Ordinance 013-17RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc.
Form No. 30043
Ordinance No. 13-17 Passed , 20,
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION
153.065(H) OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN CODIFIED ORDINANCES
(ZONING CODE) TO AMEND THE BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT
SIGN REGULATIONS. (CASE 16- 107ADMC)
WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to amend Dublin's Zoning Code to protect
the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, Dublin City Council adopted the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report on
October 25, 2010 and has since integrated the policy recommendations of the Vision
Report into the Dublin Community Plan as the Bridge Street District Plan, adopted on
July 1, 2013; and
WHEREAS, Dublin City Council adopted the Bridge Street Corridor Districts as part of
the City of Dublin Zoning Code, including Sections 153.057- 153.066, on March 26, 2012
and as amended in November 2013, August 2014 and December 2014, to implement
the five Vision Principles identified in the Vision Report; and
WHEREAS, Section 153.066 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code states that the Planning
and Zoning Commission and the Architectural Review Board may evaluate and monitor
the application of the requirements and standards of Sections 153.057 through 153.066
and recommend to City Council any changes needed in the BSD district standards and
requirements to better implement the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended
adoption of the proposed amendments to Section 153.065(H) to amend sign
regulations for signs for existing buildings not meeting the Bridge Street District
Building Types in the BSD Indian Run Neighborhood, Sawmill Center Neighborhood,
Commercial, Office, and Office Residential Districts on January 5, 2017 because it
serves to improve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
of its elected members concurring, that:
Section 1. Section 153.065(H)(3) of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin
is hereby amended and shall provide as follows:
§ 153.065(H) Signs
(3) BSD Districts with Special Sign Provisions
(a) BSD Historic Residential District
The requirements of §§153.150 through 153.163 shall apply in
the BSD Historic Residential district without modification.
(b) BSD Scioto River Neighborhood, Residential, Public, and Vertical
Mixed Use Districts
1. Signs in these districts shall be subject to the
requirements of §153.065(H)(4) through (7) as
applicable, unless a master sign plan is approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission (refer to
§ 153.065(H)(2)(b)6)).
2. A master sign plan is required for a designated shopping
corridors in the Scioto River Neighborhood district, and is
optional in the Vertical Mixed Use district The master sign
plan shall be submitted prior to or concurrent with a Site
Plan Review in a shopping corridor.
(c) BSD Indian Run Neighborhood, Sawmill Center Neighborhood,
Commercial, Office, and Office Residential Districts.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc.
Form No. 30043
Ordinance No. _ 13-17 Passed. Page 2 of 2 , 10
1.
All properties on which primary buildings complying with
§153.062(0)(1) through (13) are constructed shall
comply with the requirements of §153.065(H)(4) through
(7) as applicable, unless a master sign plan is approved
by the Planning and Zoning Commission (refer to
§ 153.065(H)(2)(b)6)).
2.
In all other cases, properties in these districts shall be
subject to the signage standards in §153.150 through
153.164 (Signs).
3.
A master sign plan is required for designated shopping
corridors in the Indian Run Neighborhood and Sawmill
Center Neighborhood districts, and is optional in the
Commercial, Office, and Office Residential districts. The
master sign plan shall be submitted prior to or concurrent
with a Site Plan Review in a shopping corridor.
(d) BSD
Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood district
1.
Signs in these districts shall be subject to the
requirements of §153.065(H)(4) through (7) as
applicable, unless a master sign plan is approved by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) (refer to
§ 153.065(H)(2)(b)6).
2.
All new ground and building- mounted signs in those
parts of the BSD Historic Core and Historic Transition
districts that fall within the Architectural Review District
boundaries shall be subject to review and approval by
the Architectural Review Board.
Section 2. This ordinance sha
Pasis I d thisA f7i d
yor - PresicJ?hg OLi'cer
ATTEST:
e effective on the earliest date permitted by law.
Clerk of Council
2017.
- a
10, Members of Dublin City Council
Fromm. Dana L. McDaniel, City Mana
Date. February 9, 2017
Rex, Ordinance 13-17 — Amending 153.065(H) of the City of Dublin Codified
Ordinances (Zoning Code) to Amend the Bridge Street District (BSD) Sign
Regulations. (Case 16-107ADMC)
The proposed Zoning Code amendments are intended to allow pre-existing developments signs
that are consistent with the form of the building while preserving the allowances for pedestrian-
oriented signs in highly walkable districts and for structures in compliance with the BSD form-
based regulations. The following amendment includes the alteration of applicable sign
provisions and other related modifications.
On January 5, 2017, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZQ reviewed and recommende,"
approval of the proposed Zoning Code amendments to City Council. At that meeting,, the
0 .
Commission agreed with the intent to establish sign provisions that are consistent with the
4evelopment style and context given differing forms throughout the BSD.
Memo re. Ordinance 13-17 — Bridge Street District (BSD) Sign Code Amendments
February 9. 2017
Page 2 of 2
74
The BSD zoning regulations are unique, innovative, ana tailored to address the special
development conditions present in the BSD. Similarly, the BSD sign regulations require
development that is vibrant, high-quality, pedestri an -oriented, and consistent with the Vision
Principles stated in the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report adopted by Dublin City Council in
July 2013 as part of the Bridge Street District Area Plan in the Dublin Community Plan.
The proposed Zoning Code amendments to the BSD sign provision for pre-existing structures i
the BSD Indian Run Neighborhood, Sawmill Center Neighborhood, Commercial, Office, an
Office Residential districts to follow the sign regulations in place at the time of developmen
(§153.150-164) are consistent with the objectives for the BSD. 11
Staff recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 13-17 at the second reading/public
hearing on February 27, 2017.
Page 1of1
Ordinance 13 -17 —as submitted to City Council for First Reading on February 13, 2017
New Text L seleAedZeM
153 -065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(H) Signs
(3) BSC Districts with Special Sign Provisions
(a) BSC Historic Residential District
The requirements of § §153.150 through 153.163 shall apply in the BSC Historic
Residential district without modification.
(b) BSC hidian Run Scioto River Neighborhood, Residential, Public, o,.wmdl e-
and Vertical Mixed Use Districts
1. Signs in these districts shall be subject to the requirements of §153.065(H)(6)
through (7) as applicable, unless a master sign plan is approved by the Planning
and Zoning Commission (refer to §153.065(H)(2)(b)6)).
2. A master sign plan is required for a plamied designated shopping corridors in
the Scioto River Neighborhood district, and is optional in the Vertical Mixed
Use district. The master sign plan shall be submitted prior to or concurrent with
a Site Plan Review in a shopping corridor.
(c) BSD Indian Run Neighborhood, Sawmill Center Neighborhood, Commercial, Office,
and Office Residential Districts.
1. All properties on which primary buildings complying with 053.062(0)(1)
through (13) are constructed shall comply with the requirements of
053.065(H)(4) through (7) as applicable, unless a master sign plan is approved
by the Planning and Zoning Commission (refer to 053.065(H)(2)(b)6)).
2. In all other cases, properties in these districts shall be subject to the signage
standards in 053.150 through 153.164 (Signs).
3. A master sign plan is required for designated shopping corridors in the Indian
Run Neighborhood and Sawmill Center Neighborhood districts, and is optional
in the Commercial, Office, and Office Residential districts. The master sign
plan shall be submitted prior to or concurrent with a Site Plan Review in a
shopping corridor.
(e�) BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood District
1. Signs in these districts shall be subject to the requirements of §153.065(H)(64)
through (7) as applicable, unless a master sign plan is approved by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) (refer to §153.065(H)(2)(b)6).
2. All new ground and building- mounted signs in those parts of the BSC Historic
Core and Historic Transition districts that fall within the Architectural Review
District boundaries shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural
Review Board.
City of
I blin
OHIO, USA
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, January 5, 2017 1 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
4. BSD — Signs Code Amendment Bridge Street District
16- 107ADM Administrative Request - Code
Proposal: An amendment to Zoning Code Section 153.065(H) - Signs of the Bridge
Street District Code for the BSD Indian Run Neighborhood, Sawmill
Center Neighborhood, Commercial, Office, and Office Residential
Districts.
Request: Request for review and recommendation regarding proposed
amendments under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and
153.234.
Applicant: City of Dublin, Dana McDaniel, City Manager.
Planning Contact: Nichole Martin, Planner I.
Contact Information: (614) 410 -4635, nmartin @dublin.oh.us
MOTION: Ms. Mitchell motioned, Mr. Stidhem seconded to forward a recommendation of approval
to City Council for this Administrative Request Code Amendment because the proposed modifications to
the Zoning Code for the BSD Indian Run Neighborhood, Sawmill Center Neighborhood, Commercial,
Office, and Office Residential Districts sign regulations are appropriate and consistent with the pre-
existing development pattern.
VOTE: 6-0.
RESULT: This Administrative Request Code Amendment will be forwarded to City Council with a
recommendation of approval.
RECORDED VOTES:
Victoria Newell
Yes
Amy Salay
Absent
Chris Brown
Yes
Cathy De Rosa
Yes
Robert Miller
Yes
Deborah Mitchell
Yes
Stephen Stidhem
Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
J� 6
`Nichole Martin
Planner I
PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.474 dublinohiousa.gov
MW�� T
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 5, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 9
4. BSD — Signs Code Amendment Bridge Street District
16- 107ADM Administrative Request
The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is for an amendment to Zoning Code Section
153.065(H) - Signs of the Bridge Street District Code for the BSD Indian Run Neighborhood, Sawmill
Center Neighborhood, Commercial, Office, and Office Residential Districts. She said this is a request for a
review and recommendation of approval to City Council regarding proposed amendments under the
provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234.
Nichole Martin stated this is a request for an amendment to the Signs section of the Bridge Street District
Code. She noted the request history:
• October 12, 2015: City Council requests consideration of revisions to the BSD sign regulations as
applicable to existing retail sites.
• November 25, 2015: Memo to Council summarizing the existing regulations and options to
address the interim BSD sign condition.
• May 16, 2016: City Council - Planning and Zoning Commission joint work session.
• October 24, 2016: Staff provided update to Council regarding Clarion's initial recommendation.
• November 29, 2016: Proposed amendments shared at public open house.
_ ._ _.._ _
.. ..
.. .....
.. ._ _ ._.
u
e ... .. ._.
.
._ ..
.....
..
. . . . . ...
... ..
_
,
u
u
_ _
'
u _ _
_ _
u ■ -
_
_,I
_ , _ _ u
_
MEMO u u u
u
11 ■-
■- .. _ _ _.
._
._
.. _ _ ._ ... .. . _.
..
_. .. . ... .....
u
Pill 10110.1111
4. BSD — Signs Code Amendment Bridge Street District
16- 107ADM Administrative Request
The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is for an amendment to Zoning Code Section
153.065(H) - Signs of the Bridge Street District Code for the BSD Indian Run Neighborhood, Sawmill
Center Neighborhood, Commercial, Office, and Office Residential Districts. She said this is a request for a
review and recommendation of approval to City Council regarding proposed amendments under the
provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234.
Nichole Martin stated this is a request for an amendment to the Signs section of the Bridge Street District
Code. She noted the request history:
• October 12, 2015: City Council requests consideration of revisions to the BSD sign regulations as
applicable to existing retail sites.
• November 25, 2015: Memo to Council summarizing the existing regulations and options to
address the interim BSD sign condition.
• May 16, 2016: City Council - Planning and Zoning Commission joint work session.
• October 24, 2016: Staff provided update to Council regarding Clarion's initial recommendation.
• November 29, 2016: Proposed amendments shared at public open house.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 5, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 9
Ms. Martin presented a map of the Bridge Street District and noted the various districts and
neighborhoods. She said the amendment proposed is only applicable to the following 5 districts out of 11:
BSD — Office Residential
BSD
— Office
BSD
— Commercial
BSD
— Indian Run Neighborhood
BSD
— Sawmill Center Neighborhood
Ms. Martin explained the proposed amendments would accomplish the following:
• Retain existing regulations for BSD Historic Residential, Historic Core, and Historic Transition
Neighborhood Districts; and, BSD Scioto River Neighborhood, Residential, Public, and Vertical
Mixed -Use Districts.
Retain option for Master Sign Plan review and approval for all districts.
• Revise sign provisions for sites with buildings not in compliance with the BSD form -based
regulations located in the BSD Indian Run Neighborhood, Sawmill Center Neighborhood,
Commercial, Office, and Office Residential Districts. Sites falling within these parameters are
subject to the provisions of the Standard Sign Code.
• Correct a typo under the provisions for the Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood
Districts to reflect the full extent of the BSD sign regulations, as existing, are applicable.
Ms. Martin said Planning recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of
this amendment to City Council as the proposed sign regulations are appropriate and consistent with the
pre- existing development pattern.
Steve Stidhem said he works in buildings affected by this, therefore, he asked if he should abstain.
Phil Hartmann said unless there would be a direct monetary interest, he would not need to abstain.
Cathy De Rosa requested clarification for the process for an existing business. Victoria Newell said if it
was brought forward as a Master Sign Plan, the Commission would review it but if it is just a Minor
Project then staff would review.
Ms. Newell inquired about existing properties that have received approvals for signs. Vince Papsidero said
that would remain in place unless the business changed or they brought in a new application. He
reported that staff estimates that there have been 70 Minor Projects reviewed. Ms. Martin clarified there
are probably 50 Minor Projects for signs in the affected districts.
Motion and Vote
Ms. Mitchell motioned, Mr. Stidhem seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the Code
Amendment. The vote was as follows: Mr. Miller, yes; Mr. Brown, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes;
Mr. Stidhem, yes; and Ms. Mitchell, yes. (Approval Recommended 6 — 0)
CrTy of
Dublin
OHIO, UST
PLANNING REPORT
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, January 5, 2017
BSD Signs — CODE AMENDMENT
Agenda Item
4
Case Number
16- 107ADMC
Proposal
An amendment to Zoning Code Section 153.065(H) - Signs of the Bridge
Street District (BSD) Code for the BSD Indian Run Neighborhood, Sawmill
Center Neighborhood, Commercial, Office, and Office Residential Districts.
Request
Review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Zoning Code
amendment under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and
153.234.
Applicant
Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin.
Case Manager
Nichole Martin, Planner I 1 (614) 410 -4635 or nmartinadublin.oh.us
Recommendation
Recommendation of approval to City Council..
The proposed modifications to the Zoning Code for the BSD Indian Run
Neighborhood, Sawmill Center Neighborhood, Commercial, Office, and Office
Residential Districts sign regulations are appropriate and consistent with the
pre - existing development pattern. Planning recommends that the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommend approval of this amendment to City Council.
Case Summ
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 16- 107ADMC I BSD Signs Code Amendment
Thursday, January 5, 2017 1 Page 2 of 4
rM
ing Code mendment
This amendment is the result of a request by City Council to review and
recommend modifications to the Bridge Street District Sign Code provisions
for pre- existing structures. Staff is recommending an amendment to the
sign regulations for the BSD Indian Run Neighborhood, Sawmill Center
Neighborhood, Commercial, Office, and Office Residential Districts to
require that signs are consistent with standards of §153.150 through
153.164 (Standard Sign Code) until the buildings are in compliance with
the form -based regulations of the BSD, then sign requests from that point
forward shall be consistent with §153.065(H)(4) through (7) (BSD Sign
Backgroun On October 12, 2015 City Council asked the Planning Division to consider
revising the BSD sign regulations as applicable to retail sites developed
prior to the adoption of the BSD.
In response, on November 25, 2015, Staff provided a memo summarizing
the existing sign regulations across the City, and provided four options to
address the interim BSD sign condition: retain the current regulations,
amend the Code to modify sign regulations for existing building types,
amend the Code to modify sign regulations for retail, or repeal BSD sign
regulations for existing retail uses and buildings.
Based on a City Council — Planning and Zoning Commission joint work
session on May 16, 2016, Staff engaged Clarion Associates to address a
potential amendment to the BSD sign provisions. The consultant's initial
recommendation was shared with the public at an open house on
November 29, 2016. Staff in coordination with the consultant team has
proposed language addressing the policy objective while attempting to
minimize unintended consequences that potentially arise with amendments
to the Code. _
Zoning Code Amendment
Code Section 153.232(B)(2) provides the Planning and Zoning Commission
with the allowance to review and make recommendations to City Council for
amendments to the Zoning Code. The proposed amendment will be
forwarded to City Council for their consideration and final determination.
The following sections summarize the major components and considerations
of each section of the zoning regulations proposed for the amendment.
153.065(H)(3) Retain existing regulations for BSD Historic Residential, Historic
L— Core, and Historic Transition Neighborhood Districts; and, BSD
Districts with Scioto River Neighborhood, Residential, Public, and Vertical Mixed
al Sign Use Districts.
sions Retain option for Master Sin Plan review and approval for all
Analysis r
Review
Considerations
I Error or Omission 1
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 16- 107ADMC I BSD Signs Code Amendment
Thursday, January 5, 2017 1 Page 3 of 4
ng
Revise sign provisions for sites with buildings not in compliance with
the BSD form -based regulations located in the BSD Indian Run
Neighborhood, Sawmill Center Neighborhood, Commercial, Office,
and Office Residential Districts. Sites falling within these parameters
are subject to the provisions of the Standard Sign Code.
Correct a typo under the provisions for the Historic Core and Historic
Transition Neighborhood Districts to reflect the full extent of the
BSD sign regulations, as existing, are applicable.
ning Code Amendm
The Zoning Code does not provide for specific review standards for Zoning
Code text amendments. However, there are certain considerations that are
appropriate when considering an application for amendments. These are
provided below, along with relevant analysis. The Commission is not limited
to these considerations, and may choose to give each its own weight as
Dart of the deliberations in a recommendation to Citv Council.
purpose
Chapter and the Community Plan.
Guide line Met
The purpose of this Zoning Code Section was to create provisions that will
enhance the urban, walkable, and pedestrian- oriented realm. As exists
today, much of the BSD has not been redeveloped, and until such a time
that redevelopment occurs its form and orientation are not consistent with
the vision outlined in the Community Plan. Therefore, applying "urban"
oriented sign regulations to "auto' oriented commercial structures is
inconsistent with the goals and intent of the plan. The modification of this
section will further enhance the long term purpose and intent of BSD
Districts.
Whether the change is the result of an error or omission in the original text.
Guideline Met,
The impetus for the proposed changes are not resultant from an error or
omission, but rather a response to unintended consequences resulting
from the application of the Code requirements since the formation of the
Crete
Nonconformities
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 16- 107ADMC I BSD Signs Code Amendment
Thursday, January 5, 2017 1 Page 4 of 4
ng Code Amendmenmq
on areas that are most likely to be directly affected by
the change.
Guide line Met,
The proposed amendments will modify the sign regulations based on
districts within the BSD, and conformance of the principal structure with the
BSD form -base regulations. The only districts proposed to be modified are
the BSD Indian Run Neighborhood, Sawmill Center Neighborhood,
Commercial, Office, and Office Residential Districts, and within these
districts only the sites with structures not in conformance with the BSD
form -based regulations will follow the Standard Sign Code provisions, which
were in place prior to rezoning to the BSD. The proposed changes are
designed to target Council's policy objective while minimizing challenges
associated with amendments to the current code provisions, which includes
nonconformities.
Whether the change might result in the creation of significant
nonconformities on properties in the city.
Guideline Met,
Signs approved for pre- existing buildings that would otherwise be subject
to this amendment will become non - conforming. At the same time, the
existing pre -BSD signs that were approved via variance or as part of the
CDD will remain non - conforming with this proposal.
1
J
Recommendatio Approval
Approval The proposed modifications to the Zoning Code for the BSD Indian Run
Neighborhood, Sawmill Center Neighborhood, Commercial, Office, and
Office Residential Districts sign regulations are appropriate and consistent
with the pre- existing development pattern. Planning recommends that the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this amendment
to City Council.
City of Dublin
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090
Phone: 614.410.4400 • Fax: 614.410.4490
To: Members of Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Dana McDaniel, City Manager
Date: October 20, 2016
Initiated by: Vince Papsidero, FACIP, Planning Director
Claudia Husak, AICP, Current Planning Manager
Nichole Martin, Planner I
Memo
Re: Proposed Code Changes Affecting Existing Auto - Oriented Signs in the
Bridge Street District — Status Report
Background
At the October 12, 2015 meeting of City Council, the Planning Division was asked to consider
revising the Bridge Street District (BSD) sign regulations as applicable to retail sites developed
prior to the adoption of the BSD. As proposed at that time, the intent was to limit sign
allowances for auto - oriented, suburban commercial developments to what was permitted prior
to rezoning to a BSD District, based on the assumption that the application of sign standards for
existing developments should be an "interim" condition that will be erased with new
construction consistent with the requirements of the BSD.
On November 25, 2015, Staff provided a memo summarizing the current BSD sign regulations,
the Large Format Retail Design Guidelines, and the standard City Zoning Code sign regulations,
under which many of the existing BSD buildings were developed. Additionally Staff provided
four options to address the interim condition: keep the current regulations, amend the Code to
modify sign regulations for existing building types, amend the Code to modify sign regulations
for retail, or repeal BSD sign regulations for existing retail uses and buildings. On May 16, 2016,
City Council further considered the information in coordination with the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a joint work session.
Subsequent to the work session, the Planning Division engaged Clarion Associates and
Codametricts to undertake a three -part update to the BSD District (signs, Historic Dublin and
general amendments). Clarion Associates was directed to address potential amendments to the
BSD sign provisions. The consultants' initial recommendation to address the concern is to
amend the Code to stipulate that as of the effective date of the submitted legislation, all future
signs for buildings that predate the original adoption of the BSD Code shall follow the provisions
of the City's standard sign provision in place at that time (this proposal excludes Historic Dublin
sub - districts).
This proposal is the simplest means of accomplishing the policy objective. It does not create
Memo re. Existing Auto - Oriented Signs in the Bridge Street District — Status Report
October 20, 2016
Page 2 of 2
non - conforming signs for the businesses already granted permits under BSD, which treats those
businesses in a fair fashion given that each complied with the rules that were in place at the
time of permitting. At the same time, the existing pre -BSD signs that were approved via
variance or as part of the Corridor Development District (CDD) will remain non - conforming with
this proposal. Staff has provided a summary of the CDD Sign review process as well as
highlighted allowances for key developments reviewed under the CDD provisions that may
result in sign structures, total number of signs, or total sign area that are no longer conforming.
Next Steps
As a next step, on November 29th, Staff will engage commercial property owners within the BSD
at a public Open House. The Open House will provide an opportunity for stakeholders to discuss
the proposed amendments with consultants and Staff. Additionally, all materials will be available
online. Based on Council's direction, Planning will bring forward an amendment to the Code for
the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation and City Council's approval.
Recommendation
Staff recommends Council consider the consultant's preliminary recommendation with respect
to BSD sign provision amendments, and affirm the proposed direction is appropriate.
Minutes of Joint Work Session
May 16, 2016
Page 2
11119. Galay
began Getineil
by that thFeeigh
heF
then em-e
beeFel,
09 that
stating
te have
yeam e19 199eFe
Whole
she
awaFe
a shaFed visien.
eveFyene
weA always
iL= L.?L
iL=
O % l`_____.__._
eight years,
six ef t1tern- es6#te«
Gl9 appi-eemates
_ ^igJ ^_J_ _f
P
11119. Alutte
09 miTTIeF fiFrSt
Ge
She _._._..__•_a__
_.._...._.__i_ time
alse yeaF
ef 5eFymigg eiGity :i9ell.
GVI9I1I9I99101T
Suns
Mr. Papsidero stated that a request was made by the Commission for staff to explore the Bridge
Street sign code versus the current sign code that covers the balance of the City and to discuss
whether or not the code should be modified.
Ms. Salay stated that she has always been observant of signage and has appreciated the
signage standards in Dublin. Bridge Park has a master sign plan. Dublin Village Center area
signs appear out of place with other signage in the City. She concluded that it was the Bridge
Street sign code that was allowing some of the signage to take place and that this may be the
wrong direction to take. She felt a discussion on the topic was in order to determine if it is the
Minutes of Joint Work Session
May 16, 2016
Page 3
goal to have a deviation from what has been done in the past; and if so, is a precedent being
set?
Mr. Reiner asked if everyone was familiar with the walking area of the Bridge Street district.
The intention was not to set precedent but rather to give a three dimensional artful flare to the
signage of the businesses in that area. It serves to create a wonderful pedestrian experience.
Ms. Newell stated that some of the signage that has been discussed -- for example, KFC -- did
not come before P & Z. It was approved because it complied with the sign code. The sign code
provided that everyone was treated equally and it was consistent. However, the development
of the Bridge Street District brought the need for creativity and different signage code. The
problem comes when the properties that surround the Bridge Street District want to use the
same standards in locations where it may not be appropriate.
Ms. Salay stated that it is in the auto - oriented areas where there are a proliferation of signs.
With Bridge Park being more pedestrian oriented, the signage will be appropriate to pedestrian
traffic.
Mr. Reiner commented that any business can be found now with Google and other search
engines. Awareness is not as much about the signage as it used to be. The Dublin community
is pro- business and will remain that way.
Mayor Peterson sought clarification that the main issue for discussion is that the Bridge Street
District sign package works for that walkable area that was to be created, but applying that
outside that district does not work.
Ms. Newell stated that as long as it is being reviewed in sign packages, it should work.
Currently, staff is being put in the position of regulating the architectural creativity of a sign,
which is difficult due to the subjectivity.
Mr. Keenan inquired about the language in the code and stated if it says, "one size fits all," it
shouldn't because there are exceptions.
Ms. Newell stated that Historic Dublin is always an exception.
Mr. Brown stated that sign legislation can be codified, but issues such as this cannot be put in a
box. Applicants should be encouraged to spend the money on creative art and not take the path
of least resistance. The goal is to have unique signage in Bridge Street; therefore, ratcheting
down the standards is not going to encourage the creativity that is desired.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that there was initial discussion with Bridge Street that a Graphics
Commission should be established to focus on these types of issues.
Mr. Reiner stated that the strongest tool in the toolbox is polite rejection. He is of the belief
that every time a project is rejected, when the project is brought back it is better.
Minutes of Joint Work Session
May 16, 2016
Page 4
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that Mr. Reiner brings up the important topic of development
standards. The decisions that P & Z make for the community are make or break decisions. If
the Commission and Council demand greatness it will stand the test of time.
Mayor Peterson inquired whether or not Ms. Amorose Groomes believes there are changes
needed in the Development Standards.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that in the past, the push was forform based code. But form
based code is not serving the purpose that was hoped. She explained that there are unintended
consequences, so the form based code is not serving the City well.
Ms. Salay requested staffs input on the subject of form based codes.
Mr. Papsidero stated that the Bridge Street District is a form based code. The waivers are very
important because they allow projects to be unique. The form based code was the right
approach at the time, and to discard it now may create an impact that is uncertain. The code
needs to be tweaked as developers and staff have learned lessons that will help the process.
The goal is quality investment.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the error occurred when the City was undertaking mass re-
zonings. Tweaks and working with what is in place moving forward is best.
Ms. Newell stated that it would not matter which form would be used (when using form based
codes). She explained that as the development is coming forward, noticing the details of the
project and being able to regulate them somehow is what matters. Currently, there is no way
to regulate the construction with the architecture. There is nothing in the development
standards or code that addresses that issue or recycling a building for the future.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated the only statement in the code that addresses recycling use is that
the building should serve the community over the course of time. She believes there is some
latitude in place.
Ms. Newell commented that another issue that has come up on the Planning and Zoning
Commission is the quality of materials. Performance specifications with quality materials need
to be included in development standards. From a developer perspective, it would be
advantageous to know what to expect and what will be required in materials at the outset of a
project.
Mr. Reiner agreed with Ms. Newell's comments and believes that it is attainable. Mr. Reiner
asked for input from staff and P & Z members regarding the residential code and what can be
done to reinvigorate the quality architecture of homes and attract elite custom home builders.
Mr. Papsidero responded that some building permits require specific reviews on residential
standards. Whether or not they are applied to all residential developments is more of an issue.
Dublin has a residential appearance code that is applied to all single family subdivisions.
Market demand may be another factor that guides the building of million dollar homes. Market
demand is not something that is controlled by the code.
Minutes of Joint Work Session
May 16, 2016
Page 5
Mr. Brown stated that part of the issue is economic development and what do people want to
live around. What are we providing that attracts the CEO's to want to live in Dublin? In
speaking of high standards, the niche may be empty- nesters that want to stay in Dublin.
Mr. Brown circled the discussion back to signs by stating that he does believe that businesses
are more likely to succeed with proper signage. He believes the way that signs are drawn and
measured to be incorrect. He admittedly "straddles the fence" in that he does believe signs to
be necessary and noticeable, but does not want big ugly signs either.
Ms. Newell stated that the way signs are measured creates consistency in planning and zoning
code and provides proportion to the sign.
Mayor Peterson summarized that there is agreement that the code needs to be tweaked. He
inquired about the best way to go about doing that.
Mr. Papsidero responded that staff currently has a consulting firm under contract to begin the
process. Staff needs to hear from the stakeholders to ascertain specifically what changes
should be explored. Then a public review process would be in order, bringing proposed code
amendments before the Commission and ultimately to Council. Administrative challenges will
also be explored as to what non - conformities will surface and how to manage those. He
estimated that the process would take about a year.
Ms. Salay inquired as to whether or not the signage issue could be broke out as a separate
issue that could be addressed more quickly. She is concerned that with all the development
taking place it would be necessary to move this forward more quickly.
Mr. Papsidero agreed that the signage portion could be broken out separately.
Mr. Lecklider suggested that a commitment by Council to the outcome is necessary.
Ms. Amorose Groomes recommended initiating a Graphics Commission instead of code changes.
This solution would allow for one body to hear and address any issues.
Ms. Salay asked how a Graphics Commission would work.
Mr. Papsidero stated that a Graphics Commission could only reviews variances to the graphics
code and the master sign plan, or it could be a body that reviews all signage applications for
approval before obtaining a permit. The only concern would be the number of applications that
come forward. In terms of how it may affect ART, if ART was abolished, it may add work to the
graphics commission, ARB, P & Z, etc. All the implications would need to be vetted.
Mr. McDaniel asked how it would fit in the process. Would it be another step in the process?
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the sign packages already must be reviewed, so she does not
believe it would be a negative addition to the process.
Ms. Newell stated her opinion is that it may be harder on the developer.
Minutes of Joint Work Session
May 16, 2016
Page 6
Ms. Newell asked why a Graphics Commission would be better than simply P & Z review. She
believes having a united element with one body reviewing would be better.
Mr. Reiner stated that context, height, width, etc. is important and it should be read as one.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that P & Z is only seeing the first sign, not subsequent signs.
Most are being approved through ART and not by P & Z.
Ms. Newell agreed and stated that she felt the process works well when the signs come in as a
package to be reviewed.
Ms. Salay commented that ART is following the code in place.
Mr. Reiner stated that the scale of the sign in relation to the architecture is very important and
fits into the approval of the sign.
Mayor Peterson summarized that consensus is that the code should be tweaked. It is the
recommendation of staff to have the consulting firm that they have contracted with bring
forward some revisions and then to vet those revisions through stakeholders before beginning
the legislative process.
Mr. Papsidero stated that a report should be available within 30 -60 days of what
recommendations are identified by the consulting firm.
Ms. Alutto inquired as to whether or not the consulting firm could look at the overall process
and whether or not a Graphics Commission would make sense in the process.
Mr. Papsidero responded that the consultant could indeed look at the process. To clarify, he
noted that there is already a master sign plan. No other review is taking place by staff
regarding signs other than to ensure that the permits match the master sign plan. He explained
that if the intent is to have all the signage be reviewed by a commission, that would be a
significant amount of work.
Ms. Salay stated that she believes the master sign plan worked well for the Bridge Park signage
Existing businesses that apply under the Bridge Street Code do not have to come under the
master sign plan. The Dublin Village Center will hopefully redevelop and have a master sign
plan in the future.
__ g_... _..._._.._, _.. the Feed __ _ _______._. p._j___. WhetheF ART _.Fide_ eF ..__, the _.___
._...__._.._. p._____ will still _.Fide _______._._ ..______., ._. __._._p_._ __ .._.._ ..._.. staff.
City of Dublin
Planning
5800 Shier Rings Road • Dublin, OH 43016
Phone: 614 - 410 -4600 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4747
To: Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Vince Papsidero, FACIP, Planning Director
Date: November 25, 2015
Memo
Re: Options for Addressing Signs for Existing Development in BSD Districts
Background
At the October 12, 2015 meeting, City Council asked staff to consider revising the Bridge Street
District (BSD) sign regulations as applicable to retail sites developed prior to the adoption of the
BSD. The intent of this Code change would be to limit sign allowances for auto - oriented,
suburban developments to what was permitted prior to rezoning to a BSD District, based on the
assumption that the application of sign standards for existing developments should be an
"interim" condition that will be erased with new construction consistent with the requirements
of the BSD. Among the items requested for consideration were the current BSD sign
requirements, the Large Format Retail Design Guidelines approved in 1998, and the standard
City Zoning Code sign regulations, under which many of the existing BSD buildings were
developed.
Current BSD Sign Code
The BSD code regulates signs (number, type, and size) based on zoning district and building
type. All zoning districts fall into two regulatory categories, Historic District and All Other
Districts, which regulate size and height of signs. Building types, which vary by category, also
regulate number, type, and location of signs.
Generally for a property in any district outside of the Historic District, one ground sign is
permitted per street frontage - not to exceed two. For a traditional single- tenant or multiple -
tenant building with no storefronts, one building- mounted sign per street frontage is permitted.
In the case of an urban - style, multiple- tenant building with storefronts, two building- mounted
signs of different types are permitted, and one additional building mounted sign is permitted if
the building has a public entrance to the side or rear with access to off - street parking. Size and
height of various sign types are provided in the table below.
•
•.
Type Size
Hei ht
Ground
Maximum 24 sq. ft.
Maximum 8 ft.
Wall
1/2 sq. ft. /lineal foot of building wall or
Within the first story, not above 15 ft. for
storefront width up to a maximum of 50 sq. ft.
existin structures
20% of the cumulative surface of all awnings,
Within the first story, min. 8 ft.
Awning
not to exceed 8 sq. ft. in total
above grade
Memo re. Potential BSD Sign Code Amendments
November 25, 2015
Page 2 of 6
•
Type Sil_ Height MMM
Projecting Maximum 16 sq. ft. Within the first story, min. 8 ft.
above grade
Window 20% of the area of the window, not to exceed Ground story only
8 sq. ft.
For properties in the Historic District, single- tenant buildings are permitted two signs of two
different sign types, and one additional sign on a different fagade if the building has multiple
frontages. For multiple tenant buildings, two signs of different sign types are permitted and can
be located on different facades if the tenant has multiple frontages. If the tenant has a public
entrance to the side or rear with access to off - street parking one additional sign is permitted.
Size and height of various sign types are provided below.
The Administrative Review Team (ART) evaluates sign proposals meeting the BSD Code for
compliance with sign color, secondary image, and logo provisions as well as general creativity
under the Minor Project Review criteria. If a sign varying from BSD Code is proposed, ART
review culminates with a recommendation under the Master Sign Plan provision to the final
reviewing body - either ARB, for properties in the Historic District, or PZC for properties located
elsewhere in the BSD. Once the Master Sign Plan is approved signs meeting the plan are eligible
to go directly to Building Standards for Sign Permitting.
Current Standard Sign Code
The current City Sign Code regulates sign size and height by use, while type and number are
consistent for all zoning districts except given special conditions like corporate offices. One wall
or ground sign is permitted per building or use unless the building or use has frontage on two -
public rights -of -way each exceeding 100 feet and spacing requirements can be met, then a total
of two signs of the same type are permitted. Size and height of various non - residential sign
types are provided in the tables below — size and height vary by use.
.Wall Signs
Type
Size
Height
Ground
Maximum 8 sq. ft.
Maximum 6 ft.
Wall
Maximum 8 sq. ft..
Maximum 15 ft.
Awning
20% of the cumulative surface of all
awnings, not to exceed 8 sq. ft. in total
Maximum 15 ft., min. 8 ft.
above grade
Projecting
Maximum 8 sq. ft.
Maximum 15 ft., or not extending above the sill of
the second story window, whichever is lower.
Window
20% of the area of the window, not to
.
exceed 8 s ft.
Ground story only, unless directory sign
The Administrative Review Team (ART) evaluates sign proposals meeting the BSD Code for
compliance with sign color, secondary image, and logo provisions as well as general creativity
under the Minor Project Review criteria. If a sign varying from BSD Code is proposed, ART
review culminates with a recommendation under the Master Sign Plan provision to the final
reviewing body - either ARB, for properties in the Historic District, or PZC for properties located
elsewhere in the BSD. Once the Master Sign Plan is approved signs meeting the plan are eligible
to go directly to Building Standards for Sign Permitting.
Current Standard Sign Code
The current City Sign Code regulates sign size and height by use, while type and number are
consistent for all zoning districts except given special conditions like corporate offices. One wall
or ground sign is permitted per building or use unless the building or use has frontage on two -
public rights -of -way each exceeding 100 feet and spacing requirements can be met, then a total
of two signs of the same type are permitted. Size and height of various non - residential sign
types are provided in the tables below — size and height vary by use.
.Wall Signs
Size and Height Permitted §153.164
Use
Size
Height
School, Church, Library, Daycare
1 sq. ft. /lineal foot of building face
Maximum 8 ft.
and Nursing Homes
width up to a maximum of 20 sq. ft.
Development
1 sq. ft. /lineal foot of building face
Maximum 8 ft.
width up to a maximum of 32 sq. ft
Office
1 sq. ft. /lineal foot of building face
Maximum 15 ft.
width u to a maximum of 50 sq. ft
Memo re. Potential BSD Sign Code Amendments
November 25, 2015
Page 3 of 6
Ground Signs
Use
Size
Height
General Commerce (Retail,
Maximum 15 sq. ft.
Maximum 6 ft.
Restaurant, Lodging, Consumer
Services, Personal Services,
1 sq. ft. /lineal foot of building face
Maximum 15 ft.
Entertainment, Wholesaling,
width up to a maximum of 80 sq. ft
Maximum 15 ft.
Bank, Hospital, Manufacturing,
Research
Joint Identification
Not Permitted
Not Permitted
Ground Signs
Size and Height Permitted §153.164
Use
EEEEEL___ am
School, Church, Library, Daycare
Maximum 15 sq. ft.
Maximum 6 ft.
and Nursing Homes
Development
Maximum 32 sq. ft.
Maximum 8 ft.
Office
Maximum 50 sq. ft.
Maximum 15 ft.
General Commerce (Retail,
Restaurant, Lodging, Consumer
Services, Personal Services,
Maximum 50 sq. ft.
Maximum 15 ft.
Entertainment, Wholesaling,
Bank, Hospital, Manufacturing,
Research
Joint Identification
Maximum 80 sq. ft.
Maximum 15 ft.
Signs meeting code are able to go directly through the sign permitting process. If the proposal
does not meet code in a standard zoning district, then a variance is required from the Board of
Zoning Appeals.
Large Format Retail Design Guidelines
In 1998, City Council adopted guidelines for large format retail to provide additional direction
regarding the development of new large format retail development in standard zoning districts.
The guidelines include recommendations for Parking Lot Orientation and Design, Building
Entrances, Aesthetic Character and Building Features, Building Materials and Colors - with
special attention to four -sided architecture and roof -top detailing. Recommendations are also
made for loading and outdoor storage areas as well as lighting. The guidelines emphasize the
need for pedestrian scale amenities and design for big box retailers which are generally
consistent with the guiding principles of the Bridge Street District Code. However, the guidelines
do not address signs. (a copy is attached).
Benchmark Analysis
Staff conducted an analysis of properties in the Bridge Street District that currently have signs
consistent with the BSD Code (please see attached list and map). In total, 62 signs have been
approved under the BSD. The majority of structures in the BSD were built prior to 2012 and
have not sought to benefit from new sign regulations. (please see attached list and map).
It is important to note that if the sign requirements are changed, all of the above noted signs
will be considered non - conforming. It will be incumbent upon Staff to separately track any non-
conforming signs. It may also cause confusion for adjacent tenants or property owners if the
sign requirements are changed "mid stream ".
Memo re. Potential BSD Sign Code Amendments
November 25, 2015
Page 4 of 6
Options
The following options are suggested for consideration by the Commission. If consensus is
reached to amend the code, staff would undertake a significant public engagement process with
property owners and tenants as part of that process.
1. Keep Current Regulations: The BSD Sign Code permits smaller signs, in unique
combinations, but more in number than the Standard Code (please note, the total area of
these signs is less than provided for in the current sign code). For large format retail in the
BSD, fewer larger signs would be permitted if reviewed under the Standard Code.
2. Code Amendment to Modify Sign Regulations for Existing Building Types:
Appropriate development standards could be adopted addressing the permitted number of
signs as well as appropriate sign types and sizes based on building type. Further refining
signs by building type would be consistent with the Code's emphasis of form over use.
3. Code Amendment to Modify Sign Regulations for Retail: Appropriate development
standards could be adopted addressing the permitted number of signs as well as
appropriate sign types and sizes for retail uses. Code amendments will also need to address
the various scales that retail uses can occur at to ensure signs are context sensitive.
4. Repeal BSD Sign Regulations for Existing Retail Uses and Buildings: This option
most closely resembles the issue raised by Council. It would require a code amendment to
BSD, with the replacement of those sign requirements with the existing citywide sign code.
It will create non - conforming signs, as noted below, and complicate the regulatory process
for property owners, tenants and staff.
Recommendation
Planning Commission consider the options for addressing signs in the Bridge Street District with
special consideration for how modifications to the BSD Code can remain consistent with Dublin's
values and visions for the Bridge Street District and provide direction to Planning. Planning will
bring forward information and amendments at the Commission and Council's direction.
For Reference Only
Case jW
15- 100ARB -MSP Bridge Park W 94 North High Street
Determination
In Review
15- 099MSP Bridge Park E - Blocks B &C
Bridge Street & Riverside Drive
In Review
15- 09OMSP Big Sandy Signs
6825 Dublin Center Drive
In Review
15- 059DP /SP /MSP Home2 Hotel
5000 Upper Metro Place
In Review
15- 056ARB- MSP /MPR Sister's Sweet Shop
55 West Bridge Street
ARB Approval
15- 043MSP Tuller Flats
4313 Tuller Road
PZC Approval
14- 085ARB- MPR /MSP Dublin Comm Preschool
82 West Brid a Street
ARB Approval
14- 057MPR /MSP Coldwell Banker
4535 West Dublin Granville Road
Withdrawn
13- 087ARB MSP Oscar's
84 North High Street
ARB Approval
13- 070ARB MPR /MSP Advantage Bank
12 Darby Street
ARB Approval
Memo re. Potential BSD Sign Code Amendments
November 25, 2015
Page 5 of 6
....OSD Minor Project Review Cases
Case
15- 096MPR Capitol Cadillac - Signs 4300 West Dublin Granville Road
Determination
roval
15 094MPR Embassy Suites -Signs
5100 Upper Metro Place
roval
15 087MPR Training Grounds Sin
6791 Dublin Center Drive
roval
15 086MPR J Tiger Martial Arts
6627 Dublin Center Drive
rovaI
ERT
15 085MPR Journey Church Sin
6608 Dublin Center Drive
roval
15- 084ARB -MPR Vesna - Sin
91 South Hi h Street
roval
15- 079MPR Ca itol Cadillac -Si ns
4300 West Dublin Granville Road
roval
15- 075MPR Germain Signs
6500 Shamrock Boulevard
ART Approval
15- 068WID -DP Ohio University Signs
6805 Bobcat Way
PZC Approval
15- 060MPR School of Rock -Sin
6727 Dublin Center Drive
ART Approval
15- 051MPR GFS Signs
3901 West Dublin Granville Road
ART Approval
15- 038ARB -MPR Terra Art Gallery
36 North High Street
ARB Approval
15- 032MPR Shamrock Eye Care Sign Face
5151 Post Road
ART Approval
15- 028ARB -MPR Keller Williams Sin
14 South High Street
ARB Approval
15- 027ARB -MPR Studio J Sin
4505 West Dublin Granville Road
ART Approval
15- 021MPR OCLC Sin
6565 Kil our Place
ART Approval
15- 020MPR Average Joe's Sin
6711 Dublin Center Drive
ART Approval
15- 008ARB -MPR Green Olive Co
36 North High Street
ARB Approval
15- 007MPR Oakland Nursery Home Sin
4271 West Dublin Granville Road
ART Approval
14- 101ARB -MPR Chelsea Borough
54 South High Street
ARB Approval
14- 093ARB -MPR Shamrock Barber Shop
86 South High Street
ARB Approval
14- 089MPR Halloween Express Sin
6655 Sawmill Road
ART
Disapproval
14- 088MPR Visionworks Sin
6465 Sawmill Road
ART Approval
14- 084MPR Chevy of Dublin
5002 Post Road
ART Approval
14- 082ARB -MPR Howard Hannah
37 West Bridge Street
ARB Approval
14- 081MPR Coldwell Banker
4535 West Dublin Granville Road
ART Approval
14- 080MPR Red Roof Inn
5125 Post Road
ART Approval
14- 078MPR Haring Dental
4393 West Dublin Granville Road
ART Approval
14- 061MPR FC Bank Sin
4545 West Dublin Granville Road
ART Approval
14- 058MPR Harbor Yoga
4325 West Dublin Granville Road
ART Approval
14- 050MPR Red Roof
5125 Post Road
ART
Disapproval
14- 043ARB -MPR 113 S High St
113 South High Street
ARB Approval
14- 035MPR River's Edge Pediatrics Sin
4335 West Dublin Granville Road
ART Approval
14- 031MPR fuse by Cardinal Sin
4305 West Dublin Granville Road
ART Approval
14- 025WID -DP /SP OU Sin
7001 Post Road
PZC Approval
14- 007MPR Covelli Enterprises
6693 Sawmill Road
ART Approval
13 -108 MPR Ivy Bridal Sin
4455 West Dublin Granville Road
ART Approval
13- 094MPR Silver Spoon Boutique
4365 West Dublin- Granville Road
ART Approval
13- 074MPR Posh! Nails Sin
4437 West Dublin Granville Road
ART Approval
13- 066MPR Harbor Yoga Sin
36 North High Street
ARB Approval
13- 051MPR AMC Signs
6700 Villa a Parkwa
ART Approval
13- 038MPR Awesome Skin and Body Care
333 West Brid e Street
ART Approval
Memo re. Potential BSD Sign Code Amendments
November 25, 2015
Page 6 of 6
Case Address Determination
13- 032MPR White Dress Co 4455 West Dublin Granville Road ART Approval
13- 029MPR Jeni's
1 West Bridge Street
ARB Approval
13- 02OMPR Tails Above the Rest
14 South High Street
ARB Approval
13- 014MPR Wend s HQ
1 Dave Thomas Drive
ART Approval
13- 013MPR Mellow Mushroom
6505 Dublin Center Drive
ART Approval
13- 011MPR Tucci's Sin
35 North High Street
ARB Approval
13- 008MPR w/ Waivers Capitol Cadillac Signs
4300 West Dublin Granville Road
ART Approval/
Disapproval
13- 005MPR Infiniti Signs
3890 Tuller Road
ART Approval
13- 004MPR Fifth Third Bank Signs
3800 West Dublin Granville Road
ART Approval
12- 086MPR Posh! Nail Company
4465 West Dublin- Granville Road
ART Approval
12- 085MPR Trovare Home Sin
113 South High Street
ARB Approval
12- 081MPR Pint Room
4415 West Dublin Granville Road
ART Approval
12- 079MPR Remax
106 South High Street
ART Approval
12- 067MPR Brue er's Bagels
4425 West Dublin Granville Road
ART Approval
12 064MPR KFC
6611 Sawmill Road
ART Approval
12- 049MPR Huntin ton Bank Sin
6601 Dublin Center Drive
ART Approval
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council
BARRETT BROTHERS • DAYTON, OHIO
October 12, 2015 Page 6 of 12
Held
Meeting
Forth 6101
... u EA M. I n LTA UTI - :A u. in a I A C7 - u I M ff - .-
Resolution 72 -15
Adopting the Bridge Street District Sign Guidelines. (Case 15- 040ADM).
Vice Mayor Gerber introduced the resolution.
Ms. Ray stated that this is a request for the adoption of the Bridge Street District Sign
Guidelines. The guidelines are intended to help applicants understand the intent of the
zoning regulations for the Bridge Street District and the application process for signs
within the Bridge Street District (BSD). It will also assist Planning and Zoning Commission
(PZC), Architectural Review Board, (ARB), Administrative Review Team (ART) and others
to review and evaluate the signage proposed for the District. The guidelines are not an
amendment of the existing zoning regulations for the District, but explain the current
provisions.
Background:
The BSD regulations were originally approved in March 2012, and the signage for the
District has continued to be a discussion item. In December 2014, Council adopted an
amendment to the BSD Code, and also directed staff to prepare guidelines to demonstrate
desirable sign qualities in this particular pedestrian- oriented district within the City. Since
that time, staff has been working with sign design consultants in preparing the guidelines.
In June 2015, the draft guidelines were reviewed by PZC and ARB, and at their August
and September meetings, both bodies voted to recommend Council approval.
Ms. Ray reviewed the table of contents. The focus of the guidelines is the six character
principles that illustrate desirable signage in this area of the City, including architectural
integration, sign illumination, colors and secondary images, graphic design and
composition, dimensionality, character, as well as context. The documents include a two -
page spread for each type of sign permitted in the BSD to show how the regulations
apply, including measurement of height and area. It also provides positive examples, as
well as what should be avoided. There was good discussion at all levels of review of this
document. Staff recommends approval of Resolution 72 -15.
Vice Mayor Gerber inquired if the process consists of the sign application and ART review,
or if the sign application is also reviewed by PZC.
Ms. Ray responded that for signs within the Historic District, the ART would review and
make a recommendation to the ARB. For the remainder of the BSD, the ART would have
the final decision - making authority. They are required to make a decision within 14 days
of the application filing date. If the sign does not meet a specific Code requirement or is
within a special area or shopping corridor, it would proceed through the master sign plan
process with PZC.
Mayor Keenan inquired if there is an appeal process for ART decisions.
Ms. Ray responded that there is a kick -up provision in the Code.
Ms. Salay emphasized that these are guidelines, not Code. She has expressed concern
about the underlying Code to her colleagues on PZC and Council. She proposes that
Council request that staff look at the Code that underlies these guidelines, particularly for
the parts of the BSD that are still more auto - oriented. There is a proliferation of signs that
are also larger, which is different from what has traditionally existed in Dublin. She is
unsure that is a positive change, particularly in the auto - oriented areas. The creative
signage provided in the BSD guidelines is more for pedestrian areas, or for a theater
district or special areas. She is concerned that an average fast -food business can have
large wall and ground signs in this district, yet these same signs would not be permitted in
FT 7nVOCTM19lbr1