69-05 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, [nc. Form No. 30043
- -~-
Ordinance No.
69-OS passed . 20
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY
0.11-ACRE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF SOUTH HIGH STREET, 75 FEET NORTH
OF PINNEY HILL, FROM CB, CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT, TO HB, HISTORIC BUSINESS DISTRICT
(REZONING - PLATINUM MANAGEMENT - 87
SOUTH HIGH STREET -CASE NO. OS-142Z).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
State of Ohio, ~ of the elected members concumng:
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 ~) .ST day of~/U lI tai-Yh./~ -~Y , 2005.
Mayor -Presiding Officer
Attest:
d
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.
D~ y Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio
N
n.
0
0
m
-,
~ 1
Historic Dublin
Zoning Map
05-1422 N
City of Dublin Rezoning A
~'~' Land Use and Platinum Management
l Long Range Planning 87 South High Street o 250 500eet
fond Uts and
long Range Plannhg
5600 $hier•Rings Road
Dub:'n. Ohio 13fJ15-126
PhcHie! (D0: 61 a-d 10-4600
fax: 614•a10.4147
web Sile: www dublin.oh:~s
EXHIBIT "B"
REZONING APPLICATION
(Code Section 153.234)
TO EXPIRE
ORDINANCE NUMBER
CITY COUNCIL (FIRST READING)
CITY COUNCIL (PUBLIC HEARING)
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
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.
FOR OFFSCE USE ONLY:
Amoyn~ ~ceived: Applic~jaU'on i o; ~ ~ P&Z Date(s): P&Z Action:
j ''1~~T1 ~ _d6-
Recei t No: MIS Fie J~l~: ~ D Receivedi. i ~ n ~ Received 3y:
Type gE,RaquesF: ~~ /-r~ '~ .( j,Y/
N, S, E..Circle) Side of: Lj : r' i~
Distance from Nearest Intersection: i _ /1 FEET
Nearest intersection: ~ , ~ U ~ ~ ,
I. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION:
1 -
N, ~ E, 4V (Circle) from Nearest Intersection
AND ~~,~,J~~_ ~ ,
;.: PD Preliminary Development Plan (Section 153.053) 1
.~~
~' Other (Please Describe) ___~~_ ~ ~___-- .--~-- -----
~--
I1. PROPERTY INFORMATION: This section must be completed. _ __ ___ _ ------- --_---____
', Property Address: v'~- --- -- --- -~ --- ~~ ~= 1~1 V t ~
~~ ~ ~l~ ~.
G
Tax ID/Parcel Number(s): ,f~ /) ~!~ ~ /P ~ ~ 1~Y1.
~?j° lJ~~~v ~ ~ '""~ arc I~e:~ '!! ~'~'~7 `~
~ pro- f `~ 2 ~
Existing Land Use Development: ~~ ~~j ~ q~ G 3 1 2005
ii `~'( C
Proposed Land Use Uevetopment: ~~iL/~ 1. ,+ l-Y (~~'" ~.~~~%~~-~'~
C~ ~p,;~: L`~ vt5 ~ ~
Total Acres to be Rezoned:
f Existing Zoning District ,/ ~ __ Requested Zoning District ~ Y-- - -- - Rs ( I -~
-~ _ '_
._. ~ r+~ Page 1 of 5
REZONING STATEMENT: Please attaci~ additional sheets if necessa
State briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the existing and potential future land use character of the vicinity:
c. ~
--~a S C~ ~ 1 ~ ~~n I ~~ ~ ~G~,S G~ ~~G(U- ~e,-,,~n~I' ~-~ ~h ~.
~~ d ,, ~ ~~
~ rc1~, t~e~~z~-~, ~Jt~ ~ ~u~-~~ ~~' ~~Q n --f'hG prep
~ u~~~ `~ ~ Gbr~S~~hv.~
Stata briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan and.. it applicable, how the proposed rezoning
meets the .,riteria fcr Planned Districts (Section t 53.052(B)):
', ~~ ~f~
HAS A PREVIOUS F~.PPLICATION TO REZONE THE PROPERTY F3EEN DENIED l3Y Cll"Y COUNCIL'vVl"1"HIN THE IAS~ P/VELVE ~AONTHS?
~ .YES J~'JO !I
ff yeas, ?ist~.ahen and state the basis `or reconsiders?ion ~s noted by 5action 153,234(A)(3):
AU G 3 1 2005
UliY C3F c7#..lE3LI^J
I~ ~v ~ Ll:s F &
t_GNG ~iI~.N+,?;~ ~~fJNING
li IF R PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED. IS A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT' PLAN ATTACHED? ~=,: YES ^ NO
IF A PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED, IS TFiE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT ATTACHED? '- YES (-' N
Page 2 of 5
IV.
Z""
~'
v
PLEASE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FOR INITIAL STAFF REVIEW: Please submit large (24x36} and small (11x17) sets of plans. Staff may
Ia[er request plans thaE incorporate review comments. Fourteen (14) additional copies of revised submittals are required for the Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing. _.____...- - _~------ -----
TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS AND THIRTEEN (13) COPIES Please notarize agent authorization, if necessary.
FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF 7HE PROPERTY
FOURTEEN (14) TAX PARCEL tD MAPS indicating property owners and parcel numbers for all parcels within 500 feet of the site.
TEN (10) SCALED, SITEISTAKING PLANS SHOWING:
a. North arrow and bar scale.
h- Location, size and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and sUuctures (significant natural features, landscaping,
sUuctures, additions, decks, access ways, parking).
.. Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, number of dwellings. buildingiunit types, square footages. parking, open
space, etc.}.
=v. Size of the site in acres/square feet.
„_ Ail property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights-of-way. aasPments, ~-Ind other information related to the site.
f Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries.
,. Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties.
IF APPLICABLE, TEN (10) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING SCALED PLANS:
a- Grading Plan.
Landscaping Plan.
:_ Lighting Plan.
~'. i;tility andior Storm4vatar Plan.
v. Tree Survey, Tree Preservation artd (ree Replacement Plans.
:F APPLICABLE, TEN (10} COPIES OF SCALED, ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION:i vnth proposed colors and materials noted.
1F APPLICABLE, FOUR (4) COPIES OF SCALED DRAWINGS INDICATING:
a. Location of signs and sign type (~rrall, ground, projecting, or ovindo~r~). ;~
:~- Sign :fimensions, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign ?o grade. ~~
Copy layout and lettering styles (fonts) of signage. ~~~~
iv!ateriais and manufacturer to be .used in fabr?catirn.
_. Total area of sign fare (including frarnei.
Type of illumination.
I;
"..`rtATERIAL'COLOR SAMPLES (swatches, pi~otos, plans, or product spee[fiealions}. Include manufacturer name and number. ;~
-_- -- -_-_.__.._11
CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS: Please attach ~ ddrtional sheets if ne~ssary .___- _ _,_,_
;t is the paiicy of the City of Dublin to notify >urrounding property owners of pending applications under public review. t_ist aN neighboring propert/
~=rrners =r.>ithin 300 feet of the perimeter of the property based on the County Auditor's current tax. list. Electronic r~pies of tilts are encouraged.
PROPERTY OWNER lAAILING ADDRESS
i not k.tortgage Company or Tax Service}
CITY/STAI'EIZIP CODE
~E~~i~f~D
os-is~a ~
AUG 3 1 2005
t~lT4' Q~ ~U~LIN
iANtJ USl= ~
LOidG F~,ANGE PLANNiI
, ~ ---- --~__ -- - =Page 3 of 5 --_
VI. AUTHORIZATION TO VISi7 7HE PROPERTY: Situ visits to the prop~~*rty oy City representatives are essential to process this application. the
J:arter'Applicant, as no±arized belo~.v, hereby authori:_es City representatives to visit, photograph :and post a notice on the property described in this
appil~~3:iOn.
Vil. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The City of Dublin ~~ntl make ::very effort to provide essential services to the propartyas needed. However, the rapid yrovnh
of the City of Dubbin and surrounding vicinities h_as stretched the City's capacity to provide these services to the limit. As such, the City of Dublin may to
.rnabla to make all or part of said facilities available to the -applicant until some €urther date. The OwnerlApplicanfaeknowledges the approval of this
~c•;uesl for rezoning by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission and/or Dublin City Council does notconstitute a guarantee or binding commitment
that the City of Dubtin will he able to provide essential ser.~ices such as water and sewer facilities when needed by the said Owner/Applicant.
VI11. PROPERTY OWNERJAPPLICANT INFORMATION: This section must be
Current Property Owner/Applicant:
_____ _
htailuig Address: 6 ,~ / ~ , ~ ~ V 1,~.t ~ _ _._~~! . _. - 1._ ~ ~ r
t~tr$at City, State, Zip Code} l ~j 1 ~ ~ _ _
Daytime Telephone: - ~ Fax:
lv1 ~ _ ~ ~_~ ~ ~ ~ ~v _ (~ r¢_ ~~i~-Z-- 2.7 ~'U _ _ - -- _ __
Email or .Alternate Contact Information: ~-~, !R'° !~. ~ _ ~ f ~ d1
AUG 3 1 2005
Page 4 of 5
t_1F~la 1c,E
~O~~C~ i•3>~?~Ca~ i~LANNlf~C
IX. REPRESENTATIVE) OF OWNER: Pte
Representative:
j (Tenant, Architect, Designer, Contractor, etc.)
` .. -.
~ ytaiting Address: ~
(Street, City, State, Zip Gode) ~~'~'
Daytime Telephone: ~~ j, ~ -~J~ I
X.
aserco~mplete if applicable. Attach adfd/~itional sheets for multiple representatives.
~y Y
~~ ~ S~ ~~ (~-. Dim ~ c /~ tel.--r ~3 ~~ ~7
.~~~o i=_~x. ~~~, 2~1., ~~3q
Email cr Aftemate Contact Information: ~~ n~ ~± ~ ~ /b
:Mho is the PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON for this
Je~ ~,,~~IG~ ~'~;
n ~-l ~ G~ ~4v~_
AUTHORIZATEON FOR OWNER'S AGENTlREPRESENTATIVE~S): Pease complete if applicable. This section must be notarized.
l~~
,the owner, hereb authonzE
~`~, ~ ' "'~~ ~~,,~,~ _ o act is my representative(s) in all matt~r~ i,
', pertaining to the p~-rocessing and approval of this application. including modifying `.fie praj2ot. f agree to b~ bound by all i epresentations and agraemenf~ ~~~
m 3d ~ynated repr ~ ~'
- -° _ _
_-
rgnat _ of C rent Pr erty vner: ~`~~ jYy_ ~~ ~ '~
u~scrifi=:d and s`.tiam to befor;: me !his _ ~ 1 ~J -_ ::ay of j~11,~1J~!g~1wJ._ _ _ _- _ , ?g _-~ _-__ -.
(~
.. ---_-- ---- --_ ~_ __ ~. ___ ~i
~,
ur,.r -f ^!otary Public _`__ ~ --~
:. N ~~
- ---- ___ - ~ ~i0RM11~~Ofi
~ ~~ a•
X. APP!_ICANT'S AFi=1DAVl i' This section must ba completed and ,~atan~r.d _ _._ j ___ _ _-.- _ .. _ .~ _-- _ l_,.I
J ---- °--- -- _ -- -
I ~t
~ ~~~ ~ ~~ C~~w / .he owner or authorized represeniahve, navy read and understaruf
.fie oantents of this apptt~a ion. The informahon contained in th~5 application, attach~.d exhibits and other information submitted a complete and ui 3II ',~
f aspects trua and correct to the best of my knowlE:dge and b~hef
-_
~ --_ - _- _ ._~ - --- -- - i
'~ signature ~f Ocvner or Date: ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ (^ '~
Autttarized Representatrvs. V ;I
9ubscr:bed and sworn to before me this ±r'~~ ~{~ .day of _-- -- _ _ _ _ __. '~~ __~ -
_..GX _ __ _ _-- -- - - ----
~?ate of ~ _
rY _ _ . .
Coy.:. ty o~ s~~„~ ~~ ~ Nota Pub{i~ -- ------ - -----
~ •,4 RObM1 ~. (~AgINy
Notar~-Pri6Nc- sage aohto
_* My Commi~ion
NOTE: THE PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON WILL RECEIVE A FACSIMILE CO rr ~~~ f2ECEiPTB!'9Rf~fPI.~ON
~~~
05- i ~t~Z
AUG 3 1 2005
,, ,,, I.~~~~Q~l~.is~LE~ Page5of5 ,
}~5~jl~i ~jr= &
r_~~~ ~~~v~ ~~,r~rvirvG
EXHIBIT B1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR:
87. S. High Street ~ Dublin, Ohio 43017
PID:273-000005-00
Situated in Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, Being 0.115 Acres
Part of Lots 134 and 135 Village of Dublin, Plat Book 3, Page 199
o AU G/3~1 005
~ aT~'' `~ ~ ~~'~J ~ L! ~
LJi`~ila I`~.FvGc PiAt`1tiII~G
Fru~i(.~~iiz~ Repo~f Res~l}ts
R~(I-I I RIT R7
~,_r
F r~xirr2~~;( R.e:Rart Re.~.~
~,,.!: _
The selection distant as 300 feet.
The selected parcel w s 273-000005.
'a
TO 1!ie4V a table showing the 33~rarceis :,.~"-.
within the displayed proximity, scroll down.
;. Print Windo:N ~~t
~,~ ~c~t~I~, tD-Proximity ReLroit
,.. _
o~ ~ •
~a
~..:~~..
~~.
Image Date; Vt'ed Aug ~1 13;4=}:1E 2065
~.I «e i of
Disclaimer
This map is prepared for the real property inventory vdithin this county. It is compiled from recorded deeds, survey plats, and otfier public records and data. Users of
this map are notified that the public primary information source should be consulted for verification of the information contained on this map. The county and the
mapping companies assume nc %egaf responsibilities for the inforraton contained on this map. Flease notify the Frani:iin County GIS Division of any discrepancies.
Proximity Parcels
Hent: To copy this report to another program:
1. Hold down the left mouse buttton over the top-left corner of the area you want to ge*_.
2. Drag the mouse to the bottom-left corner cf the desired area.
3. Let go of the mouse button.
-#. Select Edit Copy from the menu bar.
You can then Paste the report into another appiicatien.
273-000104 ALBERT LUANN E & JOHN C 91 S HIGH ST
273-003168 ALBERT LUANN E & JOHN C
273-000044 ALLESRACH SIEGBERT ~ RENATE ~ ~
273-000093 ALLES~'ACH SIEGBERT ,'~ RE[~lATE 55 S HIGH ST
273-000035 BASSETT THOMAS (_ ~ VICKI E LYDEN 75 S HIGH ST ~ c
" ~ as ~
~
273-000086 BENSON ROBERT E 86 S HIGH ST
~~~ `
.
` ,-, = ~"
C~ `2~ .x-
273-000123 BOLYARD JEFFREY P 60 FRANKLIN ST ,~ ~
J`c+~ i.;.. ~~
273-0001 ~ 1 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 34 FRANKLIN ST ~ j ~ ~"'` `-
a <] `":
273-000052
CORY DOIdN A
90 S HIGH ST
~ t,, Q
'~ 1 f
~vY~~r,
~ 4~
273-000034 EMSWELLER JOE 113 S HIGH ST ~ O
273-000127 FLADT KIMBERLY F $6 FRANKLIN ST ~'~'°°
http:-; 209. ~ 1.1 ~3.8?'schil~~ts i~x~~.>rer.pl 8;'31!200
~'i~ilY~€~31~' ~e~~~ ReSllltS
273-030070 GRABILL & CO LLC 109 S F. ~ ST
273-001940 GRANT DUNCAN M
273-000007 C,RAN T DUNCAtV M 83 S NIGH ST
273-000121. HAYDOCY KATHRYN H 56 FRANKLIN ST
273-000014 JACOBY BEN & BETTY J CO-TRS 58 S HIGH ST
273-000074 JACOB' BEN 8e BETTY J CO-TRS G6 S NIGH ST
273-000259 JACOBY BETTY J & BEN CO-TRS
273-000129 LEVERING WILLIAM E & KATHRYN VJ 94 FRANKLIN ST
273-000105 MARSALKA JOSEPH P MARSALKA MARY B 82 S HIGH ST
273-000061 MARSALKA t~1AP.Y B 76 S HIGH ST
Z73-400135 MOFFi-i'T DORTHA M 1J2 TR & 1J2 FEE
273-000133 MOFFIi-f DORTHA M 1J2 TR & 1;2 FEE 12b FRANKLIt~I ST
273-000075 MOFF1Tf DORTHA M 1 2 TR & 1/2 FEE 119 S HIGH ST
273-002075 P~1OFFI-fT DORTHA M 1/2 TR ~ 1!2 FEE 123 S HIGH ST
273-000131 MOFFI-f-t~ RUTH TR 100 FRANKLIN ST
273-000125 MOLONEY TIMOTHY O & KIMBERLY L 84 FRANKLIN ST
273-001978 ODIC LTD 106 S HIGH ST
273-000005 taLATINUM MANAGEMENT LLC 87 5 HIGH ST
273-000092 RICHARDS JOYCE M TOD 63 S HIGH ST
273-000097 ROBi3iNS GLEN A 54 S HIGH ST
273.000066 STAUB ALLAN D LANTZ RONALD L 114 S HIGH ST
273-000043 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN 129 S HIGH ST
~~~
~.~- i~a
AU G 3 1 2005
1'2t`~~~ ~ 131
C~ ' ~~~ if1.~3LI~1
http:i%?09.51.19;.47-script~m~~~?rer pl L~.hYu I_JVE & 4;'31:'_005
L.O~,~G r.i'.tyGE PLAPJtiII~G
Piroximi a Results - _-
The sel ~ istance was 500 feet
The selected p was 273-000005.
__
To view a table sho 86 parcels -
within the displayed proximity, scro own. `
Print Window
Back to Proximity Report
- -" 5
~x
F,
s - _
`-- -.:.~~~s~
._._---__y_ ~ - _ _- fir 1`' }. f..
~-
s :~'
Image Date: Wed Aug 31 13:08:56 20D5
_~'.,
__
DisGaimer
This map is prepared for the real p~rtY inventory within this county. R is compiled from recorded deeds, survey plats, and other public records and data. Users of
this map are notified that the public primary information source should be consulted for verification of the information sbrrta"shed on th~ map. The county and the
mapping companies assume no Legal responsibilities for the information ccmtained on this map. Please notify the Franklin County GIS Division of any discrepancies.
foximity Parcels
:lot.. To Copy this report to another program:
i. Hold down the left mouse buttton over the top-!eft comer of the area you want to get.
2. Drag the mouse to the bottom-left comer of the desired area.
3. Let go of the mouse button.
4. 5eiect C-dit Copy from the menu bar.
You can then Paste the report into another application.
~6Xi 4~L~Y ~$H~+.ptl 5'~~ ~~b"$69HS.
273-000088 37 WEST BRIDGE STREET LLC
273-000104 ALBERT LUANN E & JOHN C
273-003168 ALBERT LUANN E 8c JOHN C
273-000094 ALLESPACH SIEGBERT & RENATE
273-000093 ALLE5PACH SIEGBERT & RENATE
273-000039 ANDERSON KRISTIN L SNYDER ERIC A
273-000035 BASSETT THOMAS L & VICKI E LYDEN
273-000024 BASSETT THOMAS L ET AL
'3-000012 BASSETT THOMAS L LYDEN VICKI E
273-000086 BENSON ROBERT E
273-000123 BOLYARD JEFFREY P
ittp:/1209.51.193. $ 7tscripts/mw5rer.pl
;~.~ ~ /~
.iibi~t`~;r
37 BRIDGE ST
91SHIGHST
55 S HIGH ST
63 S RNERVIEW ST
75 S HIGH ST
41 W BRIDGE ST
35 S HIGH St
86 S HIGH ST
60 FRANKLIN ST
8/31 /2005
Sear ct3 Real Esiate Search :~ur~itor Hine
273-000285 BRYAN KATHLEEN M
273-000033 BRYAN KATHLEEN M 84 S RI1tERVIEW ST
273-000109 CASSADY BETTY J 40 FRANKLIN ST
273-000079 CASTRAY TIMOTHY E 25 S RTVERVIEW ST
'3-000106 CHECCHIO VITO 155 S HIGH ST
X73-000062 CITY OF DUBLIN 27 S HIGH ST
273-000037 CITY OF DUBLIN 25 S HIGH ST
273-000111 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 34 FRANKLIN ST
273-000044 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF
273-000113 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF DUBLIN 81 W BRIDGE ST
-'73-000096 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF DUBLIN 81 W BRIDGE ST
'73-000052 CORY DONNA 90 5 HIGH ST
Z73-000089 CULLEN THOMAS 32 5 HIGH ST
273-000008 CULLEN THOMAS 30 S HIGH ST
273-000124 DUBLIN COMMUNITY CHURCH
273-000122 DUBLIN COMMUNITY CHURCH 59 FRANKLIN ST
273-000045 EDMONDSON DIANE M 61 S RIVERVIEW ST
273-000067 EGER CALVIN & JOANNA 158 S HIGH ST
273-000078 EGER CALVIN & JOANNA 156 S HIGH ST
273-000034 EMSWELLER JOE 113 S HIGH ST
273-000013 FILBY RUTH V 73 S RIVERVIEW ST
273-000127 FLADT KIMBERLY F 8b FRANKLIN ST
273-000128 FRANK AARON J FRANK ALLANYA M 85 FRANKLIN ST
273-000072 G&S PROPERTIES & SANFORD J SOLOMON 38 S HIGH ST
'3-000070 GRABILL & CO LLC 109 S HIGH ST
273-000026 GRABILL & CO LLC BRIDGE ST
273-001940 GRANT DUNCAN M
273-000007 GRANT DUNCAN M 83 S HIGH ST
273-000040 GUY INVESTMENT CO LTD 14 S HIGH ST
?73-000102 GUY JOHN A & HERMANNA M 22 S HIGH ST
?73-000256 HARM DAVID E & DONNA L 83 S RIVERVIEW ST
Z73-000136 HALL JOHNNY D & AMY J 123 FRANKLIN ST
273-000121 HAYDOCY KATHRYN H 56 FRANKLIN ST
273-000015 HEADLEE ROGER & DIANE L 143 S HIGH ST
273-000120 HIRTH HARRY G 150 FRANKLIN ST
273-000142 HOPE SANDRA K TR 140 FRANKLIN ST
273-000014 JACOBY BEN & BETTY J CO-TRS 58 S HIGH ST
273-000074 JACOBY BEN & BETTY J CO-TRS 66 S HIGH ST
273-000259 JACOBY BETTY J & BEN CO TRS
273-000059 JC LAND COMPANY LTD 110 S RIVERVIEW ST
273-000134 JOHNSON PAULINE C
273-000132 JOHNSON PAULINE C 105 FRANKLIN ST
273-000080 JONES BRION D IANNAN KATHLEEN M 37 S RIVERVIEW ST
x.73-000046 KARRER ROBERT C JR TR 167 S HIGH ST
73-001684 CARSON DAVID B & ELIZABETH W 76 S RIVERVIEW ST
http://209.51.193.87/scriptslmw5rer.pl
8!31/200.
1-~~ y ~~
1 1VAllllll~' Lea.. jlvil i
273-000129 LEVERING WILLIAM E & KATHRYN W 94 FRANKLIN ST
273-000063 M & D PARTNERS LLC 138 S HIGH ST
273-000105 MARSALKA JOSEPH P MARSALKA MARY B 82 S HIGH ST
273-000061 MARSALKA MARY B 76 S HIGH ST
3-040135 MOFFiTT DORTHA M 1/2 TR & 1/2 FEE
273-000133 MOFFITT DORTHA M fj2 TR & 1i2 FEE 126 FRANKLIN ST
273-000075 MOFFITT DORTHA M 1/2 TR & 1/2 FEE 119 S HIGH ST
273-002075 MOFFITT DORTHA M 1/2 TR & 1/2 FEE 123 S HIGH ST
273-000131 MOFFTTT RUTH TR 100 FRANKLIN ST
273-000125 MOLONEY TIMOTHY O & KIMBERLY L 80 FRANKLIN ST
:73-000126 MOODY CHARLES E BUCKWORTH JANET 75 FRANKLIN ST
173-000118 MURNANE WILLIAM J & ANN 143 S RIVERVIEW ST
'_73-001978 ODiG LTD 106 S HIGH ST
273-000130 PERRY CLAUDIA J 95 FRANKLIN ST
273-000085 PLATINUM MANAGEMENT LLC 126 S NIGH ST
273-000005 PLATINUM MANAGEMENT LLC 87 S HIGH ST
273-000056 PRICE JACK A 24 S HIGH ST
273-000048 RAHR BRADLEY E SR RAHR GLENNA 55 S RIVERVIEW ST
273-000087 RAY MICHAEL LTD 48 S HIGH ST
273-000092 RICHARDS JOYCE M TOD 63 S HIGH ST
273-000097 ROBBINS GLEN A 54 S HIGH ST
273-000262 ROSENQUIST LOIS J 64 S RIVERVIEW ST
273--000091 RUDY STEVEN W 129 S RIVERVIEW ST
273-000140 SAUER CAROL E 141 FRANKLIN ST
13-000286 SMITH ROSELEA M
273-000019 SMITH ROSELEA M 97 S RIVERVIEW ST
273-000066 STAUB ALLAN D LANTZ RONALD L 114 S HIGH ST
273-000060 VEELEY THOMAS L & PATRICIA C 109 S RIVERVIEW ST
273-000043 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN 129 S HIGH ST
273-000090 WOOD-ANDERSEN MARY E 137 S RIVERVIEW ST
http://209.51.193.871scriptslmw5rer.pl
8/31 /200
-~, sls
,~
1.~ ul ~,
•~ ~'' N b ~
N •~
N __ ~
~~~-~~~
'~ ~ygg ;
~~ o o ~ .c ~
z a H N ~
~ ~ ~ ~~
I
~~/}~~..
.~~j.jLL o ~. ~.
u
w
~Ya1
~
~JIL
W =
~
1
~~
cD
U~< ~
„
wo
IY" J
L•
r... .9•AZ
,.PAL ~? „Z/t 8.Z t ,.L•,8 + .LL 8'Z .A•.Z ".i
A
I 'aon Olquxv>r
wwotxi
I
I i
il
I
~
l I
I
I
I ;
~
I
I.
I. ',A•At ~
~'
I
.A•At
I
o
' I
~ I i' ~
i a .
f~
I
~I
y t
h
i ~
,
I li
t
l ~1
el
I I g
~ '. I w
/
i
~ :i
1 I
I
I
~~
I i
4
I
i
I ;I
1'li
ii h
I
~A.;OL+.
~,P.Y
•
fV
N
w
J
Q
k
R
Cl~
!!~ ~
4..
I
~
• .... .. .. ... .. ..
a~ - ;
.O.N .' ~
.... ....
~ ~
cc
h
~ ~
'
11 '
~~I 1 1 1
I~~ i, 1
'
..
')
i l
I , ~ ; ! ';:
,,
I
~ I i
II
i1+.
......
..... ... I
I
'
.
.... 11a
1
i
20
1
. .
I ~~~
J1• <.-
> II
~ t.
Il
I.` w .
J
W
•- ..
1Ci,
'~I , 11 r. ...
I ''I'IIII Ii -
1.;1 f 1;~1
,~~
a~
of
z^
O~
w
1\ ~
I II I ~~~
I I ~' I 11
III'.I I ~ i'il
~'~' ' '' ~ ';1
I '~'
„~ I I I I:I:
I~I~ II'I..I I I I I~;.II ~
I
i I I I .I,;
,~~ '' .` I I lij
I
,
I
i
°
I
1 II~ III II
I ~ ~~~i Ip
'~Q II
it I i , i,.i:
!
l
I I
~i
~
~ W
'
i
rJ,
f
l
1
1I1 ~
l i ~' I I
~~ I ~I I ..
I .I
~~~'~ 8~~
~~
u7J~
ICI il,~l!Lilll.~l _ _
i~~l, i.
;.
'' II j II, .I;
I ZWZ
Z O
~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~C~¢
!n Ow w~ t' ~C~ ~ UU
U W O
t~ ~
~ a x w~
~ ~ 8~ `a ~ui
`~
o ~~ ~~ ~ ~ w~ '"~
bU ~ U T~~ ~U ~ 1z11
~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~m ~~ =m
~~~~~s
~ N Ih O Y1 IG
11
it li+
i J
'
j:
`'
~;~ ,-I
.
.
~,
i 1
,
I
;i I __..._.._ . _._ ..._... _. ~,~.
~ ' - --.. _.. ~i
po .. .._. J( b
~~ _:_ ':'.
.
-- _ _ :._.. 1
Il
~ ~'
u
w g __
_
.. _ __ .._ .
_ ..._ . ;
~
W
Z __ ~ ~ w
_ ....
_.. . _._
_._ -_
.....
.
ci
,
. _ _ ~
r
.T . .. ,
'A
_ 1 ~~~
c
. ,
AVMXTIM X7ILB ONLL61X3
'"y
a
1 .... ' I 1 ~
i
r.:
i L I 1
1:,5~- ~ ~ r f 13
i
~'
,
l :
i I ~~
~ i , ~ , , ~a
i ~
~ .~
.. ~,
~ :1 rl, .ly- ~ w
I
- x~
sar
i • ,
i ddd ~ N
iY5' ~ ' I • ~
'
'
~ ,
~ ., 441.
_
~ ;; ~ ,1 ~, n
. t ,
1 l.'~` IL If II'~I'.1 ;
W
0
Z
g
a
~v
5~
S
Y
~t ~g~ ~~
~~
.~~ ~3 ~3~
~._ ...._... .. _. sa .._. ...__.... ....... ... .. ..... .. _.__ ~n ~a. .. .._. _. ...J
L. _.,. .. ._. _._..,^IPa,. ..._. __..__ .._...__ ..... ....__._.,._...._..._..._._, ... ..._.
W
U
LL
O ~
0
a w
a ~
~ o
~ _
ZQ
J i-I /
~
`/
a =
'
~
y N
a
~ o
f11 11
2 r
~'
W !~
W
N I
~U'
S
Land Use and Long Range Planning
5800 Shier-Rings Road • Dublin, Ohio 43016
Phone: 614-410-4600 • Fax: 614-410-4747
CITY OF DLBLIN
TO: Members of Dublin City Council
Memo
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager ~~f 5
DATE: November 7, 2005
INITIATED BY: Daniel D. Bird, FAICP, Land Use and Long Range Planning Director ~'~
RE: First Reading for Ordinance # 69-OS (Case No. OS-1422 - 87 South '~f
High Street -Platinum Management)
SUMMARY:
Rezoning application OS-1422 for 87 South High Street, located on the west side of
South High Street, 75 feet north of Pinney Hill, is being forwarded for first reading. This
application requests a change in zoning for 0.11 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 # 69-OS
JMO
Land Use and Long Range Planning
5800 Shier-Rings Road • Dublin, Ohio 43016
Phone: 614-410-4600 -Fax: 614-410-4747
CITT fiF DUBLIN
l~~Iema
TO: Members of Dublin City Council
- > cti~ q w,.~J
FROM: Jane S_ Brautigam, City Managet~~,~_.~.. '_, ~ (/
DATE: November 16, 2005 ,,
INITIATED BY: Daniel D. Bird, FAICP, Land Use and Long Range Planning Director ,
RE: Second Reading for Rezoning Ordinance #b9-OS (Case No. 05-1422 - 87
South High Street -Platinum Management)
SUMMARY:
Rezoning application OS-1422 for 87 South High Street, located on the west side of
South High Street, 75 feet north of Pinney Hill, is being forwarded for second reading.
This application requests a change in zoning for 0.11 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.
The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved this rezoning on October
6, 2005 with one condition.
Condition:
1) 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 #69-OS with the one condition
adopted by the Planning Commission on October 6, 2005.
JMO
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
CTI'Y of nuBLIN_ OCTOBER 6, 2005
wS 8U6Nal1'~ ~1
t~.d uu ~a /l~ 1l Z ~ (~
to sage Plamiag I t /~~
SP tier-Rings Road
0~ Obio 43016-1236
PF~~:- 614-410-4600
Fax: 614-410-4147
Web Site: www-dabFiaohus
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
5. Rezoning - OS-1422 -Platinum Management - 87 South High Street
Location: 0.11-acre located on the west side of South High Street, 75 feet north of
Pinney Hill.
Ezisting 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: An existing 1,152-square-foot retail space and an approved 454-square-
foot accessory structure for general office use.
Applicant: Platinum Management, c/o Peter Coratola, 126 South High Street, Dublin,
Ohio 43017; represented by Cambridge Company Inc., c/o David Goldthwaite, 304 Old
Spring Court, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Joanne Ochal, Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4683/Email: jochal@dublin.oh.us.
MOTION: To approve this Rezoning because it will continue the preservation of the Historic
District character and facilitate future growth, with one condition:
1) That the applicant applies for all necessary building permits prior to demolition
and construction of any approved site modifications.
* David Goldthwaite, representing the applicant, agreed to the above condition.
VOTE: 7-0.
RESULT: This rezoning application was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a
positive recommendation.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
J nne Ochal
anner
STAFF REPORT
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 6, 2005
CITY OF DUBLIN_
Land Use and
I.~, ~Raage Plaaniag
Shier-Rings Road
1 i, Ohio 43016-1236
fiw~~a: 614-410-4600
kx: 614-410-4741
Web Site: www.dublin.oh-us
5. Rezoning - OS-1422 -Platinum Management - 87 South High Street
Location: 0.11-acre located on the west side of South High Street, 75 feet north of
Pinney Hill.
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: An existing 1,152-square-foot retail space and an approved 454-square-
foot accessory structure for general office use.
Applicant: Platinum .Management, c/o Peter Coratola, 126 South High Street, Dublin,
Ohio 43017; represented by Cambridge Company Inc., c/o David Goldthwaite, 304 Old
Spring Court, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Joanne Ochal, Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4683/Email: jochal@dublin.oh.us.
BACKGROUND:
Case Summary:
This is a request to rezone a 0.1143-acre parcel in the Historic District from CB, Central
Business District to HB, Historic Business District. The applicant received Architectural Review
Board approval for repainting the main structure on May 25, 2005 (see Board Order OS-
OSOARB), and the demolition and construction of an outbuilding on July 27, 2005 (see Board
Order OS-112). Board of Zoning Appeals approved a parking variance on September 22, 2005
(see Board Order OS-141V). A condition of approval required that the applicant submit an
application to rezone the property to Historic Business. 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 wilt become effective 30 days after passage.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -October 6, 2005
Case No. OS-1422 -Page 2
CONSIDERATIONS:
Site Characteristics:
• Site Description. The site is located on the west side of South High Street, approximately
50 feet north of Pinney Hill. The lot is approximately 30 feet wide and 165 feet deep. It
is part of the Cobblestone Square development, which includes the adjacent lots to the
north and south. The development contains a doctor's office, located to the north and
Dublin Hair and Nails to the south.
• Site Modifications. On May 25, 2005 the ARB approved the repainting of the existing
structures see (see Board Order OS-050 ARB). The demolition of the outbuilding and
construction of a 454-square-foot single tenant office building was approved by the
Board on July 27, 2005 (see Board Order OS-112ARB). A parking variance was
approved by the BZA for this site on September 22, 2005 (see Board Order OS-141 V).
The applicant has repainted the building but no building permits have been issued for this
site.
• Zoning Description. The site and properties to the north and south, as well as to the east
across South High Street, are zoned CB, Central Business District. Permitted uses
include residential, retail, offices, and personal and consumer services. Properties to the
west across Mill Lane include single-family homes that are zoned R-4, Suburban
Residential District.
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. A minimum lot width and frontage of 60 feet is required for this
zoning district. This site does not meet this requirement and will be legally non-
conforming. This site complies with all other development standards which include front
setback of zero feet, a side yard minimum of zero with a total of five feet and rear yard
requirement of five feet. Lot coverage does not to exceed 80 percent required.
• 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. Various changes to this site 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. Because site
modifications have already been approved by the ARB, the Commission is only
reviewing 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
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -October 6, 2005
Case No. OS-1422 -Page 3
approval of the rezoning with the following one condition and the nine conditions carried over
from the ARB approval:
Condition:
1) That the applicant applies for all necessary building permits prior to demolition
and construction of any approved site modifications.
Bases:
1) This rezoning will provide an appropriate zoning classification for this site within
the Historic District and provide for effective administrative 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 nine conditions of approval as listed on the September 21, 2005 Board Order.
1) That the applicant immediately secure the structure to prohibit unauthorized
access;
2) That the applicant submit an application to rezone the property to HB, Historic
Business District;
3) That a demolition permit be obtained prior to demolition and that any resulting
debris be removed to conform with Code provisions for property maintenance;
4) That the demolition permit for the rear structure not be issued until the applicant
has applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the applicable variance requests
or brought the proposal into Code compliance;
S) That a building permit be obtained prior to construction of the proposed
improvements;
6) That the site be brought into compliance with the Landscape Code by replacing a
dogwood shrub with an ornamental tree of the appropriate caliper, and that
additional landscaping on the south elevation be subject to staff approval;
7) That the applicant work with the Engineering Division to ensure City stormwater
quality standards are met;
8) That the applicant utilize wood windows; and
9) That the applicant use ahalf--round gutter and round downspout.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - Q~tober 6, 2005
Page 4 /
Mr. Gerb moved for ap royal of this R oning because twill continue t e preservation the
Historic istrict charact and will facili to future growt ,with one condi on:
1) That he applicant a plies for all nec ssary building d zoning perm s prior to const ction
of y approved sit modifications.
Mr. Zi erman seco ded the motion and the vote w s as follows: M .Reiss, yes; Ms Boring,
yes; s. Jones, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Mess'neo, yes; Mr. mmerman, yes• and Mr.
Gerb r, yes. (Appro ed 7-0.)
5. Rezoning - OS-1422 -Platinum Management - 87 South High Street
Mr. Gerber swore in those who intended to testify in regards to this case.
David Goldthwaite, representing the applicant, Peter Coratola, Platinum Management, agreed to
the one condition in the staff report as listed below.
Mr. Gerber moved for approval of this Rezoning because it will continue the preservation of the
Historic District character and facilitate future growth, with one condition:
1) That the applicant applies for all necessary building permits prior to demolition and
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.)
6. Co cept Plan - ~5-155CP - S oedinger Fu eral Home - merald Par ay and
In ovation Drive
Mr. G rber explain
43,00 -square-foot
Plan eview exami~
that this is an
feral home
the general
ri w and the re lts are not
~ fission is to rovide feedb
ew. He said i approved, the
rezoning, whic ever is applic
1l schedule a p blic hearing d
velopment pl swill require pp
an office bui
d sign of the
b nding on e
k and then
pplicant is ai
le within the
subsequently
royal by the
for r few and approv 1 of a Concept lan for a
ldin on an 8.8-acre site. He said t e Concept
pro osed developme t and this is a n-specific
.the the developer or the munici ality. The
su mit the applic ion to City C ncil for its
~t orized to file a reliminary dev opment plan
n xt eight months At a later date City Council
ote to approve r disapprove th proposal. All
.ommission prio to construction
'Jamie Adkins 'ghlighted the tall report and resented slides f the site. She id the propo
site includes a neral home ilding at the co er of Emerald arkway and Inn vation Drive.
association w th this use, is reception cent at the back po ion of the site. She said one ;
two-story o ce buildings shown on the estern portion o the site.
Ms. Adkin said a subst ial creek exists along the north fide of the pro rty with assoc ated
floodplain and floodway and, if the ap licant proceed work cannot a done withi this
floodway lus 20 feet. I work is done w thin the 100-ye floodplain, a draulic study ill be
necessar to indicate tha they have com ensating storage
APPROVED SITE PLAN
_--- ALLEY 22' ----.
Pc+lVgU3 ...au...
PISU.P? r.
'.
A
lSPIW,T OHIVE
Y ~ I
PARKIAG SPwCES
35PNCE5 ~9Xi6
.: ~: ,.~:: .~1:'
~-
k~
''
.1
RES'#NCF q :O! 1
b) F:
'~.
' '~ ~.
•l:~
e PORCH 'i~
I!~l
SITE PLAN VlITN PROPOSED OFFICE
Scale: 1" = tfl'
~Z
HIGH STREET 66'
OS-1422
Platinum Management
87 South High Street
CITY OF DUBLIN_
load Use aad
ioag Raage Plaarong
S~(-n Shier-Rings Road
D ,Ohio 43016-1236
F :614-410-4600
fax: 614-410-4141
Web Site: www.dubhn.oh.us
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
SEPTEMBER 22, 2005
The Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action at this meeting:
6. Variance - OS-141 V -Platinum Management - 87 South High Street
Location: 0.11 acre located on the west side of South High Street, 75 feet north of
Pinney Hill.
Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District.
Request: A variance to Code Section 153.212 to decrease the required number of
additional parking spaces from 5 to 0.
Proposed Use: Office.
Applicant: Platinum Management, Peter Coratola, 126 South High Street, Dublin, Ohio
43017; represented by Cambridge Company Inc., c/o David Goldthwaite, 304 Old Spring
Court, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Joanne Ochal, Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4683/Email: jochal@dublin.oh.us.
MOTION: Bangalore Shankar made a motion, seconded by Drew Skillman, to approve the
variance to decrease the required number of additional parking spaces from 5 to 0, with the
following condition:
1) That these variances apply only to improvements approved by the Architectural
Review Board on July 27, 2005.
VOTE: 5-0_
RESULT: This variance was approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Ray Harpham Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION
Drew Skillman Yes
Jeffrey Ferezan Yes ~~
Bangalore Shankar Yes (~
Keith Blosser Yes anne Ochal, Planner
OS-1422
Platinum Management
87 South High Street
STAFF REPORT
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 22, 2005
CITY OF DUBLIN_
Land Use and
Long Raage Plan~g
""" Shier-Rings Road
i n, Ohio 43016-1236
l .. _.. ~: 614-410-4600
fax: 614-410-4191
Web Site: www.dubliaah.us
6. Variance - OS-141V -Platinum Management -Parking - 87 South High Street
Location: 0.11 acre located on the west side of South High Street, 75 feet north of
Pinney Hill.
Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District.
Request: A variance to Code Section 153.212 to decrease the required number of
additional pazking spaces from 5 to 0.
Proposed Use: Office.
Applicant: Platinum Management, Peter Coratola, 126 South High Street, Dublin, Ohio
43017; represented by Cambridge Company Inc., c/o David Goldthwaite, 304 Old Spring
Court, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Joanne Ochal, Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4683/Email: jochal@dublin.oh.us.
Summary and Action Recommended:
This is a request for a variance to Code Section 153.212 to reduce the total required number of
- parking spaces from ten to five for two commercial buildings located at 87 South High Street in
Historic Dublin. The applicant received approval for demolition and reconstruction of the rear
accessory structure on July 27, 2005 (see Board Order OS-112ARB). The rear building was
approved as an office, and five pazking spaces were approved on the site, requiring a five space
vaziance. Staff is recommending approval of this application with one condition.
Review Criteria:
In accordance with Code Section 153.237, the Board of Zoning Appeals shalt only approve a
variance or modification thereof if the following findings are made:
1) That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land or
structure involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same
zoning district;
2) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district
under the terms of the zoning ordinance;
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
Staff Report -September 22, 2005
Case No. OS-141 V -Page 2
3) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the action of the
applicant;
4) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by the zoning ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district; and
5) That granting the variance will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons
residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed development, be materially
detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to private property or public improvements
in the vicinity.
In addition to these criteria, the standards for a practical difficulty must be considered if the less
stringent hardship requirements are not met.
Narrative:
Site Location:
The site is located on the west side of South High Street, approximately 50 feet north of Pinney
Hill. It is part of the Cobblestone Square development, which includes a doctor's office, located
to the north of the site, and Dublin Hair and Nails to the south. To the east, across South High
Street, is the Shamrock Barber Shop at 86 South High Street. To the west of the site across Mill
Lane are single-family residences that front onto Franklin Street.
Ezisting Zoning:
The site and properties to the north and south, as well as to the east across South High Street, are
zoned CB, Central Business District. Permitted uses include residential, retail, offices, and
personal and consumer services. Properties to the west across Mill Lane include single-family
homes that are zoned R-4, Suburban Residential District.
Site Description:
The site is a relatively flat parcel with frontage along South High Street. The primary structure
on the site is a Greek revival-style building painted red and white. The structure is a converted
residence that was constructed in the 1830s and is now listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. A small springhouse is located directly behind the main building. Currently the site
provides four parking spaces for the site.
Proposal:
The applicant has received Architectural Review Board approval for the demolition of the
existing accessory structure and the construction of a 454-square-foot, one-tenant office building
in its place. The site plan features five spaces. The additional building square footage increases
the required parking spaces to ten. Therefore, the applicant needs five more parking spaces and is
requesting a variance to Code Section 153.212 for those five spaces.
Considerations:
• An access agreement exists with the adjacent property owners to allow cross access
through the provided parking area.
Properties in Historic Dublin are being rezoned to the Historic Business, a new zoning
classification (HB). This classification addresses the unique qualities and development
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
Staff Report -September 22, 2005
Case No. OS-141 V -Page 3
patterns that are inherent to the Historic District. However, it does not address parking
requirements.
The Architectural Review Board approved all site improvements on July 27, 2005 (see
Board Order OS-112ARB).
Staff Recommendation:
As with many other cases in Historic Dublin, staff cannot identify a classic hardship or practical
difficulty in this case. Staff will continue to support applications that are appropriate to the
general development patterns and goals for Historic Dublin. Staff believes this proposal will
make a positive improvement to the Historic District and recommends approval with the
following condition:
Condition:
1) That these variances apply only to improvements approved by the Architectural Review
Board on July 27, 2006.
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes -September 22, 2005
Page 8
Member erezan confirm d that Parking S utions is their v et service, and at during
the busie t hours; the p 'ng was in the chool parking 1 He asked if a owner of
Krema uts had agreed at Jason's valet arking could us their parking to
Mr. Li said Jason's h d a parking agre ent with Krem Nuts.
Mr. iu agreed with a condition as 1' ted in the staff r port.
Me ber Harpham ked for reasons this variance cou d be granted.
id the Historic ~istrict made this/unique and prec~dent had been
said a fantastic ~ob had been don~by Mr. Rex in resenting this
Member Blo ser made a moti n, seconded by ember Shankar to approve a v ance
based on th findings listed i the staff report, 'th the one co ition listed in t staff
report.
This vari ce was unanim sly approved by 5-0 vote.
6. Variance - OS-141V -Platinum Management -Parking - 87 South High Street
Planner Joanne Ochal presented this case by highlighting the staff report and showing
slides of the property and the submitted plans. She stated that staff recommends
approval of this variance to Code Section 153.152 to decrease the number of parking
spaces from ten to five with one condition as listed in the staff report and amending the
date reviewed by the Architectural Review Board to 2005.
David Goldthwaite, Cambridge Company Inc., representing the applicant said the 480-
square-foot building will have one room containing a kitchenette and bathroom that will
be used for a small decorating business.
Member Shankar made a motion, seconded by Member Skillman, to approve the
variance to decrease the required number of additional parking spaces from 5 to 0, with
one condition as listed in the staff report, correcting the Architectural Review Board
meeting date to July 27, 2005.
Mr. Goldthwaite agreed on behalf of the applicant to the condition.
The variance was unanimously approved by a 5-0 vote.
7. ariance - 05-144 - Sopko Re
J e Adkins present d this case by
th property and the bmitted plans
v fiance to Code S tion 153.190 (I
b ilding addition in tead of the req
e staff report.
nce - 5655 Ind' n Hill Road
ghlighting the s f report ands wing slides o
she stated that s ff recommends approval of th'
1)(e) to allow 3/12 roof pitc on the propos d
l 4/~2 roof pit ,with the two onditions liste in
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
BOARD ORDER
JULY 27, 2005
ITY OF DUBL[N_
~ use wd
.~ R~ el~Mi.y
100 Sloer-Rings Road
i6tP` '"uo 43016-1136
an 4-410-4600 The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting:
110147
eb Sile: www.dubGa.o6-ar
1. Architectural Review Board - OS-112ARB - 87 South High Street -
Demolition/New Build
Location: 0.11-acre lot located on the west side of South High Street, 65 feet
north of Pinney Hilt.
Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District_
Request: Demolition of rear accessory structure to be replaced by a single-tenant
office building.
Proposed Use: 454-square-foot single-tenant office building.
Applicant: Platinum Management, 127 South High St, Dublin, Ohio 43017;
represented by David Goldthwaite, 304 Old Spring Court, Dublin, Ohio 43017_
Staff Contact: Lisa Rivera, Planner_
Contact Information: (614) 410-4654/Email: hvera@dublin.oh_us.
MOTI0IY: Allan Staub made a motion, seconded by Thomas Holton, to approve this
application for demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new structure as
presented, with the following nine conditions:
Conditions:
i) That the applicant immediately secure the structure to prohibit unauthorized
access;
2) That the applicant submit an application to rezone the property to HB, Historic
Business Distract;
3) That a demolition permit be obtained prior to demolition and that any resulting
debris be removed to conform with Code provisions for property maintenance;
4) That the demolition permit for the rear structure not be issued until the applicant
has applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the applicable variance requests ar
brought the proposal into Code compliance;
5) That a building permit be obtained prior to construction of the proposed
improvements;
6) That the site be brought into compliance with the Landscape Code by replacing a
dogwood shrub with an ornamental tree of the appropriate caliper, and that
additional landscaping on the south elevation be subject to staff approval;
1 of 2
OS-1422
Platinum Management
87 South High Street
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
BOARD ORDER
JULY 27, 2005
The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting:
1. Architectural Review Board - OS-112ARB - 87 South High Street -
Demolition/New Buiid (Continued)
7) That the applicant work with the Engineering Division to ensure City stormwater
quality standards are met;
8) That the applicant utilize wood windows; and
9) That the applicant use ahalf--round gutter and round downspout_
VOTE: 3-0
RESULT: This application was approved_
RECORDED VOTES:
Allan Staub Yes
Thomas Holton Yes
Kevin Bales Yes
Clayton Bryan ABSENT
Richard Taylor ABSENT
STAFF CERTIFICATION
~=
Danielle M_ Devlin, AICP
Senior Planner
2 of 2
OS-1422
Platinum Management
87 South High Street
STAFF REPORT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
JULY 27, 2005
CITY OF DUBLIN_
land Use and
Long Range Planning
5800 Shier-Rings Road
t? ' ` i, Ohio 43016-1236
f :614{10-4600
F~....,14-410-4141
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
1. Architectural Review Board - OS-112ARB - 87 South High Street - Demolition/New
Build
Location: 0.11-acre lot located on the west side of South High Street, 65 feet north of
Pinney Hill.
Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District_
Request: Demolition of rear accessory structure to be replaced by asingle-tenant office
building.
Proposed Use: 454-square-foot single-tenant office building.
Applicant: Platinum Management 127 South High St, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented
by David Goldthwaite, 304 Old Spring Court, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Lisa Rivera, Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4654JEmail: Irivera@dublin.oh.us.
Summary and Action Recommended:
This request is to demolish a 480-square-foot garage located at the rear of the property at 87
South High Street along the Mill Street alleyway and construct a 454-square-foot single-story
office space. The deteriorated state of the existing rear structure poses alife/safety issue and
necessitates demolition. Staff believes that the proposed demolition satisfies the basic criteria
specified by Section 153.185 for the Architectural Review District and that the proposed
replacement office structure is consistent with the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines and
recommends approval of this request with conditions.
Review Criteria:
Code Section 153.185 states that the Architectural Review Board may authorize demolition if
they find that at least two of the following conditions prevail:
(1) The structure contains no features of architectural and historic significance to the
character of the individual precinct within which it is located-
(2) There exists no reasonable economic use for the structure as it exists or as it might be
restored, and that there exists no feasible and prudent alternative to demolition.
(3) Deterioration has progressed to the point where it is not economically feasible to
restore the structure.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Staff Report -July 27, 2005
Page 2
Narrative:
Site Location:
The site is located on the west side of South High Street, approximately 50 feet north of
Pinney Hill. It is part of the Cobblestone Square development, which includes Dr.
Duncan Grant's office, located to the north of the site, and Dublin Hair and Nails to the
south. To the east, across South High Street, is the Shamrock Barber Shop at 86 South
High Street_ To the west of the site across Mili Lane are single-family residences that
front onto Franklin Street.
Existing Zoning:
The site and properties to the north and south, as well as to the east across South High
Street, are zoned CB, Central Business District. Permitted uses include residential, retail,
offices, and personal and consumer services. Properties to the west across Mill Lane
include single-family homes that are zoned R-4, Suburban Residential District.
Site Description:
The site is a relatively flat parcel with frontage along South High Street. The primary
structure on the site is a Greek revival-style building painted red and white. The structure
is a converted residence that was constructed in the 1830s and is now listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. A small springhouse is located directly behind the
primary structure, adjacent to parking for this site and the surrounding development. The
rear accessory structure is located 87 feet behind the primary structure. Between the two
structures is a large paved area measuring approximately 1,860 square-feet that currently
provides four parking spaces for the site.
Proposal:
This is a request for the review and approval of the demolition and reconstruction of the
rear accessory structure at 87 South High Street. The building is located along the Mill
Street alley_ Due to the level of deterioration, Building and Code Enforcement staff have
determined the structure may represent alife/safety hazard. The City's historical
consultant, Benjamin Rickey and Co., has examined the site and has indicated that the
rear structure has no historical significance and can be demolished.
The applicant proposes to construct a single story 454-square-foot structure for an offtce
use. Exterior materials will be board and batten siding, smooth cedar trim, and asphalt
shingle. Both the chimney and foundation blocks will be covered with a stone veneer.
Proposed exterior paint colors are "Avon Green HC-126," for the main body of the
structure and, "Dunmore Cream HC-29," for the accent trim. Both are manufactured by
Benjamin Moore Paints and are from a historical palette. A small porch with two square
columns and an overhang will be constructed on the west elevation. Windows will be 2-
over-1 double hung. The proposed colors and architecture are consistent with the
Guidelines.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Staff Report - Juiy 27, 2005
Page 3
Considerations:
The applicant has proposed to reconstruct the rear accessory structure located on the lot
to bring it in to compliance as the current state of the structure may pose alife/safety
hazard.
An inspection of the property was conducted in April 2005 by the Building Division to
inventory various maintenance issues. Section 153.184 of the Zoning Code requires that
all structures must be properly maintained to ensure the building's perpetuation and to
prevent destruction by deterioration. It was then determined that the building posed a
life/safety issue and the applicant was given notification that the rear structure needed to
be addressed. Visual inspection of the building indicates that it does not appear to be
structurally sound and the exterior has severely deteriorated. Areas of the roof are caved
in and the door no longer locks allowing unrestricted entry into the structure. Staff
recommends that the applicant immediately secure the structure to prohibit unauthorized
access.
The applicant has agreed to participate in the rezoning of the property to HB, Historic
Business District as part of the city-initiated Historic Dublin Rezoning project, scheduled
for completion early next year. The Historic Business classification sets forth
development standards more appropriate to the character of the District. Rezoning
properties to Historic Business will increase compliance with Code and reduce the need
for variance requests within the District.
The existing rear structure encroaches into the alleyway over the west property line. The
proposed structure will be set back 5-feet from the property line to meet the Historic
Business District setback requirement.
The Code and the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines have been developed to protect
historic structures and conserve the overall visual quality of the district. The building
proposed for demolition has significantly deteriorated and is considered to represent a
life/safety hazard by the City of Dublin. The specific age of the structure is not known.
The City's historic consultant, Benjamin Rickey and Co., has determined that the
building is not architecturally significant. Staff believes that the proposed demolition and
reconstruction of the building would not negatively impact the overall visual character
and scale of the alley.
As recommended by the Guidelines, the proposed structure features similar form,
massing, height, materials and other design cues as the neighboring building to the north,
currently used for residential purposes. The accessory building to the south is also in a
severely deteriorated state. Staff has initiated discussions with the owner and will
proceed with the abatement procedure.
The submitted plans show the proposed replacement structure to be consistent with the
character and quality displayed throughout Historic Dublin and to fit well into the alley
streetscape.
The demolition rebuild constitutes a 25% expansion making the site subject to the
Landscape Code. According to Code, for office uses, there shall be tree plantings equal
to one inch in tree size for every 1,500 square feet of building ground coverage, or
fraction thereof, making the minimum for this site 1.75 inches. Therefore the proposed
site plan requires an additional site planting of 0.73 inches. In order to meet Code, Staff
recommends replacing the proposed Tartarian Dogwood shrub with an ornamental tree.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Staff Report -July 27, 2005
Page 4
• Currently, there are four parking spaces on the lot. The applicant's proposed site plan
shows five parking spaces including one ADA accessible space. Due to the retail use in
the primary structure and the proposed office use in the rear structure, Code requires a
total of 10 spaces on the lot. The applicant has indicated that there is currently a parking
agreement between 87 S High St and adjacent properties to the north and south; however,
is unable to provide the proper documentation at this time. The applicant must submit the
existing agreement or come to a new agreement and then apply to the Board of Zoning
Appeals for the appropriate parking variance prior to obtaining a building permit. Staff
recommends that, if approved, the demolition permit for the rear structure not be issued
until application for the variance request is made to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
• Currently, the site has lot coverage of 95 percent impermeable surface. The proposed site
plan indicates an increased amount of pervious space, which reduces the lot coverage to
91 percent. The Historic Business District requires a maximum of 80 percent lot
coverage unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board. Staff believes
that the reduction in lot coverage, combined with the upgrade of the property warrant
Board approval of the proposed 91 percent lot coverage.
Due to the decrease in impervious surface, a stormwater waiver will not be required.
However, the applicant must work with the Engineering Division to ensure the City
standards for stormwater quality are met.
Staff Recommendation:
The Zoning Code provides for specific criteria that must be followed and evaluated by the Board
for proposed demolitions within the Architectural Review District. Staff believes that the
conditions justifying demolition set forth in Section 153.185 have been satisfied in that the
structure has no historic significance, no reasonable economic use exists for the structure and the
deterioration has progressed beyond the point of restoration. Furthermore, staff believes that the
removal of the structure will not significantly impact the visual character of the surrounding area
and will improve the streetscape appearance along Mill Street. Based upon the criteria set forth
by the Code in Section 153.185, staff respectfully recommends approval of this application with
the following conditions:
1) That the applicant immediately secure the structure to prohibit unauthorized access;
2) That the applicant submit an application to rezone the property to HB, Historic Business
District;
3) That a demolition permit be obtained prior to demolition and that any resulting debris be
removed to conform with Code provisions for property maintenance;
4) That the demolition permit for the rear structure not be issued until the applicant has
applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the applicable variance requests or brought
the proposal into Code compliance;
5) That a building permit be obtained prior to construction of the proposed improvements;
6) That the site be brought into compliance with the Landscape Code by replacing a
dogwood shrub with an ornamental tree of the appropriate caliper, subject to staff
approval; and
7) That the applicant work with the Engineering Division to ensure City stormwater quality
standards are met.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
C[TY OF D[JBLIN_
JULY 27, 2005
t..i Use.d
~ ~~ ~s
saoa sw«-r~ Ra.a
Ou65., Ohio /3x16-1236
_ 614~tca6oe Administrative Busi ss
u~ 614-41a-4747
+Yeh SAe: ~w.duhfia.ahws
Chair Allan S called the meeting to ceder at 7.00 p.m.
Senior anner Danielle Devlin lied the ROIL Boar embers present wer Allan
Sta ,Thomas Holton and in Bales_ Members tchard Taylor and Cla on Bryan
ere absent with prior no ~ e_ Staff planners Dan- a Devlin and Lisa Riv and interns
Jud Rex, Brian Doyle d Matt Huffman were so present.
Danielle Devli resented staff annou menu:
1) and and Commission mutes -City Council asked that all Boar and
mmissions keep wri n minutes of their pro edings. Accordingly e next
ARB packet will i lude minutes for co ~ Bring and approvin at the next
meeting_
2) Historic ub(in Communit Pla date Meetin s - F ow up meetings will
be held n August l6`h and l7`'' the 1919 Building. a first meetings held
the and 14`x' of July we fairly welt attended. a 1919 Building ma e a
eat place to hold ARB eetings, especially to ccommodate an audie .Staff
will report back_ ,
Chair Allan Staub d those in attendanc ho intended to speak~Cf`ricerning the cases
on the agenda to nd and swear to tell truth. ~"y
Member evin Bales made a otion, seconded by omas Holton, to acce the
docuc nts into the record. voted in favor (3-0)_
hair Staub introduc tonight's case:
Case #05-112ARB - 87 South High Street -Demolition/New Build
Lisa Rivera, Planner, presented Case #0~-11?_ARB - 87 South High Street by
highlighting the staff report and showing slides of the property and the submitted p[ans_
Lisa stated that staff recommends approval of the demolition of the existing accessory
structure and construction of a new structure for office uses, based on the seven
conditions listed in the staff report.
Lisa Rivera stated that Member Clayton Bryan had submitted written comments
concerning this case. As with atl material submitted by the public prior to meetings,
OS-1422
Platinum Management
87 South High Street
Architectural Review Board
Draft Meeting Minutes -July 27, 2005
copies were made and distributed to the Board, staff and applicant. It is the option of the
Board to discuss material received in this manner.
Mr. Bates asked if the structure will be a residence, and if there was a restroom with
ADA accessibility_
David Goldthwaite, representative of the applicant, responded that there will not be a
stoop or that a stoop would be at grade for accessibility. A restroom will be included in
the plans for the building permit. He~ then said he would -likely be bringing in the
adjacent deteriorated structure as well and would prefer to use the shake shingles on this
building instead of the board and batten siding recommended by stall: He said he would
use a wood window and paint it rather than a clad frame. Mr. Goldthwaite discussed
shingle types and stated that he felt shake would call too much attention to the roof. He
prefers to keep the `weathered wood' dimensional shingle as shown on the plan_ The
Board discussed the use of a half-round gutter treatment. Mr. Goldthwaite agreed this
treatment would be appropriate_ '
The Board discussed board and batten siding as preferable for this structure. They asked
that the applicant utilize all-wood windows. The applicant agreed_ -
The Board discussed the fire and building code requirements for a potential window on
the south side of the structure_ It was determined that code would not allow such a
window without additional construction measures.
Chair Staub asked Mr. Goldthwaite to discuss what is happening with the siding project
on the rear of the main structure as approved at the last meeting. Mr. Goldthwaite said
that the project is not complete and he will ensure that it is completed as approved by the
Board.
Chair Staub made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed in
the staff report with the addition of Condition 8: That the applicant utilize wood
windows; and
Condition 9: That the applicant use ahalf--round gutter and round downspout; and the
modification of Condition 6: That the site be brought into compliance with the
Landscape Code by replacing a dogwood shrub with an ornamental tree of the
appropriate caliper, and that additional landscaping on the south elevation be subject to
staff approval Mr. Holton seconded the motion. All members voted in favor (3-0).
Mr. Holton discussed concerns with "deterioration by neglect" and subsequent
demolition of accessory structures in the Historic District. He suggested that perhaps the
Board can work with Code Enforcement to address these properties before they get to
such a deteriorated state.
Meeting adjourned at 8:1 ~ p.m.
ectfully subRUtted by
OS-1422
Platinum Management
87 South High Street
..CITY OF DUBL[N
STAFF REPORT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MAY 25, 2005
2. Architectural Review Board 05-OSOARB - 87 South High Street -Exterior
Improvements
Location: 0.11-acre lot located on the west side of South High Street, 65 feet
north of Pinney Hill.
Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District.
Request: Exterior improvements to an existing structure including residing and
repainting the exterior.
Proposed Use: Single tenant in existing 1,152 square feet of retail space.
Applicant: Platinum Management 127 South High Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017;
represented by David Goldthwaite, 31 South High Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Lisa Rivera, Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4654/Email: lrivera@dublin.oh.us.
Summary and Action Recommended:
This is a request for the review and approval of the repainting and residing of the exterior
of the building located at 87 South High Street. Staff believes that the proposed paint
selection generally complies with the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines and that the
condition of the existing siding requires maintenance, and recommends approval of this
request with conditions.
Narrative:
Site Location:
The site is located on the west side of South High Street, approximately 50 feet
north of Pinney Hili. It is part of the Cobblestone Square development, which
includes Dr. Duncan Grant's office, located to the north of the site, and Dublin
Hair and Nails to the south. To the east, across South High Street, is the
Shamrock Barber Shop at 86 South High Street. To the west of the site across
Mill Lane are single-family residences that front onto Franklin Street.
Existing Zoning:
The site and properties to the north and south, as well as to the east across South
High Street, are zoned CB, Central Business District. Permitted uses include
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Staff Report OS-OSOARB -May 25, 2005
Page 2 of 3
residential, retail, offices, and personal and consumer services. Properties to the
west across Mill Lane include single-family homes that are zoned R-4, Suburban
Residential District.
Site Description:
The site is a relatively flat parcel with frontage along South High Street. The
primary structure on the site is a red and white painted, Greek revival-style
cottage. The structure is a converted residence that was constructed in the i 830s
and is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places. A small
springhouse is located directly behind the primary structure, adjacent to parking
for this site and the surrounding development.
Proposal:
This is a request for the review and approval of paint colors for the historic
structure located at 87 South High Street. The building is currently white with red
window treatments and pediment. The building was constructed in the mid
1800's, and the Guidelines indicate that homes during this time period commonly
used bright colors such as red, blue and yellow. The applicant proposes to use a
tan/cream color, "Powell Bluff HC-35," for the main body of the structure and a
darker red, "Cottage Red 22," for the accent trim. Both are manufactured by
Benjamin Moore Paints and are from a historical palette. While no historic color
research has been conducted on the building, the proposed colors are generally
consistent with the Guidelines.
In addition, the applicant intends to perform maintenance on the exterior of the
primary structure by replacing the deteriorated areas of siding on all elevations.
Code permits ordinary maintenance or repair in Historic Dublin provided that
there is no change in materials, design, arrangement, texture or color.
Considerations:
The Guidelines recommend the selection of exterior building colors based on
research, and emphasize that colors should be selected from an historical color
palette. The applicant has requested a color that is generally compatible with the
time period of the building and is consistent with the Guidelines.
• The applicant intends to perform exterior maintenance on the building by residing
deteriorated slats on all elevations. Code Section 153.186 states that standard
maintenance and repair is permitted in the Architectural Review District provided
that there is no change in materials, design, arrangement, texture or color.
The applicant has proposed to reconstruct the rear accessory structure located on
the lot to bring it in to compliance as the current state of the structure may pose a
life/safety hazard. The applicant has met with staff in presubmittal meetings
concerning the design and use of the structure.
• The exterior building materials of the former rear porch on the primary structure
are inconsistent with those of the rest of the structure. While the historic
consultant has advised that this addition be removed, it may not be feasible at this
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Staff Report OS-OSOARB -May 25, 2005
Page 3 of 3
time. Staff recommends that the existing material be covered with a material that
is consistent with the primary structure.
Staff Recommendation:
Property maintenance to historic structures is an important part of preserving the overall
attractiveness of the Historic District. The proposed repainting will improve the exterior
appearance of the structure at 87 South High Street. Staff believes the proposed
improvements are consistent with the Guidelines, and recommends approval of this
request with the following conditions.
1) That the applicant submit and progress with an application to bring the
property's rear accessory structure into compliance with City Code; and
2) That the exterior materials of the existing rear addition to the primary
structure be made consistent with those of the rest of the structure.
ARCIIITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
BOARD ORDER
MAY 25, 200
CITY OF DU[SIdN
The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting:
2. Architectural Review Board OS-OSOARB - 87 South High Street -Exterior
Improvements
Location: 0.11-acre lot located on the west side of South High Street, 6S feet
north of Pinney Hi11_
Existing Zoning: CB, Central Business District.
Request: Exterior improvements to an existing structure including residing and
repainting the exterior_
Proposed Use: Single tenant in existing 1,1 S2 square feet of retail space_
Applicant: Platinum Management, 127 South High Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017;
represented by David Goldthwaite, 31 South High Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Lisa Rivera, PIanner.
Contact Information. (614) 410-4654lBmail: lrivera@dublin.oh.us.
MOTION: Kevin Bates made a motion, seconded by Allan Staub, to approve the
application for exterior modifications subject to the following five conditions:
1. That the applicant submit and progress with an application to bring the
property's rear accessory structure into compliance with City Code;
2. That the exterior materials of the existing rear addition to the primary
structure be made consistent with those of the rest of the structure;
3. That the smaller accessory structure located to the immediate rear of the
primary building be included in the praposed exterior modifications;
4_ That the colors be utilized as submitted and discussed at this meeting, subject
to staff approval; and
S. That the door on the existing rear addition be replaced with afour- or six-
panel exterior door, subject to staff approval.
*David Goldthwaite agreed to the above conditions.
The vote was as recorded below.
VOTE: 4 - 0
RESULT: The application was approved.
OS-1422
Platinum Management
87 South High Street
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Board Order -May 25, 2005
Case OS-OSOARB -Page 2
RECORDED VOTES:
Allan Staub, Chair Yes
Thomas Holton, V. Chair Yes
Kevin Bales Yes
Clayton Bryan Yes
Richard Taylor Abstained {from discussions and vote).
STAFF CERTIFICATION
isa Rivera, Planner
OS-1422
Platinum Management
87 South High Street
08/26/05 14:31 FA% ?616590
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS ~ PLANNING 0002
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Ordiicancc No. 5'i-(t~.~A mended) PasseQ
ZO
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF `THE
ZONING CODE TO ESTABLISH THE ffiSTORIC
BUSINESS (I~) DISTRICT AND THE HISTORIC
RESIDENTIAL (HR) DISTRICT' (CASE NO. Ol-li3ADM -
HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT)
WHEREAS, Historic Dublin plays an important part in the historical, architectural,
cultural, educational and general significance of the larger Dublin coaununity; and
WHEREAS, properties within Historic Dublin are currently governed by suburban
zoning standards that do aot reflect the traditional development patterns of the historic
district; and
WHEREAS, development in ITistoric Dublin requires the utilization of planned zoning
districts and/or multiple variances to maintain historic character and integrity; and
WHEREAS, new standards will limit the need for variances, reduce instances of existing
legal noaconformance, 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 recommends adoption_
NOW, THEREFORE, BE YT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State
of Ohio, __~ of the elected members concurring as follows:
Section 1. That Section 153.035 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances creating the Historic
Residential District, be enacted as follows_
I53.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 aze comparable in size, mass
and scale, while maintaining and promoting the tradirional residential character of
the Historic Dublin area. Utilization of the 1IIZ District is intended to protect the
scale and character of the original platted Village of Dublin.
(B) Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the Historic Residential
District_
(1) Dwelling Structures. One-family dwelling structures.
(2) Home Occupation. Home occupations in association with a permitted
dwelling, and in accordance with the provisions of § 153.073.
(3) Accessory Uses_ Accessory buildings and uses in association with
permitted dwellings as specified in § 153.074_
08/26/20(15 FRi 1
OS-1382
Steele Office Building
138 South High Street
08/26/05 14:31 FAZ T616590 LEG[SLATIVE AFFAIRS ~ PLANNING I~003
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
m,~. ~.~ B~ ~. - ~.,~ ~. X00.3
Ordisiaice No_ S3-n3 mended 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) Par/cs_ Parks, playgrounds, play fields or other related park uses_
(C) Conditional Uses_ There shall be no conditional uses within the Historic
Residential (IlR) District.
(D) Development Standards_ The following standards for arrangement and
development of land and buildings are required_
(1) Lot Area_ For each dwelling unit there shall be a tot area not less than
8,712 square feet (O.2-acre).
(2) Lot yYidth_ Lots shall be a minimum of 60 feet in width, with a minimum
frontage of 60 feet along a public street.
(3) Front Yards. Ali lots shall have a minimum front setback as noted on
TableA in Section 1S3.03S(D)(8)_
(4) Side Yards. All lots shall have a minimum side yard and a total of side
yards as noted on Table A in Section 153.035(D)(8).
(5) Rear Yard_ All lots shall have a minimum rear yard as noted on Table A in
Section 1S3.03S(D)(8).
(6) Height_ N o d welling s tructure s hall e xceed 3 S feet i n h eight_ Maximum
height for other structures shall aot 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 piunary and accessory
structures and impervious surfaces shall not exceed 50 percent of the lot
area, unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board_
(8) Table A_
-
.For Properties lEfranting -Onto; 1Vlinimum
Front
SeEbatk_ 1VI[gim~[m
Side-
Yard Minimum
~'otal Side
Yax-ds Minimum
Rear
'Berard
Dublin Road 1 S 4 16 1 S
Franklin Street 2S 4 t 2 2S
High Street (North 8c South) 1 S 4 l6 15
South Riverview Street (East Side) O 3 l Z L S
South Riverview Street (West Side) 20 3 l2 1 S
North Riverview Street (East Side) O 3 6 LS
North Riverview Street (West Side) 20 3 6 1 S
Short Street 20 3 12 1 S
Roads not otherwise noted above= 20 3 12 1 S
Section 2. That Section 153.036 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances creating the Historic
Business District; be enacted as follows=
OS-1382
Steele Office Building
138 South High Street
08/26/05 14_32 FAZ 76iS590
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS -• PLANNING r~004
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Onfiwncc /Vo_ 53-03 Amend ~
Passed Page 3 20
153_036 HISTORIC BUSINESS DISTRICT (HS)
(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
tt~ditional d evelopment patterns. U tiiization o f t he d istrict i s i mended t o foster
pedestirian-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
inftll development~
(B) Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the Historic Business
District-
(1) Retail- Retail stores engaged in selling merchandise or rendering services
incidental to the sale of the goods, including the buying and processing of
goods for resale or repair
(a) General merchandise
(b) Food and catering activities
(c) Apparel
(d) Home furnishings
(e) Arts, crafts and antiques
(f) Miscellaneous retail
(2) Eating and Drinking Establishments- Eating and drinking establishments
that are commercial establishments engaged in furnishing meals on a fee
basis~
(a) Restaurants
(b) Bars and taverns
(c) Ice cream parlors
(d) Coffee shops
(e) Bagel shops
(f) Delicatessens and sandwich shops
(3) Administrative, Business and Professional Offices~
(4) Medical and Dental O~ces_
(5) Personal and Consumer Services.
(a) Barbers
(b) Beauty salons and shops
(c) Tanning salons
(d) Pedestrian-only ATMs
(e) Tailors and pressing shops
(f) Print shops and copy centers
(g) Photography and framing shops
(6) Institutional-
(a) Government offices
(b) Libraries and museums
(c) Community theaters
(7) Religious- Churches, temples or other places of worship_
(8) Child Care_ Kindergarten, childcare, or daycare in accordance with all
applicable state provisions.
OS-1382
Steele Office Building
138 South High Street
nst/~ai~nn~ Far
08/2S/OS 14.32 FAa 7616590 LBGiSLATIVE AFFAIRS -• PLANNING r~005
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
OrdinmaccNo. 53-03 Am nd ~
<c)
(D)
Passed P ge 4 _ 2p
(9) Parks and Public Plazas, parks, public plazas, playgrounds, play fields or
other related park uses.
(10) Bed and Breakfast Establishments. Bed and breakfast establishments with
a resident manager/owner providing eight or fewer guest emits.
(11) Dwellfngs_ One-family through four-family dwelling units, including
residences in detached accessory structures (i.e_ carriage house units)
and/or residences in conjunction with structures containing other permitted
HB uses.
(12) Outdoor patios. Outdoor seating areas, including but not limited Yo
outdoor dining and restaurant patio spaces in conjunction with other
permitted HB uses.
-(13) Dance, Aerobic, Exercise. Gymnastics, and Related Studios.
Conditional Uses. The following uses shall be conditional uses within the Historic
Business District:
(1) Hore1 and Motel Facilities. Hotels, motels and other boazding 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 markets.
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
frontage 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_ Ail lots shall have a rninirnum 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 lots 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) Height. N o d welting s tructure s hall e xceed 3 5 f eet i n h eight. M aximum
height for other structures shall not exceed a safe height as determined by
[he Fire Chief and as reviewed and accepted by the Architectural Review
Boacd_
05-1382
Steele Office Building
138 South High Street
08/26/05 14.33 FAZ ?616590 LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS ~ PLANNING 006
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
= P««,a rro ww
Ordnance No_ 53-03 Amenderi Passul Page S _ 20
(7) Lot Coverage_ Combined square footage of all primary and accessory
strictures and impervious surfaces shall not exceed 80 percent of the lot
area, unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board_
r Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect on the earliest date provided by law_
Passed this ~/ f~ day of Q Cfa ~ e ~" 2003_
Mayor -Presiding Ofl-icer
Attest=
Clerk of Council
Sponsor: Division of Planning
I hereby certify that copies of this
OcdinaocelResolution were posted in the
City of Dublin in accordance with Sectioa
731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code.
D~t,ty Cierlc of Council, Dublin, Ohio
OS-1382
Steele Office Building
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, noon 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 bush
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 vered 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 alt 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
al 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 restraint against heron Septe ber 25. Many are
outraged by the con ' ued lack of interest by a 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 ' curred to date to prev t
Waterfor residents from enjoyin the greenspace. She ' confident that the ma rity of
Dublin esidents would be furio s about their tax dollar being allocated to har s her.
Most ~tizens support commu ity education on enviro mental issues and res ct
vol leers. In addition, the 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 would be
spectful. Only Stone II Court is actually in terford; Carrowmoor d Old Springs
are not part of Waterfo d. The "Waterford Pa 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 r 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 READINGIPUBLIC 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
Dublin City Council
t7ctober 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
indude 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 fadlitate 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 commercal sites.
For standards for the business district, they are looking at a maximum of % 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
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 BZA7
Mr. Combs stated that this is correct. Some of the other ordinances under review will
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. Satay, 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 lnfrastr cture Improvements o Be Made To Benefi
That Parcel, Re firing the Owner Th 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 Seni a Payments, and Au orizing the Executio of a
Tax Incre nt Financing Agree nt. (Irelan Place)
Ms. Braun am stated that there ar no updates at this time
Vote on a Ordinance: Ms. Sal ,yes; Mr. Lecklider, ye ; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. K nstuber,
yes; M .Chinnici-Zuercher, ye ,Mayor McCash, yes; s. Boring, yes.
Ordinance 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. tevens can respond t questions for staff.
Ms. Chinnici-Z 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 ovation within the City Earlier, there had be n discussion in the do ment
about mul ple locations within th City. Is 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 noon 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 rtain 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? !s the ity comfortable with t ' provision?
Mr. Stevens state that in 1999, Council proved an economic velopment agreement
for Cardinal that ontained certain ince 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 eat 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.
Mf 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. Leckiider, es; Mrs. Boring, yes; s. Salay, yes; May
McCash, yes; M Chinnici-Zuercher, ye , Mr. Kranstuber, yes; .Reiner, yes.
TOWNSHIP OUNDARY ADJUST ENT
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 orate
Limit of the City of Dublin rom Perry Township, nd Declaring an Eme envy.
OS-1382
Steele Office Building
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTON
Y O!! DGBUi~ AUGUST 28, 2003
~t
o : w~ cad
Ol 3016-1236
D0:614-410-4600
as 614-I61 ~Sbb
wwrcdu6~iaoh_us
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
2. Administrative Code Amendment O1-tt3ADM -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. Bcautigam, 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 CER"ftFICATIOI~I
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
OS-1382
Steele Office Building
138 South High Street
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 11
2. Administrative Code Amendment 01-113ADM -Historic District Code Amendments
Request: Review and recommendation of a Code amendment to create the Historic
Residential District and the Historic Business District.
Applicant: City of Dublin, cJo Jane Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway,
Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Carson C. Combs, AICP, Senior Planner.
BACKGROUND:
This is a request for the review and positive recommendation of revised zoning 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 standazds that will enhance the
administration of the Architectural Review Board process, and the following report addresses the
proposed ordinance in sequence. Once these districts have been adopted, land in Historic Dublin
is expected to be rezoned (Ordinances #54-03 and #55-03) into the proposed districts as the next
step in revising all Code standards for Historic Dublin. The map included on the following page
indicates the proposed district boundaries.
Staff has conducted and attended various public meetings with stakeholders in the Historic
District over the past two years, generally receiving positive feedback. A final public
informational meeting was held on July 23, 2003 to gain additional input from residents and
business owners. Input regarding the proposed ordinance has been generally well received. The
Architectural Review Board reviewed the proposed ordinance on June 25, 2003, and
recommended adoption with one modification (See Board Order #01-113). Two- to four-family
dwellings were eliminated as conditional uses within the HR, Historic Residential- District.
Following a recommendation from the Commission, the ordinance will be forwarded to City
Council for a public hearing.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Reasons for Creating the HR, Historic Residential District:
The proposed zoning district will clearly indicate a property's inclusion within the
Architectural Review District and the special architectural and design requirements that
sustain historic character. All current zoning districts reflect suburban character, while
the proposed standards will be consistent with the historic development patterns.
Permitted and Conditional Uses for the HR District:
Current R-4 zoning permits two to eight-family dwellings. The proposed Code will permit
only single-family dwellings. No other residential uses will be considered for conditional
use.
• The existing Code permits religious uses within residential districts. Due to the possible
off-site impacts of churches and the small size of historic sites, religious uses will be
permitted in the HB, Historic Business District, not within the HR District.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 12
Childcare and wireless communication towers are not appropriate to residential portions of
the Historic District and have been eliminated as conditional uses from this zone. All other
uses remain the same as the current zoning classifications.
PROPOSED HISTORIC DISTRICT REZONING
Planning Commission flratt-,+~ugust 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 limit 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 aze 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 gazages and alley access.
The proposed reaz yard setback for Franklin Street, however, is 25 feet, which is more
reflective of the post-waz development pattern unique to that street. Elimination of
percentage requirements will improve administration and provide better equity between
properties.
The Zoning Code currently limits the height of residential structures to 35 feet. Taller
structures must currently be accepted by the Fire Chief and be approved by the Planning
and Zoning Commission. The proposed ordinance would utilize the Architectural
Review 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 pazcels found in the district
necessitate more flexibility. A 50 percent maximum lot coverage is a more reasonable
standard. Additionally, the Architectural Review Board is empowered to approve higher
coverage is there is good site planning, design, and architecture consistent with the intent
of the adopted design guidelines.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 14
Reasons for Creating the HB, Historic Business District:
• The proposed ordinance will create standards more consistent with historic development
patterns. Current zoning designations on commercial properties are numerous and create
confusion as to which standards apply. [PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Town
Center I and Town Center II plans); SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District; CCC,
Central Community Commercial District; CB, Central Business District; and R-2,
Limited Suburban Residential District].
The proposed zoning district will indicate a property's inclusion within the Architectural
Review District and is intended to facilitate mixed-use development and to broaden
permitted uses that are compatible within Historic Dublin.
Permitted and Conditional Uses for the HB District:
Religious uses and daycare facilities have been excluded from the HR District and are
added within the HB classification due to lot sizes and potential off-site impacts.
Small-scale bed-and-breakfasts (eight units or less) are permitted due to their
compatibility in a historic district. Larger bed-and-breakfasts and other lodging facilities
have been provided as a conditional use also due to greater off-site impacts. Other
potential uses that generate 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 mazkets.
• Appropriate residential uses aze being encouraged to provide for a mix of uses and
increased pedestrian activity. There has been substantial public support for allowing
residential uses within the proposed HB District. Staff has modified the proposed
ordinance since the ARB review, and it now permits one- through four-family dwelling
units as a permitted use.
• Ordinance #68-99 (Amended) regarding Outdoor Services and Auto-Oriented Facilities
will not apply to the Historic District. Proposed modifications to the HB District include
the utilization of outdoor patios for pedestrians as permitted uses and conditional use
status for stand-alone parking lots and open-air mazkets due to the visual character and/or
off-site impacts of such uses.
Development Standards for the HB District:
• The proposed ordinance attempts to find an appropriate maximum permitted lot area of
0.5-acre to maintain historic scale. The 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 standard.
A significant component of commercial structures within the District have been
developed with a minimum front setback of zero (0) feet along both High Street and
Bridge Street. The proposed front setback standard of zero (0) feet will provide
maximum design flexibility. The review power of the Architectural Review Board can
evaluate the specific placement of buildings according to the Guidelines and the design
merits of each development proposal.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 15
Historic Dublin has a diverse mix of commercial building types. In order to provide for
flexibility, permit some continuous storefronts, but provide for some separation, the
minimum permitted side 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 reaz yazd of five feet is required. However, all side and reaz yazds for
pazking with direct access to the alley will be permitted a zero setback to accommodate
the design of pull-in parking for smaller sites.
• The Zoning Code currently has no limit on the height of commercial structures. Due to
the proximity of buildings and the scale of the Historic District, staff proposes that the
Fire Department and the Architectural Review Board approve all structures greater than
35 feet in height, repeating the 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 standard when
good site planning, design and azchitecture consistent with the intent of the Guidelines
and Zoning Code are used.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has been working on a Code with a variety of stakeholders and interested parties for several
years. The proposed Code amendments will protect the existing character of Historic Dublin,
while providing flexibility and reducing hurdles that hinder the maintenance and improvement of
properties within the District. Staff believes that the Historic Residential District and Historic
Business District will substantially improve awareness of the Architectural Review District, as
well as provide standazds 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 standazds 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
CITY OF DUBL[N_
lad Use aad
load, Raage Plaaai~g
iM ieratingsAoad
Dui )hio 43016-1236
Haile: 614-410-4600
lax: 614-410-4141
Web Site: wvw-du1>Cia_oA-n
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 Earley.
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 S-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; Mc Messineo, yes; c Ritchie, yes; and Mr. G er, yes. (Approved 5-
0.) Mr. Ge er thanked Brandol Ha y for all his assistance. r. Harvey thanked the
('nmmissi ers 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.
OS-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 l5
feet is proposed. This standard allows for new detached garages, but it will still allow cars to be
parked off the alley without causing a safety or setback problem.
He said the minimum R-4 lot is as little as 8,500 square feet, and the R-2 District can require
20,000 square feet. The staff measured properties in the entire district and determined that 0.2
acre includes almost all parcels and will preserve the existing pattern. Some parcels may be non-
conforming as to site, but development wilt 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 High Street.
Religious and daycare uses have been shifted into the Historic Business District due to their
impacts in the confined area of the Historic Dublin. Wireless communication was removed due
to incompatibility. Residential uses were added within the Business District to create a broader
mix of uses and to facilitate pedestrian activities~
Mr. Combs said a maximum lot size of 0.5 acre is proposed for the Historic Business District.
Some retail uses are just too large for the old district. They want to assure that commercial
development is at an appropriate scale. Big box and strip retail are not appropriate in scale- For
consistency, a zero front setback is proposed. He said one goal is to severely limit the number of
non-conformities being created by these new standards.
Mr_ Messineo asked how the zero front setback affected sidewalks. Mr_ Combs said in general,
more or less the right-of--way is behind the backside of the sidewalk~
Mr. Gerber asked if this followed the Community Plan. Mr. Combs said yes. The Community
Plan emphasizes pedestrian activity, and these follow the area plan.
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
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 parcel at the south end of the district. The current
boundary for the Architectural Review District follows natural features and metes and bounds
lines. The south ARB boundary is the baseline of the creekbed in the middle of the McDowell
site. Mr. Combs said this proposal would convert to a parcel-based description because parcel
numbers are very easily tracked, and the old description requires some interpretation. He said
Mr. McDowell did not think his whole parcel (undeveloped) should be placed within the
Architectural Review District. He noted the actual boundaries are not addressed in this
ordinance- Staff understands this concern. As part of a future administrative case, it will be up
to the Commission and City Council to decide. Mr. Gerber said they appreciated that.
Jane Jacoby, owner of owned the building at Eberly Hill and Dublin Road, wanted to know if
these changes deal with new construction and/or what is already established. Mr. Combs
responded that, if adopted, they will cover new development and any alterations. Anew addition
will need to comply with the new standards. These standards should require fewer variances.
Mr. Messineo if modifications could be made without meeting the new requirements. Mr.
Combs said generally for anon-conforming building with respect to a side yard, etc., the addition
(but not the original building) would need to comply. These standards would not affect re-
roofing or any other maintenance. However, anon-conforming use cannot be expanded.
Tom McDowell said Mr. Combs had spent a lot of time with him and had been very helpful He
asked for direction as to what to do next if this administrative code is passed tonight.
Mr. Gerber said the Commission is to make a recommendation to City Council who will act on
it. He said that the Council public hearing will be published.
Mr. Combs said the Historic Residential District is not the same as the Architectural Review
District. He said the Historic Residential District governs the development standards- The ARB,
however, would have purview over any exterior architectural or site modifications.
Mr. Gerber did not think Mr_ McDowell wanted those to match. Mr. Combs agreed and said this
issue will arise again when the administrative case to rezone properties is considered. Mr.
Gerber said it was within the Commission's realm to make a recommendation to City Council
that they look at this issue. Mr. Zimmerman agreed.
Clay Bryan asked about changing from a residential to a commercial district in the future. He
also asked if requests to do so had been made, and what was the procedure to do so_
Mr. Gerber said it would be like any other rezoning application. It would be publicized and
adjacent property owners would be notified to participate in the hearing process.
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
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 currently, R-4 also
permits two- to eight-family dwelling units. The proposed Code compromises the R-2 and R-4
standards into the proposed HR District. The major change has been to eliminate the two- to
eight-family dwellings, taking out the religious and childcare uses placing them within the
Business District, and to eliminate wireless communications.
Mr. Messineo asked if two- to four-dwelling units will be conditional uses; these did not seem
offensive. Mr. Combs said there was a lot of feedback at a number of meetings, and it really
stressed single-family. The ARB agreed. For that reason, these are conditional uses in the HB,
Historic Business District_ Abed and breakfast would be permitted in the Business District for
up to eight guests. [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_ tt 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
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 tot size variance does not go to BZA, but that
would have to be considered. Generally, people want smaller, not bigger lots than the Code
permits. She said Mr_ Banchefsky should think about that.
Mr. Messineo asked administratively, what problems arise from splitting this Residential District
along the centerline of Cosgray Ditch at the McDowell property. Mr. Combs said no boundaries
are being determined tonight. [t 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. Into 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 provide Commission f dback on the goals to
achieve through rur sm. He gave a brief r tew of the land analysis or conservation design,
clustering of dev opment, and resultant enspace. He presence comparison plans, usi
"typical" lot lay uts versus conservation sign. 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 percen evelopment area and 65 ercent openspace.
OS-1382
Steele Office Building
138 South High Street
2
2
m
m
-i
rn
2
2
m
m
X
R ~
1
-• Z
u ~
o m
z
A N
d ~
~ m
~~
u 2Z
O
2
0
0
a
0
h
m
--; -
~ 9 ffi...
ffio
e.,
~ _ yy O = n 8~..
yp a ~
M ._ n~
H
~
~
r -
~ ~
m
p ~ -__ uA ~ O y ~~
°e s ~ m - ose ~.
_ ,~, ..
_.
~
~
:: I - '."~-'EXISTING 9RICK WALKWAY - -
' ~-
roe. >., p~W mN 'z $' (n
_~` oho >~~ m
~
4 p°N
O~
" r
O
~Oti
~; ~m
2
~ m9 Z
ma
~ <~ Z
~m r a~ ~
v m
~r~
i~~
~m
V~ 5
00
yN 1
fa
..s X mZ -- H~ ~ pmt i ~e I
8 ~ .., ,o. ~x> I~
i ~ _ %~ $ N - ~ ~o
~. ~ ~ mN ~ I'~ t ~~
R _
Im
.. ,:. I_
oa I. _
_ -
~_,- :-'_ ~. EXISTING BFICN WALKWAY - -:-- ~ - --: ~-"~ ~~' ~'
'. __... ____.. ...... _._. _._... _.-_.....I .. y.
a
1
DI
r
r'.
~I
N ~
N
i
~~~
Saar
...
I. I
.. ZS~.p~
b
-.- ... _._ _. _. I ~` .. .. gi
~ o __ _ ~ a ~' __ ge ~~~ 9aRx
_ C ___. _____. m _
._. _. _ g
x I. .. _.__ _ _ ;,~..._. ._.. ..__...._._._._.- ~ z 5 9~1e
-_... _..__. _ _. - r
-.. _ ~ -
-+
Z
--- --.._.... __ _ z lo.a. .__ 10,0..
._ ~ r
~.. o D
.I _. ..
'. .._ ' Z
~..
,. i .. _.
m N > w N ~ .... . 6. ry. _ _ 20~_p...
~ T1 ~ 71 X ~
CIA O~ OZ np nm OZ
~_ ~°D og oz o0 0~' m
m~ DO m' O m'+ m0 -I
x z yy N x g D m x~ 2° Z1
ny <O N x Vl N ~ nR>
N ~ ~ O
v 0 w ~ D
dm o~ d°c ~D oN ~ %~
3~ mm ~m oN ~O ~~
mm _ mZ D rnO >J ~ m _..
O m m
m mp D m pie Vf m D z O ~ ...I Q I .... ...,.,.
D DD Z D x D A I
m Z b I....
cn z m I .,.~,u„<.,.
O O I
I
m w ~ I
9 I
I
I
_. ...,. I
_ ~ ,TI I ~ q
I -._- _ ___ ._ __.__ II O ~ 1~ ~
_.
_ I$
~/y I - ro..o.. i to'-ry.
~~® I
;..
~A S' m g ~mi, _ _ _ b
• _ N W ~ _ I
- C .. II ~ _ .._. .. I
... y
u D - ~ .. ~ ox la aooi
~ -1 - O ~ ... - ... RAilEBS@ICOC.
C Z o Z .~
' - ~ ® ~ 2 8" - 2'.9 117' - 9'.1" - 2'.9 717 -. 7' 8" .. .
.._ ___... .. 20'a'
I ~ _._ ~ .... _._ ..
I
c i ~}•I
C. .y Y~i I1
_ -.- ~ry~ C
~ ~~~ w- m
~..
C4 ~ SN,' C
L r ~7i1~+ ~
L III
s=_- _ ~ ~ n
V J y~- ~ pas ~ ,,~ ~ p~ f ~cy~ ^~
Jt W ~ ~ ~ I %~ I
_ o' a ~ rt ~ ro' ~ Cl~
'_ ' p n- '•' Iro ~ f•D
r.