i u~ 1 °4.5° © ~~ I 4 ~ °' ~ ~ \ <° ! 106+~~ C7 7 ~~~ I V t* 7.eo - Kj~EVEIYN H~ R ~ A _~ ~ 35.eo ~ / ~- ~ I ~ ~ ~'~~ / 15.29 __-- ~ 1 -. ~ ~ i i X8©~ ~ ---_ r `,.. ~ 203.28 ~I ti} ~ .... ~, , ~ ~ ~ i 1.\\ ~ ~ v~27 009 33 I .I _. .. - $~2-0-'1 ; I r ,., ~~~oa~2^/1~6 ~NE ~ ~ \ I xg~02 9 ,, ! A bat ~ ~ 7 ~.\ ~ 00003 f °o i ~ ~ `" ~ ~q'8~~ ~ SUZ N\ ~ j ! (L) ~ fi ,Qt / p~Y W'~ IAM ~ ~ m72 ~~;n~~26/?Q~.oc~T W _ -n~ ~ I~ - •.o ~ 1 ~E:I~CSK~ER~ ~j DISCLAIMER ~ E p This ma is re ared for the real L GRID p p p property inventory within this county. It is compiled from recorded dee NORTH survey plats, and other public records and data. Users of this ma are notified that the ~ I~~~~ p public primary S E P 4 8 2005 19 HIS`R information sources should be consulted for verification of the information contained on this mop. The ~ county and the mapping companies assume no legal responsibilities for the information contained on thislA~~ OF DUBLIN LAND USE 8~ Please notify the Franklin county cls Division of any disarepanaies. LONG RANGE PLANNING 0 A b H ~ NORTH r ~ O ~. AD ~ ttt D <<O rrI D C+ ~ ~ rn ~~ ~`' ~u ~ w `~ fi G ~+ U F-=• Z z \ ~~ h U~ n ~~ i I+ 0 0 ~~ ~ m~m ~_~ ~O~ mN~ ~ ~Cjj~ ~mW ~r o Z Z ~ !' 1 ^ + ~. ~-. - cn ~ ~ n m ~ ~ ~' o ` J m ~< ~ m o Zo ~ • N m 1 . l \ \\ _~ \` _ ~ _~~- slue Tnrao D -~- I I O South High Street (66' am r_m N ~N ~ y N ~~ r.o.w.) S~ x N ~~~ ~ m 5 ~ T 5 ~91 n ~ s41~ ----- ~x N _ __ , , I o x i _ _ '~ I ~ ~ T U. `(\ 'r. '~ , c r~sr m ~o ~I c~ ' ll I I A ti ' I I O ~~ I O N i I I I ~ m lP U1 !~` n ~ ~ r ~ I O I m i P ~ I ~Nyi , ' ~ U I I p I O I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~~ ~ I i ~ p~ i I ~~o ~ ~ n I F ' I I '' I I I I I 'l I \ I ~ ' I I I I I I I I ~ I I I n ~ r N I ,~ 1 I I L--------------------------------- ---------------------------~ A m pD N tl ~ 112 ,50' R-4 ZONING DISTRICT my %~ i i b DDD ~N °o~ < m o n m _~ ~m -1 R O V ~ .~ N `" ~ Z $io m tl~ R N J g)>~i~pp ~tl~~~~~ ~ ~~~jRf ~~a~~ ~p€~~ ~~y~y~ f n E P F i ~' ~' o a n. O o ~ ~ A m ~~ ri O G~ V N A i Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road • Dublin, Ohio 43016 Phone: 614-410-4600 • Fax: 614-410-4747 f,ITY OF DLBLIN TO: Members of Dublin City Council Memo FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Managei~i~-r~x--5• ~ DATE: November 7, 2005 INITIATED BY: Daniel D. Bird, FAICP, Land Use and Long Range Planning Director~~ RE: First Reading for Ordinance # 68-OS (Case No. OS-1382 -138 South High Street -Steele Office Building) SUMMARY: Rezoning application OS-1382 for 138 South High Street, located on the east side of High Street at the intersection of John Wright Lane for first reading. This application requests a change in zoning for 0.4474 acre from CB, Central Business District to HB, Historic Business District. Two new zoning classifications for Historic Dublin were adopted by City Council, on October 6, 2003. This new zoning designation is to promote the scale and character of original Historic Dublin by allowing appropriate development standards for the redevelopment and preservation of the District's historic character. Additional information regarding this case is available for public viewing at 5800 Shier- Rings Road in the offices of Land Use and Long Range Planning. Following approval of the first reading, City Council then is to set a date for the public hearing (2°d reading) on the requested change. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the first reading of Ordinance # 68-OS JMO Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road • Dublin, Ohio 43016 Phone: 614-410-4600 -Fax: 614-410-4747 CYfl QF DUBLIN TO: Members of Dublin City Council Memo FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager~~w.s, S~ ~~ DATE: November 16, 2005 INITIATED BY: Daniel D. Bird, FAICP, Land Use and Long Range Planning Director ~ RE: Second Reading for Rezoning Ordinance #68-05 (Case No. 05-1382 -138 South High Street -Steele Office Building) SUMMARY: Rezoning application OS-1382 for 138 South High Street, Located on the east side of High Street at the intersection of John Wright Lane is being forward for second reading. This application requests a change in zoning for 0.4474 acre from CB, Central Business District to HB, Historic Business District. Two new zoning classifications for Historic Dublin were adopted by City Council on October 6, 2003. This new zoning designation will promote the scale and character of original Historic Dublin by allowing appropriate development standards for the redevelopment and preservation of the District's historic character. The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved this rezoning on October 6, 2005 with one condition, which has been met. The applicant has applied for all necessary building and zoning permits for the approved site modifications. Condition: i) That the applicant applies for all necessary building and zoning permits prior to construction of any approved site modifications. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the second reading of Ordinance #68-OS with the one condition adopted by the Planning Commission on October 6, 2005. JMO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION OCTOBER 6, 2005 ~~~ b ~~0lf it zi ~~ The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Rezoning - OS-1382 -Steele Office Building -138 South High Street Location: 0.4474 acres tract on the east side of South High Street at the intersection of John Wright Lane. Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning to Historic Business District (HB) under the provisions of Section 153.036. Proposed Use: A 2,291-square-foot financial service office. Applicant: M & D Partners LLC, represented by Mike Steele, 138 South High Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Joanne Ochal, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4683/jochal@dublin.oh.us. MOTION: To approve this Rezoning because it will continue the preservation of the Historic District character and will facilitate future growth, with one condition: 1) That the applicant applies for all necessary building and zoning permits prior to construction of any approved site modifications. * Michael Steele, the applicant, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This Rezoning was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION J e Ochal ruler STAFF REPORT DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 2005 CITY OF DUBLIN_ Load Use and long Range Plaaaing 5800 Shier-Rings Road I ` n, Ohio 43016-123b i ;:614-410-4600 HsA: 614-410-4141 Web Site: www.dabGn.oh-us 4. Rezoning - OS-1382 -Steele Office Building -138 South High Street Location: 0.4474 acres tract on the east side of South High Street at the intersection of John Wright Lane. Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning to Historic Business District (HB) under the provisions of Section 153.036. Proposed Use: A 2,291-square-foot financial service office. Applicant: M & D Partners LLC, represented by Mike Steele, 138 South High Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Joanne Ochal, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4683/jochal@dublin.oh.us. BACKGROUND: Case Summary: This is a request to rezone a 0.44-acre parcel in the Historic District from CB, Central Business District to HB, Historic Business District. The applicant received Architectural Review Board approval for site and building modifications on August 24, 2005 and September 21, 2005 (see Board Orders OS-110ARB). A condition of approval required that the applicant submit an application to rezone the property to Historic Business District. This application is being sponsored by the City but has been formally filed by the property owner. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with one condition. Case Procedure: After recommendation by the Planning Commission, the rezoning application will be forwarded to City Council for public hearing and final vote. Atwo-thirds vote by City Council will be required to override a negative recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If approved by Council, the rezoning will become effective 30 days after passage. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -October 6, 2005 Case No. OS-1382 -Page 2 CONSIDERATIONS: Site Characteristics: • Site Description. The lot is rectangular in shape with a depth of 170 feet and 104 feet of frontage along South High Street. The 1 %2 story building is located on the northeast portion of the lot. The lot slopes west to east and contains a number of large trees. North and west of this property are commercial sites. Single-family homes are located to the east along South Riverview Street and south along South High Street. • Site Modifications. On August 24, 2005 and September 21, 2005, the ARB approved building and site modifications (see Board Orders OS-110ARB). No building permits have been issued to date. • Zoning Description. The site and the properties to the north and west are zoned CB, Central Business District. This zoning classification includes residential uses containing not more than four dwelling units, retail, administrative, business and professional offices and personal and consumer services. To the east and south along South High Street are single-family homes zoned R-4, Suburban Residential. Land Use and Zoning: • Rezoning. On October 6, 2003 City Council adopted two new zoning classifications for Historic Dublin. The Historic Residential (HR) and Historic Business (HB) designations were created to establish suitable development standards for the Historic District. The intent of the two zoning districts is to protect the scale and character of original Historic Dublin by allowing appropriate development standards for the redevelopment and preservation of the District's historic character. • Development Standards. The proposed district includes a minimum width and frontage of 60 feet, rear yard of five feet, side yard total of five feet with a minimum of zero feet, and lot coverage not to exceed 80 percent unless ARB approves an increase. This site meets the development standards required by this zoning classification. • Architectural Review Board. The Code explains that the ARB is responsible for promoting the educational, cultural, and economic well being of the Historic District. The Board accomplishes this by regulation of all construction, alteration, maintenance, and demolition within the Review District. Architectural and site improvements have been reviewed and approved by the ARB (see attached Board Orders). Additionally, the Board has indicated support for rezoning this property to Historic Business. The Commission is to review the appropriateness of rezoning this site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the proposed rezoning will continue the preservation of the Historic District character and facilitate future growth. After reviewing the applicant's request, staff recommends approval of the rezoning with one condition and the seven conditions carried over from the ARB approval: Condition: 1) That the applicant applies for all necessary building and zoning permits prior to construction of any approved site modifications. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -October 6, 2005 Case No. OS-13 82 -Page 3 Bases: 1) This rezoning will provide an appropriate zoning classification for this site within the Historic District and provide for effective administration of development standards and procedures; and 2) This zoning classification will establish development patterns and land uses consistent with those listed in the Community Plan. Conditions: ARB conditions of approval as listed on the September 21, 2005 Board Order. 1) That any future signage be subject to Architectural Review Board review and approval before a sign permit can be issued; 2) That the landscape plan and tree survey be revised to meet Code and the comments contained is this staff report, subject to staff approval; 3) That any further expansion to the site require compliance with current parking codes; 4) That wheel stops be installed according to Code requirements and noted on the site plan; 5) That all windows proposed for replacement located close to sidewalks or other public ways shall be all wood,- 6) That the applicant submit an application to rezone the property to HB, Historic Business District; and 7) That the applicant submit a revised copy of all plans to the Land Use and Long Range Planning Division showing any modifications approved by the Board. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -October 6, 2005 Page 3 2. Amended Final evelopment Plan - 5-lOSAFDP - Dubl' Village Tavern - 7-29 South High Stre t Mr. Gerber swore i those who intended t testify in regards to 's case. Tim Picciano, th applicant, agreed tot a following five cond" ons as listed in the st report. Mr. Gerber ved for approval of s Amended Final De elopment Plan becaus the additions will provide ubstantial improvem is to the existing stru re and the Town Ce er I PUD, with five Condit" ns: 1) That e applicant finalize e amended lease regiment with the C" y to include this exp Sion, prior to the issu ce of building permi ; 2) Th the City combine, or lot line adjustment made, to this parcel d the parcel directly n h to ensure that Bui ing Code separation equirements can be t prior to the issuanc f building permits; 3) hat the applicant co ply with the stormw er waiver requiremen approved by Council n May 2, 2005; That tree protectio fencing be installed d maintained before d during construction- d 5) That all patio tore is stored off site om November 15"' to pril 1 S` Mr. Zimmerman conded the motion, d the vote was as ollows: Mr. Gerber yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Ms. ones, yes; Mr. Sane Itz, yes; Mr. Mersin ,yes; Mr. Zimmerm ,yes; and Ms. Reiss, yes. Approved 7-0.) 3. Amend d Final Developme Plan - OS-145AFD~ -Town Center I P rk - 25 South High reet Mr. Ger r swore in those who ntended to testify in r gards to this case. Laura argory, Landscape chitect, City of Dubl" Parks and Open Spa agreed with the staf repo condition as listed b ow. . Gerber moved for proval of this Amen ed Final Developmen Plan because the out oor ating area is a permi ed use under the To Center I text, it is wi 'n the maximum allo able area for outdoor seat' g areas within this P D, and the public par and outdoor seating ea is complementary to a entire Town Cent I development and a Historic District, "th one condition: 1) That speakers of be utilized in the tdoor seating area. Mr. Zimmerm seconded the moti ,and the vote was follows: Mr. Mess' eo, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, y ; Ms. Jones, yes; Ms oring, yes; Ms. Reis ,yes; Mr. Zimmerm ,yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes (Approved 7-0.) 4. Rezoning - OS-1382 -Steele Office Building -138 South High Street Mr. Gerber swore in those who intended to testify in regards to this case. Mike Steele, the applicant, agreed to the one condition in the staff report as listed below. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -October 6, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Gerber moved for approval of this Rezoning because it will continue the preservation of the Historic District character and will facilitate future growth, with one condition: 1) That the applicant applies for all necessary building and zoning permits prior to construction of any approved site modifications. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ms. Reiss, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 7-0.) 5. Rezoning - OS-1~Z -Platinum Man~lgement - 87 South I~fgh Street Mr. Gerber swore in hose who intended t testify in regards tot is case. David Goldthwait ,representing the ap licant, Peter Cor the one conditio in the staff report as sted below. Mr. Gerber m ed for approval of s Rezoning because Historic Dist ct character and faci ' to future growth, ' 1) That th applicant applies r all necessary bui c constru tion of any approve site modifications. Mr. Zi erman seconded yes; M .Jones, yes; Mr. Gerber yes. (Approved 7- Platinum will continue the one condition: g permits prior and the vote as as follows: Ms. yes; Mr. M sineo, yes; Mr. Zin agreed to of the demolition and iss, yes; Ms. Boring ;rman, yes; and M~ 6. oncept Plan - 0 -155CP - Sch Innovation Drive r. Gerber explained at this is an app 3,000-square-foot eral home and o Plan review examin s the general desi review and the r ults are not bindin Commission is t provide feedback review. He sai if approved, the app c or rezoning, w chever is applicable 't will schedule public hearing ands bse development Tans will require ap oval infer Funeral Home ~ Emerald Parlcwa~ and lica on for review and ap royal of a Concept P an for a ffic buildings on an 8.8 cre site. He said th Concept gn f the proposed devel pment and this is a n-specific on either the dev oper or the munici ality. The d then submit the plication to City C uncil for its ant is authorized to ile a preliminary dev lopment plan hin the next eight onths. At a later da ,City Council quently vote to a rove or disapprove e proposal. All by the Commis on prior to constructi n. Jamie Ad ns highlighted the s f report and presente slides of the site. S e said the proposed site inclu es a funeral home bu' ding at the corner of merald Parkway an ovation Drive. I associat' n with this use, is a eception center at th back portion of the ite. She said one two-st office buildings ar shown on the weste portion of the site. Ms. dkins said a subst ial creek exists alon the north side of th property with associated flo plain and floodwa and, if the applic t proceeds, work c of be done withi this fl dway plus 20 feet. work is done withi the 100-year floodpl n, a hydraulic study ill be cessary to indicate tl~t they have compens ting storage. ~ ~~_~ _~_- -- _. ___ ;o ;- t ~ J '~ 1~ '~ IJ 1N 1 1 t i 1 x Y 0 Z l APPROVED SITE PLAN site dev¢~opment plan n...d~ ~l~Y_/_ ~ OS-1382 Steele Office Building 138 South High Street i= Y 1 ' F j a t I 1 1 I 1 t 1 ~ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BOARD ORDER SEPTEMBER 21, 2005 CITY OF DUBLIN_ Land Use and Loag Range Plaaniag 5800 Shier-Rings Road " "n, Ohio 4301b-1236 e: 614-410-4b00 .,.,,- 614-410-4147 Web Sile: www-dublin.oh.us The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 3. Architectural Review Board - OS-110ARB -138 Soutli High Street -Exterior Modifications Location: 0.4474-acre tract on the east side of South High Street at the intersection of Jolul Wright Lane. Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District. Request: Review an update to exterior modifications to the existing building to include a terrace, new windows and doors, gutters and downspouts, residing and painting of the building, a new standing seam roof, and various site improvements. Proposed Use: Financial service office. Applicant: M & D Partners LLC, Mike Steele, 138 South High Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Joanne Ochal, Plamler. Contact Information: (614) 410-4683/Email: jochal@dublin.oh.us. * Michael Steele agreed to the conditions. MOTION: Allan Staub made a motion, seconded by Thomas Holton, to approve the updated roof line modifications to the north elevation and eliminate the previously approved roof top terrace, with the continued application of the seven conditions approved previously. 1) That any future signage be subject to Architechral Review Board review and approval before a sign permit call be issued; 2) That the landscape plan and tree survey be revised to meet Code and the comments contained is this staff report, subject to staff approval; 3) That any further expansion to the site require compliance with current parking codes; 4) That wheel stops be installed according to Code requirements and noted on the site plan; 5) That all windows proposed for replacement located close to sidewalks or other public ways shall be all wood; 6) That the applicant submit an application to rezone the property to HB, Historic Business District; and OS-1382 Steele Office Building 138 South High Street ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BOARD ORDER SEPTEMBER 21, 2005 3. Architectural Review Board - OS-110ARB -138 South High Street -Exterior Modifications (Continued) 7) That the applicant submit a revised copy of all plans to the Land Use and Long Range Planning Division showing any modifications approved by the Board. VOTE: 4 - 0. RESULT: This application was approved. RECORDED VOTES: Allan Staub Yes Thomas Holton Yes Kevin Bales Yes Clayton Bryan Yes Richard Taylor ABSENT STAFF CERTIFICATION o~~ e Ochal, Planner OS-1382 Steele Office Building 138 South High Street CITY OF DUBLIN_ Land Use and ioeg Range Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road n, Ohio 43016-1236 e: b14-410-4600 rbx: 614-410-4141 Web Site: www.dubGn.oh.us STAFF REPORT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD SEPTEMBER 21, 2005 3. Architectural Review Board - OS-110ARB - 138 South High Street -Exterior Modifications Location: 0.4474-acre tract on the east side of South High Street at the intersection of John Wright Lane. Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District. Request: Review an update to exterior modifications to the existing building to include a terrace, new windows and doors, gutters and downspouts, residing and painting of the building, a new standing seam roof, and various site improvements. Proposed Use: Financial service office. Applicant: M & D Partners LLC, Mike Steele, 138 South High Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented by John Cochrane, Berardi Partners, Inc., 369 Livingston Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Joanne Ochal, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4683/Email: jochal@dublin.oh.us. UPDATE: The Architectural Review Board approved this application with conditions for building and site modifications on August 24, 2005 {see Board Order Case OS-110ARB). Subsequently, the applicant conveyed to staff that use of the terrace was limited due to seasonal weather conditions and clients access to the terrace. Another concern of the applicant was the ability to provide sufficient water run-off from the two existing roof configurations and the proposed building additions. The applicant is proposing changes in roof style for the two additions previously approved by the Board. Summary and Action Recommended: This is a request for review and approval of roof line modifications to the north elevation eliminating the approved roof top terrace. Staff recommends approval of this application, with the continued application of the conditions approved previously. Dublin Architectural Review Board Staff Report -September 21, 2005 Page 2 o f 3 Narrative: Site Location: This 0.4474-acre site is located on the east side of South High Street at the intersection of John Wright Lane. North and west of this property are commercial sites. Single-family homes are located to the east along South Riverview Street and south of the site along South High Street. Existing Zoning: The site and the properties to the north and west are zoned CB, Central Business District. This zoning classification includes residential uses containing not more than four dwelling units, retail, administrative, business and professional offices and personal and consumer services. To the east and south along South High Street are single-family homes zoned R- 4, Suburban Residential. Site Description: The lot is rectangular in shape with a depth of 170 feet and 104 feet of frontage along South High Street. The one and one half story building is vinyl sided with a front porch containing decorative spindle trim and double front doors. Two consecutive additions have been added to the north elevation of the building in the past. Proposal: The applicant is proposing to eliminate the approved roof top terrace. The new proposal is to alter the roof line of both additions on the north elevation. The existing hip roof of the large addition would be replaced with a pitched standing seam roof matching the approved roof materials of the main structure. The smaller addition will have a flat roof utilizing the EPDM (Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer) rubber roofing material. With this new type of roof, there are no water removal issues. Benjamin D. Rickey & Company, the City's historical consultant, has indicated acceptance of this roof line as it mimics the existing roof. Considerations: • The City's historical consultant has reviewed the proposed alteration of the roofs and has determined the new roof proposal blends with the main roof. • Historic Dublin roof materials vary, but standing seam and asphalt roofs are the most common. Standing seam roof material is extremely durable, and the applicant is proposing to use this roof material. • EPDM rubber roofing material was previously approved for the roof top terrace. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this updated to eliminate the roof top terrace and construct a pitched roof on the larger addition and a flat roof on the smaller addition. The proposed roofs compliment the existing roof of the building and eliminate any problems with water removal from the structure. Staff recommends approval of this application with no new conditions to the following conditions carried over from the original approval on August 26, 2005. Dublin Architectural Review Board Staff Report -September 21, 2005 Page 3 of 3 Conditions: 1) That any future signage be subject to Architectural Review Board review and approval before a sign permit can be issued; 2) That the landscape plan and tree survey be revised to meet Code and the comments contained is this staff report, subject to staff approval; 3) That any further expansion to the site require compliance with current parking codes; 4) That wheel stops be installed according to Code requirements and noted on the site plan; 5) That all windows proposed for replacement located close to sidewalks or other public ways shall be all wood; 6) That the applicant submit an application to rezone the property to HB, Historic Business District; and 7) That the applicant submit a revised copy of all plans to the Land Use and Long Range Planning Division showing any modifications approved by the Board. Architectural Review Board Draft Meeting Minutes -September 21, 2005 Page 3 of 10 Amy Lauerhass responded at it was grey. Clayton then asked h much of an elevation dr between the existing and the new additio . Thomas Holto stated the Board had aske fora 1-1/2-foot drop. Allan St made a motion, second by Kevin Bales, to accep he revised plans as sho ,with corrected conditio five. All voted in favor ( proved 4-0). 3. Architectural Review Board - OS-110ARB -138 South High Street -Exterior Modifications Joanne Ochal, Planner, explained this case is an update to change the previously approved roof style from a roof top terrace to a pitched roof. Joanne showed slides of the new proposed roof style. Kevin Bales commented that the pitched roof is an improvement, making for a cleaner appearance and helping to keep the historical value. Mike Steel, M & D Partners LLC, explained that they changed the shed roof They are keeping it on a lower level, with a stepdown roof over the shed. He said this approach will provide better water run off. He stated they agreed to the conditions. Allan Staub made a motion, seconded by Thomas Holton, to approve this update to an application for modifications to the roof line, with the original conditions previously approved. All voted in favor (Approved 4-0). 4. Architectural R iew Board 04-163 -Dublin Village Tav rn - 27-29 South High St et Joanne Oc al, Planner, reviewed t staff report and pres ted a slide show featurin the proposed internal d external modificatio She stated staff recom ends approval with four nditions, as stated in th staff report. T mas Holton asked how uch larger the buildi will be in front with e dition. Robert J. Artrip, arc tect, responded 16 feet. He added that the inte t was to mimic an area lik the Dublin Town Cent ,with Downing Tan a d a darker green. OS-1382 Steele Office Building 138 South High Street ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BOARD ORDER AUGUST 24, 2005 lTY OF DUBI.IN_ ~d Use ..~ ~ R~ S o~ ~-I~;.y~ It~A !i uo43016-123f ..~_ ..441aacoo c 114-4104747 ~ SAc: ~nra.a~.tis The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 3_ Architectural Review Board - OS-L10ARB - 138 South High Street - Exterior Modifications Location: 0.4474-acre tract on the east side of South High Street at the intersection of John Wright Lane_ Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District_ Request: Review and approval of exterior modifications to the existing building to include a terrace, new windows and doors, gutters and downspouts, residing and painting of the building, a new standing seam roof, and various site improvements_ Proposed Use: Financial Service Office_ Applicant: M & D Partners LLC, Mike Steele, 138 South High Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented by John Cochrane, Berardi Partners, Inc_, 36g Livingston Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43215_ Staff Contact: Joanne Ochal, Planner_ Contact Information: {6l4) 4 t0-4683/EmaiL- jochat@dublin_oh_us_ MOTION: Richard Taylor made a motion, seconded by Allan Staub, to approve this application for exterior modifications to the existing building, and associated site improvements, with the following seven conditions: Conditions: i) That any future signage be subject to Architectural Review Board review and approval before a sign permit can be issued; 2) That the landscape plan and tree survey be revised to meet Code and the comments contained is this staff report, subject to staff approval; 3) That any further expansion to the site require compliance with current parking codes; 4) That wheel stops be installed according to Code requirements and noted on the site plan; OS-1382 Steele Office Building 138 South High Street l of 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BOARD ORDER AUGUST 24, 2005 3_ Architectural Review Board - 05-1 IOARB - 138 South High Street - Exterior ModiGcatioas (Continued) 5} That all windows proposed for replacement located close to sidewalks or other public ways shalt be all wood; b) That the applicant submit an application to rezone the property to HB, Historic Business District; and 7) That the applicant submit a revised copy of all plans to the Land Use and Long Range Planning Division showing any modifications approved by the Board_ *Mike Steele agreed to the conditions_ VOTE: 3 - 0. RESULT: This application was approved. RECORDED VOTES: Allan Staub Yes Thomas Holton ABSENT Kevin Bales ABSENT Clayton Bryan Yes Richard Taylor Yes STAFF CERT[E[CAT[ON ~ i ryt~-.~ V ~ K~~ 1o e Ochal Planner OS-1382 Steele Office Building 138 South High Street ~ ~r~ CTfY OF DUBLIN_ Land Use aad Long Range Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road n, Ohio 4301b-123b e: b14-410-4b00 Fax: 614-410-4141 Web Site: wvrw.dublin.oh.us STAFF REPORT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AUGUST 24, 2005 3. Architectural Review Board - OS-110ARB -138 South High Street -Exterior Modifications Location: 0.4474-acre tract on the east side of South High Street at the intersection of John Wright Lane. Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District. Request: Review and approval of exterior modifications to the existing building to include a terrace, new windows and doors, gutters and downspouts, residing and painting of the building, a new standing seam roof, and various site improvements. Proposed Use: Financial Service Office. Applicant: M & D Partners LLC, Mike Steele, 138 South High Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented by John Cochrane, Berardi Partners, Inc., 369 Livingston Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Joanne Ochal, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4683/Email: jochal@dublin.oh.us. Summary and Action Recommended: This is a request for review and approval of exterior modifications to the existing building for a new occupant. The applicant is proposing structural modifications to the additions located on the north side of the building. Also, included with this application are various site improvements. Staff recommends approval of this application with eight conditions. Dublin Architectural Review Board Staff Report -August 24, 2005 Page 2 Narrative: Site Location: This 0.4474-acre site is located on the east side of South High Street at the intersection of John Wright Lane. North and west of this property are commercial sites. Single-family homes are located to the east along South Riverview Street and south of the site along South High Street. Existing Zoning: The site and the properties to the north and west are zoned CB, Central Business District. This zoning classification includes residential uses containing not more than four dwelling units, retail, administrative, business and professional offices and personal and consumer services. To the east and south along South High Street are single-family homes zoned R-4, Suburban Residential. Site Description: The lot is rectangular in shape with a depth of 170 feet and 104 feet of frontage along South High Street. The one and one half story building is vinyl sided with a front porch containing decorative spindle trim and double front doors. Two consecutive additions have been added to the north elevation of the building in the past. Proposal: The applicant is proposing exterior and structural modifications to the existing building and site in order to locate a financial services office. The applicant states these modifications are intended to bring this site back to the original design and enhance the character of the Historic District. Building Modifications: The applicant is proposing to alter the north elevation additions by installing a 350-square-foot roof top terrace. The existing standing steam roof will be removed. An EPDM (Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer) rubber roofing underlayment will be installed with 18 x 18 inch Sunny Brook Concrete pavers for the patio floor. Second floor access to the terrace is via a patio door from the Architect Series Luxury Edition manufactured by Pella. Benjamin D. Rickey & Company, the City's historical consultant, recommends that the length of the terrace be reduced by a 5 1~2 foot section of rail. Decorative spindle trim will be added on the porch of the primary addition. All trim will be painted Ultra Pure White SO50 from the Behr Premium Plus Collection. If the roof top terrace modifications are not permitted by the Board, the applicant is proposing to alter the roof line of both additions on the north elevation. The existing hip roof would be replaced with a pitched standing seam roof matching the existing roof of the main structure. Upon review of the terrace concept, the City's historic consultant has indicated acceptance provided the area is reduced by 1.73 square feet, which equates to the removal of a 5 '/z foot rail section. Staff is in agreement with this recommendation, but also suggests the proposed roof alteration without the terrace is acceptable as well. Dublin Architectural Review Board Staff Report -August 24, 2005 Page 3 The applicant wishes to replace the windows with ones more appropriate to this era of house style. On the north elevation a window will be relocated to the center of that facade. An additional window will be installed on the west elevation. The applicant is proposing to use Pella's Architect Luxury Series with Prairie Muntin Pattern. Windows will be trimmed in 3 5\8" crown molding and/or 4 1\4" HarditrimTM_ The Guidelines recommends that all paint be chosen from a historic palette. These collections are not specific to a historic collection but generally follow the intent of the Historic District. All window and trim will be painted Ultra Pure White 5050 from the Behr Premium Plus Collection. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing vinyl siding and replace it with 5 1\4-inch smooth HardiplankTM lap siding. The siding will be painted White Pinot and the existing front double doors will be painted in Fjord Green. Both colors are from the Porter Brand Collection by Pittsburgh Paints. A new standing seam roof manufactured by Atas International, Inc. in Color 20, Slate Grey is being proposed. The roof of the terrace will feature 4 3\4 inch "Ogee" Proftle gutters and 2" by 3" downspouts. The remaining gutters and downspouts are 6 1\2 inch round gutters and three inch round downspouts in aluminum. All gutters and downspouts will be painted Ultra Pure White 5050 from the Behr Premium Plus Collection. Site Modifications: This proposal includes the demolition of the deteriorating concrete retaining wall along the termination of the driveway and the two parking spaces located in the northern portion of the site. Anew retaining wall will be constructed in the same location utilizing Weathered Mosaic Versa-LokTM. The proposed color Chestnut Blend is a beige tone which matches the existing limestone foundation. Staff has recently conducted a landscape compliance inspection of the site (see memo dated July 6, 2005). The applicant is addressing many of the issues with the current proposal. Eight caliper inches of protected tress are proposed to be removed with this application. Landscape Code requires inch for inch replacement or a fee in lieu of this replacement. Tree replacements should be a deciduous species as listed in the Guidelines and must be at least 2% inches in caliper at installation. The applicant is proposing to rework landscaping beds and install the Versa-LokTM retaining wall system. The landscape plan should be revised to include a plant list with the proposed plant material, common and botanical name, and installation size of proposed materials. To provide for pedestrian access into the main structure, the applicant is proposing to instal124" by 24" concrete pavers connecting the side walk to the front entrance. The applicant is proposing to install modular 5" by 5" concrete pavers over the existing driveway. The color is Earth Blend. The site currently has two parking spaces and a driveway that can hold three cars. The applicant is not proposing any additional parking spaces. The site is considered legally non-conforming with regard to the number of parking spaces. As the use is changing to a less parking intensive use and these is no increase in gross floor area, Code does not require parking to come into compliance at this time. However, any further expansion to the building or site will require parking to come into compliance with Code. Wheel stops are required to be installed wherever a parking area extends to a structure or landscaping. Dublin Architectural Review Board Staff Report -August 24, 2005 Page 4 The existing rubble stone fountain will be repaired where necessary and a new four-foot wide concrete walkway and handrail will be installed to access the lower level staircase. The handrail will be painted black. Two doors exist into the lower level, but the applicant is proposing to remove the door furthest north. The remaining door will be replaced with a new door and painted Ultra Pure White 5050. To better utilize the floor space of the building, the applicant is proposing to remove the chimney located in the primary addition. The applicant is proposing to add two wall lantern fixtures to the west elevation, locating them between the front doors of the main building and adjacent to the door on the primary addition. The proposed wall lanterns will have a copper finish. The applicant is not proposing any signage at this time. Board approval will be required before a sign permit can be issued. Considerations: • The City's historical consultant has reviewed the application and has determined the roof top terrace and associated improvements as proposed are an appropriate modification provided that the terrace is reduced in size as recommended to be less visible from the front. • The Historic Dublin Design Guidelines recommend that additions be subordinate to the original building in a manner that protects the visual integrity of the main structure. This proposed modification will be subordinate to the existing building and will be located to the side of the original structure, limiting its impact from the South High Street right-of--way. The Guidelines recommends that wood windows be used. However the Guidelines allow for the use of aluminum clad windows in less conspicuous locations away from sidewalks and public roads. • The Guidelines indicate that only wood siding should be used on buildings. With the advent of quality materials that mimic the appearance of wood and provide substantially improved maintenance, the Board has approved cement-composite siding for new construction and the rehabilitation of structures since the Guidelines were written. The applicant is proposing the use of HardiplankTM siding for this addition, which is consistent with past approved projects. • Historic Dublin roof materials vary, but standing seam and asphalt roofs are the most common. Standing seam is extremely durable. The Guidelines recommend gutters that are half round or "ogee" style made of galvanized metal or aluminum. The applicant is proposing to use both standing seam and "ogee" style gutters. The Historic Business District (HB) zoning classification was adopted by City Council on May 19, 2003. Although the City intends an area rezoning for all commercial properties in the future, individual property owners are encouraged to initiate this process. In this case, rezoning to HB will allow outdoor service areas such as a roof top terrace to be a permitted use rather than a conditional use as required in the Central Business District (CB}. Also the HB district will allow greater flexibility with any further expansions of the building. Dublin Architectural Review Board Staff Report -August 24, 2005 Page 5 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this application to construct a roof top terrace and associated site and building improvements. Staff believes that the proposed roof top terrace, along with the building and site modifications are consistent with the intent of the Guidelines and create a visual improvement to the district. Staff recommends approval of the application with the following eight conditions: 1) That the terrace be reduced by approximately 173 square feet equivalent to one section of rail as recommend by the City's historical consultant, subject to staff approval; 2) That any future signage be subject to Architectural Review Board review and approval before a sign permit can be issued; 3) That the landscape plan and tree survey be revised to meet Code and the comments contained is this staff report, subject to staff approval; 4) That any further expansion to the site require compliance with current parking codes; 5) That wheel stops be installed according to Code requirements and noted on the site plan; 6) That all windows proposed for replacement located close to sidewalks or other public ways shall be all wood; 7) That the applicant submit an application to rezone the property to HB, Historic Business District; and 8) That the applicant submit a revised copy of all plans to the Land Use and Long Range Planning Division showing any modifications approved by the Board. Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes -August 24, 2005 Mr. Marsalka s id they wilt ke the sign, tth the guarantee of a royal. He stat he had no qu tions. Member T ylor made a tion, seconded y Chair Sta until th September 2 meeting, at hich time t reares tation of the si .All voted in avor (3-0). ~ 4 Devlin noted p ~or to the next etng the appli rmit, photos of e completed s~ are to be su i ian is to be bro ~ht to the Sept ber 21, 2005 eeti ~ table this will see there is accurate may obtain temporary sign i to staff f r review, and the 3. Architectural Review Board - OS-110ARB - 138 South High Street -Exterior Modifications Joanne Ochal, Planner, handed out two documents containing calculations of square footage of the roof top terrace. She stated that the applicant's submittal is on gold paper and the consultant's recommendation is on yellow paper. Square footage has been recalculated and a reduction of 95.5 square feet is recommended by the consultant. Ms. Ochal then presented the case by highlighting the staff report and showing slides of the property and the submitted plans. Joanne stated that staff recommends approval of the proposed exterior modifications, with seven conditions, as listed in the staff report. Member Richard Taylor asked about the history of the original building. John Cochrane, Berardi Partners, Inc., gave some background on the house, and the various stages that added an addition and a porch. He noted the windows were altered in the 40's, and they are proposing to restore them to the original sizes. The proposal is either a roof top terrace, or a pitched roof alteration. Mr. Taylor noted there are two different proposals, the roof top terrace on the back being one. He felt the flat roof should stay, but the railing should move back to the applicant's original location to unify the line of the porch. With the rail pulled back, it looks more like a front porch. The consultant's recommendation is an arbitrary place to break the facade of the building. If it were lined up with the porch rail it would look better from the street. He also recommended lowering the roof in the smallest addition. Mike Steele, applicant, said the height of the first floor is nine feet, and they would be willing to drop it 18 inches. Mr. Cochrane said it is all one room on the plan, and better to have all one ceiling height. 4of6 Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes -August 24, 2005 Mr. Steele explained he has been downtown 22 years, and lives in this area. He noted the actual total renovation is extensive to bring the building to current Code, and the outside is not compatible with Historic Dublin. He did not want a small issue to hold up the renovation. Chair Allan Staub felt the general consensus was the rail should extend along the roof line. The rail on the roof top terrace should be the first issue, and be compatible with the outline of the house. He asked about the house, and if there were issues with roof drainage. Mr. Steele confirmed having problems with the three roof lines and runoff during rain storms. He noted it is an old roof, with silver trailer paint applied to keep it from leaking. He said there was a stone basement. Chair Staub felt the railing would look good extended all the way out. He asked that the applicant submit a copy of the rendering to staff. Mr. Taylor noted the railing was not a make or break issue on this application. 4. Member Clayton Bryan added that anything to make it appear more one section would be good. He asked about the paint colors, and why they were different for the siding and trim. Mr. Cochrane responded that they had made a change. The trim is White, White Pinot is for the siding and Fjord Green is for the front doors. He asked if this Board reviews landscape issues. Ms. Ochal answered no, that landscaping just needs to meet Code requirements. Member Taylor made a motion to approve the application, subject to Conditions 2-8, striking Condition 1 of the staff report. Chair Staub seconded the motion. All members voted in favor (3-0). Architectur Review Boar - OS-131ARB Jason's Res urant - 50 W Bridge Stre t / Judson x, Planner, pr ented the case y highlightin the staff repo and showing slides the property nd the submi ed plans. Ju stated that sta recommends appro al of the patio xpansion and increase in I coverage wit hree conditio liste in the staff re rt. ember Richar Taylor questi ned if this wa an applicatio for rezoning nd a 5 of 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION AUGUST 28, 2003 f1 (!F DGSLti~ (k t-Rings Road 4 1301b-123b (D0:614-410-/b00 faX 614-1b1 ~bSbb le: www.du6Kn_oh_us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2, Administrative Code Amendment OL-LI3ADM -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% 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 OS-1382 Steele Office Building 138 South High Street 08/26/05 14:31 FA% 7616590 LEG[SLA'rIVE AFFAIRS ~ PLANNING 1~J002 RECORD OF ORDINANCES ~. OrdinaraceNo_ 5'i-O'i (Amended) Passed 2O AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE TO ESTABLISH THE HISTORIC BUSINESS (HB) DISTRICT AND THE HISTORIC RESIDEiVTIAT• (HR) DISTRICT (CASE NO_ O1-113ADM - HISTORIC DISTRIC'T' 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 oFexisting 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 amore 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 recornnlends adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, __~_ of the elected members concurring a follows: Section 1. That Section 153.035 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances creating the Historic Residential District, be enacted as follows. 153.b35 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 tradirional 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_ T'he 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 pemtitted 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. 08/26/2005 FRI 1 OS-1382 Steele Office Building 138 South High Street 08/25/05 14:31 FAR 7616590 LEGISLATIVE AFFAIKS -~ PLANNING I~003 RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordi,iance No. 53-03 Amended Passed Page 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. (S) Parlor. Pazks, playgrounds, play fields or other related park uses_ (C) Conditional Uses_ There shall be no conditional uses within the Historic Residential (EIIL) 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 shad be a lot area not less than 8,712 square feet (0.2-acre)_ (2) Lot tYidth_ 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 oa 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 1S3.035(D)(8). (6) Height. N o d welling s tructure s hall a xceed 3 5 feet i n h eight. Maximum 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 SO percent of the lot area, unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board. (8) Table A. .For Properties ~ron:ting Onto: . - - lYiinimum- Front Setback- _. . ft -Migantum Side Yard ft? - :`Minimum dotal Side Yards- ft) 1Vlinimum Rear 'hard ft) Dublin Road 15 4 16 15 Franklin Street 25 4 12 25 High Street (North 8c South) 15 4 16 i S South Riverview Street (East Side) O 3 12 15 South Riverview Street (West Side) 20 3 12 1S North Riverview Street {East Side) O 3 6 iS North Riverview Street (West Side) 20 3 6 LS 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: 08/26/2005 FRI OS-1382 Steele Office Building 138 South High Street 08/26/05 14:32 FAX 7616590 LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS -• PLANNING I~004 RECORD OF ORDINANCES Daycon r.eSal Slank. lnc. ~ Fam No. )0043 On3inance No. 53-03 Amende-~1 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 mended t o foster 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 funiishings (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 arzd Professional Offices. {4) Medical and Dental Offices. (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) Institutianal_ (a) Government offices (b) Libraries and museums (c) Community theaters (7) IZeligious_ Churches, #emples or other places of worship. (8) Child Care. Kindergarten, childcare, or daycare in accordance with all applicable state provisions. OS-1382 Steele Office Building 138 South High Street 08/26/2005 FRI 08/26/05 14:32 FA% 7616590 LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS -. PLANNING 0005 RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordiiumce No. S3_O3 AmendP~ (C) (D) Passed p g~4 yp (9) Parks and Public Plazas. Parks, public plazas, playgrounds, play fields or other related park uses_ (10) Bed and Breakfast Establtshments_ 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 conj uaction 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, Exerccse. Gymnastics, and Retested Studios_ 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 bre asts as not otherwise noted in Section 153.036(B)(10)_ (2) Recreation Centers_ (3) Lodges, Banquet Halls, an 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 mazkets. 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 (O.5- acre)_ (2) Lot Width. Lots shall be a minimum of 60 feet in width with a minimum 6rontage of 60 feet along a public street_ (3) Front Yard_ All lots shall have a minimum front yard setback of O feet. (4) Side Yard_ All lots shalt have a minimum side yard of O feet with a total of side yards of 5 feet_ Minimum side yards for parking with direct access onto an alley shall be O feet_ (5) Rear Yard_ All tots shall have a minimum rear yard of 5 feet_ Minimum rear yards For parking with direct access onto an alley shall be O feet_ (6) Keight_ N o d welling s tructure s hall e xceed 3 5 f eet i n h eight. Maximum 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_ OS-1382 Steele Office Building 138 South High Street 08/26/2005 FRI 08/26/05 14:33 FA% 7616590 LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS -~ PLANNING 1006 RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordiirasace No_ 53-03 Amended Parsed Page S 20 (7) Lot Coverage_ Combined square footage of all primary and accessory structures and impervious surfaces shall not exceed 80 percent of the lot azea, 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 ~fh day of QC-fa ~~l% 2003_ ~---~ Mayor -Presiding Officer Attest: ~_ Clerk of Council Sponsor= Divisioa 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. ~~ ~ ~c~ , ty Cierk of Council, Dublin, Ohio OS-1382 Steele Office Building 08/26/2005 ~ ~o c~,.*/, iT;Rh Ctraet Dublin City Council October 6, 2003 Page 7 the courts, as that woul constitute handing off someone else what w should individually face. He elcomed any comment from Council. Barbara Altenber 340 Stonewall Court a ressed Council, notin t is her third visit to inform Council o he status of the green ace behind her house. hen she purchased her Waterford ome'in 1995, there was nearby home with tall ushes, constituting a pedestrians ety issue. She contact the City and followed p to ensure the bushe were trimm d. This process took o r 60 days, and it is no safe to walk down Waterfor Ms. Chope met with h last Thursday and dis overed hazardous tre .She witness Ms. Altenberg's clean p of recycled yard wa a piled 18 inches abov the tree root c ar. The honeysuckle i all around, as she has omplied with the City' rder not to re ove it. Dublin's reactio to her removal of hon suckle that provided verage for alc of and drug use in the reenspace behind her ome has been disastr us. V lunteers were intereste in helping to make gr nspace safe for childr to play in, to eter the continuous du ping of trash, and alco of and drug use by chi ren. Dublin continues to humiliate er, by filing a restraini against heron Septe ber 25. Many are outraged by the con ' ued lack of interest by e City in amicably re Iving a statewide invasive plant issu .The Waterford Home wners Association se a letter to all homeowners on 18/03 instructing them o report destruction or umping of greenery to Greg Jones or the Dublin Police. As person concerned ab ut how the City uses it limited resour es, she requested that ey refrain from sendi certified letters. The ty has paid $8 to serve a restraining der on her personally. he City Manager has agreed to rovide a complete acc nting of the expenses ~ curved to date to prev t Waterfor residents from enjoyin the greenspace. She 's confident that the ma' rity of Dublin esidents would be furio s about their tax dollar being allocated to har s her. Most itizens support commu ity education on enviro mental issues and res ct vol teers. In addition, they was no listing fora " terford Park." She re ests that the gr enspace be called, "H mony Park" so that all milies bordering the p k would be spectfuf. Only Stone II Court is actually in terford; Carrowmoor d Old Springs are not part of Waterfo d. The "Waterford Par was referenced in the ummons filed in Environmental Court She received a note fr m a friend regarding th recent coverage in the local newspap who was surprised at a negative reporting re arding the individuals volunteering in th parks. She will be in vironmental Court on ctober 9 explaining the difference betty n trash and plants. S would appreciate Du in withdrawing this complaint tha as been destructive to er neighborhood. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES ZONING CODE Ordinance 53-03 (Amended) Amending Portions of the Zoning Code to Establish the Historic Business (HB) District and the Historic Residential (HR) District. (Case No. 01-113ADM -Historic District Code Amendment) Mr. Combs noted that Council previously introduced a series of ordinances related to Historic Dublin. This is the second in the series which addresses the zoning code and consolidates zoning classifications to include the Historic Residential and Historic Business districts. There is a broad range of existing zoning classifications that create many inconsistencies and difficulties for property owners in the district in regard to standards that apply to each property. What is being proposed tonight is to revert all of the residential classifications into one ='Historic Residential" and all of the commercial properties into "Historic Business." The purpose for implementing Historic Residential is to simplify the current zoning system and enhance administration for all the properties within the district. Under the R-2 and R-4 standards currently, there are a wide range of different uses. What is being proposed with the Historic Residential is to primarily focus on single-family dwellings as well as the typical home occupations, accessory uses, schools and parks that are found within generally all of the residential classifications in the city. In particular, the changes are to remove religious uses and day cares from the residential districts due to their potential impact, and view them as more of a commercial use. Also, to eliminate wireless telecommunication due to its incompatibility with the Historic District. In addition, to simplify the residential classifications to the single-family use that is more consistent with the existing residential character of the district. In terms of standards for residential, aerial photography and the GIS system were used to identify patterns currently existing. Minimum front setbacks range from 0 to 25 feet, depending upon the particular character of the street. Minimum side yards are being OS-1382 Steele Office Building zQ c.,,tirh Nigh Street Dublin City Council October 6, 2003 Page 8 revised to better correspond to the current non-conformities within the district and to better blend with the Building Code. As far as the total side yards, in contrast that is to provide for some amount of separation between adjacent properties. Many of the existing historic structures are located at or near the property line, so there is a desire to provide flexibility yet provide a minimum amount of separation. For the rear yard setbacks, the goal is to provide enough to allow for rear parking off of an alley. The other standards for residential include providing a .2 acre minimum lot size. The ARB will be given the ability to have some flexibility depending upon the design merits of the application. The Historic Business District is to provide more simplified standards, to be more consistent, and to facilitate mixed uses throughout the commercial portions. There is a desire for consistency and an enhanced capability of administration. Due to adjacent impacts, churches and day cares have been added to the business district; wireless communication has been eliminated; and residential uses of up to four dwelling units have been added to provide for an added mix. Feedback from residents indicated a desire to encourage a greater mix and allow residents to live within the business district, allowing greater access to retail and commercial sites. For standards for the business district, they are looking at a maximum of Y~ acre in order to limit development to a scale appropriate for the district. They are also providing for a zero front setback to limit existing non-conformities and to provide for added design flexibility. They also want to provide more flexible side yard standards. With regard to rear yard standards and lot coverage, they are providing for added flexibility to allow for pull-in parking off of alleys which is common through out the district and to provide added design flexibility depending upon the particular application in terms of lot coverage. He offered to respond to questions. Mr. Reiner asked for clarification about the minimum 5-foot rear yard setback for businesses. What is trying to be achieved with this? Wouldn't more back parking along the buildings be desirable? Mr. Combs responded that in general, if a commercial business wants to provide parking to the rear, for a parking lot within the site, the goal is to provide a minimum separation for landscaping. If it is a type of system that incorporates pull-in parking off the alleys, that setback would be zero to allow for that. Mr. Lecklider asked if the discretion regarding the 35-foot height limitation rests with the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Combs responded that this discretion was previously left to the Planning Commission. In looking at the overall goal of the ordinance to simplify the process, the ARB is already considering the massing, size and scaling of buildings, so for ease of administration, it seemed logical for them to review this at the same time. All of staff would also have review of this prior to the ARB. Ms. Salay thanked Mr. Combs for his work. She has heard no discord from the businesses or residents, and she is hoping it will enhance the development process in Historic Dublin. Mayor McCash stated that he had submitted a draft ordinance for the Historic Development District three to four years ago, and he is pleased it is finally back to Council. He noted that the lot coverage limitation for residential is 50 percent of the lot for primary accessory and impervious surfaces, and for business it is 80 percent. In determining these percentages as well as the other components, was an analysis done of the existing lot sizes in the historic areas? Mr. Combs responded that these were reviewed. When looking at the overall lot coverage figures, they were based on the existing Codes -commercial is 80 percent and residential is 45 percent. Given the general development patterns of the district, there was a desire for consistency but, depending on the application and site characteristics, the ARB could review the proposed changes to see if they merited surpassing the maximums. Mayor McCash pointed out that he believes the Code is actually 70 percent for lot coverage in commercial areas. Mr. Combs stated that staff will check this. Mayor McCash asked if conditional uses would continue to be reviewed by Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Combs responded that the current process requires review by Planning Commission. Design issues are reviewed by ARB. OS-1382 Steele Office Building 138 South High Street Dublin City Council October 6, 2003 Page 9 Mayor McCash asked about the process for variances -would they be reviewed by ARB as well as BZA? Mr. Combs stated that this is correct. Some of the other ordinances under review wit) focus on reduction of the "red tape." Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. TAX INCREMENT FIN CING Ordinance 105-03 Declaring Improve ents to a Certain Par el of Real Property T Be a Public Purpose, Describ' g the Public Infrastr cture Improvements o Be Made To Benefi That Parcel, Re firing the Owner The eof To Make Service ayments In Lieu of Taxes, Establi hing a Municipal Pu is Improvement Tax crement Equivalent Fund for the eposit of Such Serv' a Payments, and Au orizing the Executio of a Tax tncre nt Financing Agree nt. (Irelan Place) Ms. Brauti am stated that there ar no updates at this time Vote on a Ordinance: Ms. Sal ,yes; Mr. Lecklider, ye ; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. nstuber, yes; M .Chinnici-Zuercher, ye ,Mayor McCash, yes; s. Boring, yes. EC NOM1C DEVELOPME T O dinance 106-03 uthorizing the Prov' ion of Certain Incen ves for Purposes of ncouraging the Expansion by Cardi 1 Health, Inc. of its erations within the and Authorizing the Execution of a conomic Developm t Agreement. Ms. Brautigam sta d that there are no ch ges. Representatives rom Cardinal Health are present to re and to questions. Mr. sevens can respond t questions for staff. Ms. Chinnici-2 rcher noted that on p e 2, Section C, where t states, "for the purpo es of this Secti 2, employees shall nclude all individuals mployed by Cardinal and working at ocation within the City Earlier, there had be n discussion in the do meat about mul ple locations within th City. !s that inclusiv , or is it the primary c rporate office? Mr. St ens responded that thi is inclusive language. Wa ce Maurer 7451 Dubl Road noted that one ragraph caught his int ntion which in olved Cardinal Health king whether they cou ,instead of guarantee' g a certain of ew employees as a res t of construction at a main amount, guarant a lesser number of employees rough a rented facility ' Dublin. There is a dr p-off in terms of commitment, and ha staff inquired as to the eason? Is it due to th current economic depression? Is the ity comfortable with th' provision? Mr. Stevens state that in 1999, Council proved an economic velopment agreement for Cardinal that ontained certain Incen ve payments. There i one remaining incentiv payment that i contingent upon Cardi al building at least a 1 ,000 square foot offic building adja nt to their headquarte .Cardinal requested at the City accelerate at payment d to the current econo cs of the office market is it cost efficient fort m to lease spa a at this point. So the ave leased over 60,0 square feet, and this agreem t accelerates that pay ent by 50 percent. Th y will receive the rema~ der of the pa ent when they build t e building committed t in the 1999 agreemen So it is not any I ss of a commitment, a they have continued t grow and add employ s. .Maurer summarized at his question really was whether there w any "bad faith" ' volved in this situatio Mr. Stevens respond that there was none atsoever. Vote on the Ordi nce: Mr. Lecklider, es; Mrs. Boring, yes; s. Salay, yes; May McCash, yes; M Chinnici-Zuercher, ye , Mr. Kranstuber, yes; .Reiner, yes. TOWNSHIP OUNDARYADJUST EN! Ordinanc 112-03 Petitions g the Board of Coun Commissioners of F nklin County, Ohio f r a Chang of Township Bound y Lines for the Area 1 cluded within the Cor ora~ Limit of the City of Dublin rom Perry Township, nd Declaring an Eme ency OS-1382 Steele Office Building I ~R 4nuth High Street Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 1 i 2. Administrative Code Amendment O1-113ADM -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% Jane Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Pazkway, 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 standazds 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 aze 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 Boazd 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 forwazded 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 chazacter, 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- August 28, 2003 ,~ 0 300 600 Feet ~ HR-Historic Residential Distri ® HB-Historic Business District 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 are zoned R-2, requiring a minimum area of 20,000 square feet. In order to combine all properties into one residential zoning classification, a minimum lot area of 0.20-acre (8,712 square feet) is proposed to better reflect existing parcel 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 limif non-conformity. Many residential structures are currently non-conforming with regard to minimum side yards. The proposed- Code would create a minimum side yard of three feet for most properties, with the minimum side yard 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 yard requirements for homes in Historic Dublin are currently 20 percent of the total lot depth. Most existing outbuildings, however, cannot meet this standard. Many structures are located near, on, or even across property lines. Adopting a standard of fifteen (15) feet will accommodate parking for sites with rear garages and alley access. The proposed rear yard setback for Franklin Street, however, is 25 feet, which is more reflective of the post-war 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 Board 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 standazds more consistent with historic development patterns. Current zoning designations on commercial properties are numerous and create confusion as to which standazds 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 aze 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) aze 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 lazge 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) regazding 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 azea of 0.5-acre to maintain historic scale. The primazy 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 standazd. 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 Yazd is zero, with a total combined side yard of five feet. A substantial number of businesses aze 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 yazds for pazking 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 Boazd approve all structures greater than 35 feet in height, repeating the standazd 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 standazd when good site planning, design and architecture consistent with the intent of the Guidelines and Zoning Code aze 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 faz 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 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2003 CfTY OF DUBLtN_ Laid Use and Long Range Planning S>~" "bier-Rings Road 0~ Ohio 430!6-1236 Pl.. 61410-4b00 Fax: 614-410-4141 Weh Site: www.dahliaoh-us 1. Administrative Code Amendment 03-014ADM -Residential Appearance Standards (Approved 5-0) 2. Administrative Code Amendment 01-113ADM -Historic District Code Amendments (Approved 6-0) 3. Discussion -New Ruralism (Discussion only. No vote taken.) 4. Administrative Request 03-013ADM -Code Amendment -Planned District (Approved 6-0) Rick Gerber convened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Other Commissioners present were: Todd Zimmerman, John Messineo, Dick Ritchie, Ted Saneholtz, and Rick Gerber. Cathy Boring arrived at 7:15 p.m. Jim Sprague was absent. Staff members present included: Bobbie Clarke, Gary Gunderman, Brandol Harvey, Chad Gibson, Carson Combs, Kelly Dannenfelser, Leesa Browand, Joe Schmidt, Mitch Banchefsky, and Libby Farley. Administrative Business Mr. Gerber stated this was a special workshop meeting for four administrative items. He made a motion to accept the documents into the record. Mr. Messineo seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous in favor. (Approved 5-0.) 1. ministrative Code endment 03-014ADM esidential Appearance S ndards M Gerber said the Co mission had requested t this Code amendment co e back as an dinance for review d approval. There were questions or comments_ e made a motion for approval_ Mr. tchie seconded the motio ,and the vote was as folio Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Saneho z, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; r. Ritchie, yes; and Mr. G er, yes. (Approved S- 0.) Mr_ Ge er thanked Brandol Ha y for all his assistance. r. Harvey thanked the Commissi ern for their dedication to e subject. 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 standards now. 05-1382 Steele Office Building Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 28, 2003 Page 2 Mr. Combs said the residential areas 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 are 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 rear 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 alt parcels and will preserve the existing pattern. Some parcels may be non- conforming as to site, but development will still be permitted. He said the existing Code requires rear 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 architectural aspects, the building height is being included for its review_ Mr. Combs said the Historic Business District sets standards 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 Nigh 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. 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 OS-1382 Steele Office Building 1'2R Cnnth High Street Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 28, 2003 Page 3 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 pazcel 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 wilt 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. [t would be publicized and adjacent property owners would be notified to participate in the hearing process. 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 OS-1382 Steele Office Building 1'tR Knuth Hiuh 4treet Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 28, 2003 Page 4 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 currentty, 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. [f 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_ [t 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 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. OS-1382 Steele Office Building t zQ e..,,rh Niah 4treet Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 28, 2003 Page 5 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 Distract 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. 3. Discussion - New R alism Gary Gunderman said is discussion session is achieve through rur sm. He gave a brief r clustering of dev opment, and resultant e~ "typical" lot lay uts versus conservation sign S~ provide Commission f dback on the goats to w of the land analysis or conservation design, pace. He presente comparison plans, usi The "typical" lay is covered the entire sit . Mr. Gund an said prime prese lion areas are those t tare most valued to saved. Calculat g the density is somet~ es the next critical ste Then, other less crit~ al natural featur are determined along th the potential develop ent areas. Then the lay ut with road all ents, lot lines, and of er features can be com eted_ The literature de s heavily with intaining and preservin a lot of the open meado ,not particularly forest areas as is often discussed. He showed a example with 35 percent evelopment area and 65 ercent openspace. OS-1382 Steele Office Building 138 South High Street