Ordinance 078-17RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc.
Form No. 30043
Ordinance No. 78-17 (Amended) Passed , 20
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 153-058,153,059,
AND 153.062 OF THE DUBLIN CODIFIED ORDINANCES
(ZONING CODE) TO CREATE THE HISTORIC SOUTH DISTRICT
AND ASSOCIATED REGULATIONS WITHIN THE BRIDGE
STREET DISTRICT (CASE 17-052ADMC).
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 153.057153.066, on March 26, 2012
and as amended in November 2013, August 2014, December 2014, and February 2017
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 Sections 153.058, 153.059, and 153.062 of
the Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) to create the Historic South District and
associated regulations within the Bridge Street District on August 10, 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. Sections 153.058, 1.53.059 and 153.062 of the Codified Ordinances of the
City of Dublin are hereby amended and shall provide as attached to this Ordinance:
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective on the earliest date permitted by law.
ATTEST:
Clerk of Council
, 2017.
Office of the City Manager
5700 Emerald Parkway e Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Cit o1 Dublin Phone; 614-410-4400 * Fax; 614-410-4490
Memo
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From; Dana L, McDaniel, City Mana�4,
Date November 16, 2017
Initiated By: Vincent Papsidero, FAICP, Director of Planning
Jennifer M. Rauch, A1CP, Planning Manager
Nichole M, Martin, Planner I
Re: Ordinance 78-17 (Amended)-- Amending Sections 153,058, 153.059, and
153062 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) to Create the Historic
South District and Associated Regulations within the Bridge Street District (Case
17.052ADMC - Historic Dublin Zoning Code Amendment),
Update
At the November 6, 2017 City Council meeting, Council members expressed concerns about the
unintended consequences of updating the Code without addressing potential inconsistencies with
the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines; the implications of limiting development resulting from the
proposed regulations; the proposed hourly restrictions for eating and drinking establishments; and
the size restrictions for exercise and fitness uses,
Cade Changes
The proposed Code has been modified from the first reading to address the concerns about the
hourly restrictions for eating and drinking establishments and the size restrictions for exercise and
fitness uses, The intent of the initial hourly restrictions for eating and drinking establishments was
to address resident concerns regarding noise and traffic, while ensuring compatibility when eating
and drinking uses are located adjacent to residential uses, The existing eating and drinking uses
within the District have a range of hours, with the latest establishment open until 1;00 a,m, on
weekends. Based on Council's discussion, the proposed hourly limitation has been removed to
ensure all eating and drinking uses are treated consistently within the entire Historic District,
The proposed Code has also been corrected to reduce the maximum area of an exercise and
fitness use to 3,600 square feet, which aligns with the proposed maximum building area outlined
in the Code (1,800 square -foot building footprint and maximum two stories).
Development Limitations
As directed by Council, staff was charged with providing an update to the Code regulations within
the subject portion of the Historic District to ensure future development is compatible with the
existing character, building scale, and uses, as well as adjacent residences, The proposed
amendment aims to restrict future development within the southern part of the Historic District by
limiting building footprints, building height and lot coverage,
Historic Dublin Design Guidelines
Council expressed concerns about how the Guidelines and the Code would work together to
address concerns about the overall character of the District, and proceeding with this Code
amendment when the update of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines is unknown, The Historic
Memo re. Ord, 78-17 (Amended) - BSD - Historic Dublin Zoning Code Amendment
November 16, 2017
Page 2
Dublin Design Guidelines utilize the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as the
basic foundation and build upon them to provide a more specific set of guidelines that are specific
to Dublin's Historic District, The goal of the Guidelines is to work in tandem with the Code,
Council's discussion at the first reading appeared to be in support of holding the adoption of the
proposed Historic District Code amendments until the Guidelines can be updated, Staff has
significant concerns about postponing the Code amendments given the original concern by Council
that initiated this project, but recognizes the importance of updating the Guidelines, Staff
recommends the Code amendment be adopted as proposed, and the update of the Historic Dublin
Design Guidelines be prioritized with completion and submittal for adoption by the summer of
2018,
Summary
This is a request to amend a portion of the Zoning Code to create the Historic South District and
associated regulations within the Bridge Street District, The amendment will provide regulations to
address development pressure within this portion of the Historic Dublin,
Background
Staff initiated a major update to the Bridge Street District (BSD) Zoning Code in 2016. As directed
by City Council, the prioritized tasks included amendments for the Historic Dublin core in response
to concerns raised by adjacent residents, These were in response to a development proposal on
the Biddie's property and focused on the potential of commercial intrusion into the neighborhood,
density and building height, noise and traffic,
The City engaged Clarion Associates and CodaMetrics to revise the regulations to ensure
development is consistent with the neighborhood character of the Historic District south of Bridge
Street,
In coordination with CodaMetrics, Planning engaged the community in two public workshops;
October and December 2016, The first workshop offered four stations addressing the following
topics; transitional zoning, building character, parking and infill development, The second
workshop built on the outcomes of the first by surveying residents, business owners, and
landowners to determine appropriate zoning district boundaries and development standards,
In March 2017, an Architectural Review Board (ARB) work session was held to review the
outcomes of the public meetings and provide preliminary direction to the consultant regarding
revisions,
In June 2017, CodaMetrics and Planning staff reengaged the public in an Open House and the ARB
with a Special Meeting, As outcomes of this effort, the proposed amendment was updated to
reflect the neighborhood's requests to reduce building coverage, reduce impervious lot coverage,
set a maximum overall building height, clarify measurement of building height, and added size -
limited exercise and fitness facilities,
In July 2017, the Administrative Review Team (ART) made a formal recommendation of approval
to the ARB for the Code and Zoning Map Amendments, as updated based on the June 2017 Open
Memo re, Ord, 78-17 (Amended) - BSD - Historic Dublin Zoning Code Amendment
November 16, 2017
Page 3
House and ARB Special Meeting, The ARO recommended approval to the Planning and Zoning
Commission (PZC) at their July 26th meeting with one condition to resolve a minor typographical
error,
In August 2017, the PZC reviewed the proposal at their August 10th meeting, and made a
recommendation of approval to City Council with no conditions, The Commission determined the
ARB and Council are best suited to address residents' outstanding concerns that were shared at
the PZC meeting, Based on the Commission's discussion and resident requests, staff directed the
consultant to increase rear yard setbacks for buildings and parking areas,
The Historic Dublin Neighborhood Association submitted letters to the ARB, PZC, and staff that
outlined their concerns regarding the proposal, Staff prepared a written response and
subsequently met with the authors and involved neighborhood stakeholders. Many of these issues
raised in the initial letter had been incorporated into the proposal,
At the October 16, 2017 City Council Work Session, staff requested Council review the proposed
Code and Zoning Map Amendments prior to formal review and approval, Council affirmed that the
direction taken by staff and the consultant is consistent with Council's direction and was supportive
of the proposed Code amendments and rezoning proceeding with the formal review process,
Council members discussed how the discrepancies between the Bridge Street Code requirements
and the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines will be handled moving forward, Staff is undertaking a
comprehensive Code amendment for the entire Bridge Street Code, which is running in tandem to
an update to the Guidelines The proposed initial draft of the overall Bridge Street Code updates
and the Guidelines is targeted for February, 2018,
Proposal
The proposed changes are consistent with Council's direction, Input into the final
recommendations is based on stakeholder engagement to identify common themes, staff
experience in administration of the Code provisions, and the consultant's experience writing form -
based regulations for a variety of communities.
website for public consideration,
The draft changes have been posted on the City
The draft changes place a significant limit on the size and scale of all future development within a
new sub -district (Historic South District) that responds to the area of concern expressed by
Council, The proposal also restricts the size and operating hours of all future eating and drinking
establishments in order to minimize potential impacts to adjacent residences, Specifically, the
changes include;
153,058 -m BSD Districts Scope and Intent
Creation of the Historic South District and identification of the sub -district's intent.
153,059 — Uses
Identification of permitted and conditional uses for the Historic South District,
Parking structures are not permitted, nor are they not allowed as conditional uses as
primary or accessory uses in the new sub -district,
Eating and Drinking facilities are sized -limited, with limited hours of operation (7am-
10pm), and limited hours for commercial deliveries and refuse collections (8am-5pm),
Memo re. Ord, 78-17 (Amended) - BSD - Historic Dublin Zoning Code Amendment
November 16, 2017
Page 4
The hours of operation may be modified as part of a request for a Conditional Use,
+ Exercise and Fitness facilities are size limited (10,000 square feet),
153,062 — wilding Types
+ Revisions to the building type standards for the Historic Cottage Commercial building,
+ Rear building setback 25 feet with parking setback of 5 feet. This ensures that current
views are maintained across the rear of properties abutting S, High Street,
+ Building height is limited to two stories or a maximum of 24 feet to the midpoint of the
eaves; and one and half stories or a maximum of 18 feet to the midpoint of the eaves
within 50 feet of the rear lot line (updated from language previously referred to rear
lane), These provisions ensure that building heights decrease away from S, High Street
towards the adjacent residential blocks to minimize visual impacts,
+ A reduction in the footprint of any individual building to 1,800 square feet to ensure
scale is consistent with the existing character of the sub -district, Individual buildings on
the same parcel can be connected via an "enclosed connection" or hallway, but overall
building intensity is limited by the lot coverage requirements noted below,
+ Maximum building coverage is limited to 50 percent of a site and maximum impervious
coverage has been reduced to 65 percent (from the earlier proposal of 75 percent), This
reduces the buildable area and is consistent with existing character,
Existing parking standards within the BSD as applied to the Historic District uses were
not altered,
On-site parking cannot be visible from High Street; it must be located behind buildings,
This standard maintains the pedestrian -oriented character along the N, High sidewalks
and ensures a building wall consistent with the historic character,
Planning and Zoning Commission Review
On August 10, 2017, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) reviewed and recommended
approval of the proposed Zoning Code amendments to City Council,
Recommendation
Staff recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 78-17 (Amended),
HISTORIC DUBLIN:
EXISTING ZONING CODE
SUMMARY &EXPLANATION OF
PROPOSED REVISIONS
May 9, 2017, revised June 1, 2017, revised July 17, 2017, revised July 31, 2017,
revised October 3, 2017, revised November 13, 2017
CODAMETRICS
PURPOSE
Over the last year, the Historic District in Dublin's
downtown has experienced significant development
pressure. Due to the charm and character of the area,
the value of the land is increasing and surface parking
lots and some buildings are now seen as opportunities
for infill development.
Residents have expressed concerns regarding the scale
and impacts of this potential development along with
additional commercial uses in the Historic District.
Based upon these concerns, in May of 2016, City Council
directed staff to take a closer look at the existing districts
and design regulations to address these concerns, while
• a srueraeumr Rene rovrlrew ea uM ove mnR,knR mn
:r Ana e•�e m m. .e:�a�nai nnw �Rr�
1i f ea�A.%aen °.,00 el ro
u�Wne .� ynp µrpt annlNeimerp oPe MINe MninRrarles mp elNa
,r�tim ano gwk.wv,ran RaraRe rorpam.R�: mormmttwree.mr mer.:aem�ai
pr pN[evnr.
DRAFT
balancing the redevelopment potential sought by the
development community.
The following document outlines the revisions
recommended to the Bridge Street District (BSD) code
related to the Historic Core. No revisions are currently
proposed to the Historic Transition and Historic
Residential districts.
me ron� m xnpm sa[n n< nmlmw amon�<a a n<gnt[ ..:
moroarom neoieomy abpm a:
S:ury r IIIu4atevmNfurngrMmavmwn MRm M1pnllre[rpv i..l
IM9<EYn4 wOBmele{aak wrtl peer lnnamwvA m! e�ln dsM •ea
w no
`�YiilanvaNamvwrn�gvemae:mar�n�a,aemxne wnoie
Ie,R�m[a M1 be ms IM eu i W aga reW a to M vert N%hrn m�
AW)3ilmAraryysteppinRmelrepmsnmwrM1max inrelxgn to m
.e:aemim ewlmr�a[.oss I<un<.,m awyalminw,.rt amppm,
nre grurM story w Inn ve 4u itl ugs reNte to tM vent mry hom c.
�w ��
rirv�
- W� � I I zi
ry CI .. '
HISTORIC DUBLIN Zon:wc DISTRICT, •t
Illustration Boards from the Public Workshop 1. The board on the left illustrates option 3, the most widely preferred design
option for the rear of lots. The board on the right illustrates the impacts of height on adjacent residential on well sloped lots.
Measuring heights will be addressed in the overall revision to the BSD code, defining the measurement from the average
grade of the building.
2 NOVEMBER 13, 2017
DRAFT
The following outlines the key meetings and results
from those meetings related to the new district and
revisions to the BSD in the historic core.
Public Workshop 1
The first workshop, held October 4, 2016, put forth
some proposals for addressing the concerns. The
workshop was well attended by approximately 50
people including residents, business owners and
land owners. The interactive workshop included
four stations each addressing a different topic.
Each participant was able to rotate through all four
stations.
• Station 1 introduced the potential for a new
transitional zoning district between the Bridge
and High Street intersection and the residential
buildings on neighboring streets and the south
end of High Street.
• Station 2 addressed the current code
requirements for materials and design details
such as massing, windows, and roofs.
• Station 3 provided a discussion format for
parking provisions in the area, focusing on the
difference between the areas north and south
of Bridge Street.
• Station 4 presented some design options
addressing potential infill development in the
rear of lots along Blacksmith and Mill Lanes.
Public Workshop 2
The results of the first workshop were presented
at a second workshop, held December 8, 2016. A
survey was provided to gain additional comments
and more detailed recommendations for potential
Code changes. The discussion focused on future
development and zoning requirements including
architectural character, design, building materials
and uses within the Historic District.
Architectural Review Board (ARB) Work Session
An informal work session was held for the
Architectural Review Board on March 8, 2017, to
review the results of the two public input sessions.
The Board reviewed the materials presented to the
public and the public input that was provided at
these meetings. The consultant presented the initial
recommendations for the zoning code amendments
within the Historic District, which was based on the
input from these public input sessions. The Board
discussed the proposed recommendations and
provided feedback to the consultant to consider as
the recommended code language is developed.
PROJECT TIMELINE
Open House RB Special Meeting
On June 14, 2017, an open house was held prior to
a special meeting of the ARB. At the open house,
large-scale boards were displayed outlining the key
components of the proposed code for the historic
core. Staff and the consultant were available for
one-on-one discussions with participants.
During the presentation to the ARB after the open
house, several potential revisions were discussed.
The resulting revisions included clarification of the
roof height measuring process, reduced building
coverage, reduced impervious lot coverage,
revisions to uses including the addition of a size -
limited exercise and fitness facilities, adding overall
maximum height dimension.
Administrative Review Team Meeting
On July 20, 2017, the administrative review team
met and discussed the revised code.
ARB Meeting
On July 26, 2017, staff presented the revised code
and discussed potential revisions. Accessory parking
structures were removed from the uses table as a
result of this meeting (consultant's error).
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
On August 10, 2017, staff presented the revised
code to the PZC and discussed potential revisions.
As a result, an increased rear building setback was
included with a separate parking setback.
Historic Dublin Neighborhood Association Key
Stakeholder Meeting
On September 8, 2017, a meeting was held with
neighborhood stakeholders to discuss potential
revisions. Based upon this meeting, the civic
building type was eliminated from the new district.
Council Work Session
On October 16, 2017, the new district and code
revisions were discussed in a council work session.
Council First Reading
On November 6, 2017, the first reading of the
revisions prompted the removal of hours of
operation for eating and drinking establishments
and further reduction in the size of exercise
facilities.
REVISIONS TO THE BRIDGE STREET DISTRICTS DEVELOPMENT CODE: HISTORIC CORE DISTRICTS 3
SUMMARY AND INTENT OF THE CODE
REVISIONS
The following provides a summary of the major revisions
along with the intent of those changes.
Introduction of a New District
The new Historic South zoning district is intended
to provide a framework for smaller -scaled buildings
generally between Spring Hill Lane and John Wright Lane
along South High Street. The new district as proposed
permits the existing Historic Cottage Commercial and
detached single-family home buildingforms. The
limitation on the buildingforms ensures smaller -scaled
buildings and more open space on the lots, instead of the
more continuous "streetwall" established bythe Historic
Mixed Use Building. (See revisions to zoning map and
section 153.058.)
Uses in the New District
The new Historic South district allows for a mix of
uses similar to the Historic Core to occur within the
buildings, but does apply some limitations. Parking
structures and principal -use parking lots (parcels with
DRAFT
surface parking similar to the public lots on the north
side of Bridge Street) are not permitted. Eating and
drinking establishments were desired by most workshop
attendees, but deliveries have been limited to specific
hours ofeperatian to address noise concerns. (See
section V. Uses in this document.)
Building Type Revisions
A series of revisions to the Historic Cottage Commercial
building type are provided to address the scale of infill
development within the Historic South district. (See
revisions to 153.062.) The following is the key revision -
Rear Infill Limitations
The Historic Cottage Commercial Building has been
revised and re -illustrated to address development
in the rear portion of lots, especially adjacent to the
historic single family district. The intent of these new
regulations is to allow infill within the character of
the existing area, specifically stepping the buildings
down to 1.5 stories at the rear lanes among other
requirements.
lllustrotion of the scale of development proposed in the code revisions for the rear of the Historic
Cottage Commercial Building Types.
4 NOVEMBER 13, 2017
DRAFT
Existing Historic Cottage Commercial in Dublin: the scale
of existing cottage" buildings provides the guidance for the
Historic Cottage Commercial building.
Historic Cottage Commercial in other communities: new
construction similorin scale, not located in Dublin.
REVISIONS TO THE BRIDGE STREET DISTRICTS DEVELOPMENT CODE: HISTORIC CORE DISTRICTS
INTRODUCTION TO REVISIONS
The following outlines revisions proposed to the Bridge
Street Districts code regarding the Historic District only.
I. Districts Intent
Section 153.058 is revised to establish the new Historic
South District and add intent language for the new
district.
II. District Map
The Bridge Street Districts zoning map is revised to
define the parcels to which the new Historic South
District will be applied.
III. Building Types by Districts Table
Table 153.062-A. Building Types by Districts is revised
to add the new district and define which building
types will be permitted within it (Historic Cottage
Commercial and Single -Family Detached House only -
Civic Building is not permitted).
IV. Building Types
The Historic Cottage Commercial building type is
revised to define the type of development that can
occur, especially in the rear portion of the lots. The
table of regulations is revised and the drawings have
been updated. Some line items in the table have been
struck -through; those line items will be addressed in
subsequent revisions to the overall code.
Additionally, Table 153.062-C. Building Type Table
Legend is deleted as the keyed numbering system
between the building type tables and the illustrations
is different for each building type.
An appendix is included at the end of this document to
provide some explanation for revisions to the building
regulations.
V. Uses
In section 153.059, the use table is revised to
incorporate the new district. A revision to uses
previously permitted only in the upper floors, now
permits those uses in the rear of the upper floors
and in the basement. New language is also defined
for limitations on deliveries to eating and drinking
establishments in the new district.
DRAFT
The revisions outlined in the above -listed sections
address the structural changes made to the key
components of the Bridge Street District (BSD) zoning
code in order to update the Historic District area. Future
revisions to the BSD code will address parking, landscape,
and building design elements, among other BSD -wide
regulations.
It is important to note that the Historic Dublin Design
Guidelines still apply to all properties in Historic District.
The Architectural Review Board reviews all cases and has
purview over all details.
6 NOVEMBER 13, 2017
DRAFT
The following appendix explains the intent behind the revisions made to the building type tables. The
Historic Cottage Commercial table is used for illustration.
The tables now separate property line coverage
requirements between principal frontage streets
(defined on the street types map) and side streets.
Principal frontage streets are intended to be fronted
by buildings along the sidewalk. For the Cottage
Commercial, a minimum of 50% coverage provides for
significant openings between buildings for landscape
and patio areas.
Minimum rear setbacks for buildings and parking areas
have been set separately to address neighborhood
concerns about the location of the buildings close to the
residential garages.
Minimum and maximum lot width are removed as they
simply are not necessary. In a place where small scale
buildings are desirable, setting a minimum lot width
is antithetical. Also, actual maximum building width is
more important than a lot width, especially as multiple
buildings may be developed on one lot.
These new standards focus on the scale of the buildings
on the lot. For the Historic Cottage Commercial, all
buildings shall be small scale. Building footprint limits
the overall building size, building length limits the length
of the building along the street, and building spacing
requires wide spaces between buildings.
Enclosed connections between buildings are limited in
depth and required to be setback from the front facade
an additional 15 feet providing green space or courtyard
in front. The connections are also limited to a single
1. STREET FRONTAGE
Multiple Principal Buildings
Permitted
Fiait Principal Frontage
50% minimum
Property Line Coverage
Occupation of Corner
Required
Non -Principal Frontage Street
60% maximum
Property Line Coverage
Front RBZ
0-25 ft. [see note 1]
Corner Side RBZ
0=150-25 ft. [see note 1]
RBZ Treatment
Landscape, patio, or
streetsca pe
Right -of -Way Encroachment
Projecting signs, eaves,
awnings
2. BUILDABLE AREA
Side Yard Setback
3 ft.
Rear Yard Building Setback
25 ft.
Rear Yard Parking Setback
5 ft.
""i 1i 11o'--"m-zrn-`-Width
Maxi -ter'-- -`v" idth
30 ft.
None
Building Footprint
Building Length
Building Spacing
Permitted Enclosed
Connections between
Buildings
1800 sq. ft. maximum
70 - ft. 50 ft. maximum
18 ft. minimum
maximum 1story,
maximum 12 -ft. depth,
minimum 15 -ft. setback
from front facade
Max. Building Coverage 50% total
Max. Impervious Coverage 75%
Add'tl Semi -Pervious
Coverage 10%
3. PARKING LOCATION, LOADING & ACCESS
story. The connections can provide more flexibility for I Rear or-sidepravidied -the
-
businesses to expand within buildings. o 1 ou o property mrre-
Parking is limited to the rear of the lot, as very few Parking Location eoverage -is-net, screened
from principal frontages
parking lots are located along the principal frontage by building
street (High St).
Net�
Ne�
Removal of requirements that are not applicable to the Reuss
area simply allows for more space in the tables. Access
is addressed in other locations of the code.
REVISIONS TO THE BRIDGE STREET DISTRICTS DEVELOPMENT CODE: HISTORIC CORE DISTRICTS 7
This note has not been revised, but will move back
under the Building Siting section once space has been
created with removed table line items (lot width and
loading, etc.).
In general, the ground story regulations have been
clarified to apply mainly to the spaces along the
principal frontage streets. This means that heights, uses,
and other facade requirements (storefronts, entrances)
are relaxed on the ground stories of non -principal
frontage streets. Additionally, a maximum height in feet
has been added to account for roof height. Note that
the overall height in feet is measured to the midpoint of
the pitched roof.
Here, the floor to floor heights are defined for the
ground stories along the principal frontage streets,
where retail and service uses are likely to occur.
Buildings in the rear of the lot or along a side street then
utilize the "All Other Stories' floor -to floor minimum and
maximum heights, allowing more flexibility for the wider
variety of uses allowed.
The maximum height in the rear 50 feet of all lots along
S. High Street steps down to a maximum of 1.5 stories.
The Cottage Commercial building is a maximum of 2
stories, but along Blacksmith and Mill Lanes and all rear
lot lines, it is required to step down to 1.5 stories.
As discussed above, the ground story limitations on
residential are now confined to the ground story along
the principal frontage street (S. High Street and Bridge
Street). All permitted uses may occur in all other stories,
including the ground stories of building faces along side
streets and lanes.
Occupied space is now only required along principal
frontage streets, allowing service and storage areas on
the interior of buildings to occur along side streets as
needed.
Note that parking is not permitted within the Cottage
Commercial buildings (unchanged from current code).
Accessory garages are permitted per other code
sections.
DRAFT
Note 1: When any front or corner property line is within five feet
or less of the back of curb, the RBZ shall begin five feet off the
back of curb to allow for adequate sidewalk width.
Overall Height: Minimum Height lstories
Maximum Height lstories, 24 ft.
Ground Story Principal Frontage Floor to
Floor Heights: Minimum Height 8 ft.
Maximum Height 11 ft.
All Other Stories Floor to Floor Heights:
Minimum Height 7.5 ft.
Maximum Height 11 ft.
Maximum Height within 50 ft of the Rear
Lot Line: 1.5 stories
Ground Story on Res cle it a' uses p oh b red
Principal Frontage All uses except residential
Street
blpi e Al Other Stories All permitted uses
Parking within Building Not permitted
Occupied Space Required on principal frontage
NOVEMBER 13, 2017
DRAFT
As discussed above related to Heights and Uses, the
ground story regulations have been clarified to apply
mainly to the spaces along the principal frontage
streets. For the Historic Cottage Commercial, this does
not affect to transparency; however, for other building
types, storefront transparency will be required only
along principal frontages, where retail uses are more
likely to occur.
Transparency requirements and blank wall limitations
are now only required for street facades. This allows
more flexibility for the incorporation of kitchens and
storage areas on the building facades interior to the
lot. For the S. High Street area, the lanes in the rear are
considered streets, so street facade transparency is still
required.
The requirement for multiple entrances along streets
is now simplified. Because of the limitation in building
width for the Historic Cottage Commercial, this same
requirement is met simply by requiring one entrance
per building on a street facade.
The removal of parking lot facade requirements allows
more flexibility on those facades.
The regulations for the whole of BSD are currently being
revised to move some of the building type regulations
to a more flexible design guideline document. Facade
divisions and buildingvariety guidelines will be included
in that process; therefore, these line items are removed
from the table.
Although facade materials and roof types will likely
move to the proposed design guideline document in
the overall BSD revision, those two requirements are
integral to the definition of the Cottage Commercial
building type. The limitation on primary materials and
the requirement for a pitched roof are characteristic to
these districts. Details will still be reviewed by the ARB
during the project review process.
Refer to §753.062(D) through §153.062(K) for design
requirements general to all buildings.
1. STREET FACADE TRANSPARENCY
Transparency Minimum 25°%20%
Blank Wall Limitations
Required on ground story of
street facades
Geft&r&4mntateftey
RAirtrmnm-159'6
mai-Blank all
H 11 i'tatio is
3. BUILDING ENTRANCE
N6t_requ ed.
Principal Entrance
Location
Street facade of each building
Stieet
of E it anees Facades. .. _...__.
Pa 'dig Lot Faeades`
4. FACADE DIVISIONS
E pe eve y 30 to hu Id igs
eve. 50 rr .
Poatapplicable
,is
P40-greate,than 30 ft.
Bivisio is
efi-the-greun�Siery.
Plane u, Type
5. FACADE MATERIALS
Permitted Primary
Materials
Stone, brick, wood siding
5. ROOF TYPES
Pitched roof, other types
permitted with approval (refer
Permitted Types to §753.062(C). Flat Roof
ed to
��qs
Tower Not Permitted
REVISIONS TO THE BRIDGE STREET DISTRICTS DEVELOPMENT CODE: HISTORIC CORE DISTRICTS 9
The following scenarios utilize the existing parking and
open space requirements in the BSD to calculate the
potential for development on a typical site in the new
BSD Historic South district.
Note that meeting the current requirements
eliminates one building shown on the original historic
cottage commercial building type illustration, mainly
due to parking.
Also, the open space requirements allow for the
utilization of a fee -in -lieu of development of new open
space and the use of existing open space within 660
feet of the property. Most parcels in the BSD Historic
South district are within 660 feet of an existing park,
plaza, or historic open space parcel. Smaller private
green spaces will likely develop versus large public
open spaces.
The goal of the open space for the Historic Cottage
Commercial building type is more site specific,
with the intent of limiting building coverage and
creating green spaces along the street. The required
space between the buildings accomplishes this. The
elimination of this fifth building reduces the overall
building coverage shown from 43% to 34%, not
including parking lot area.
Finally, note that landscape requirements for the
interior parking have not been met. Further, the
landscape code is currently difficult to interpret. With
the overall code revisions, the perimeter landscape
requirements should be defined and the interior
parking lot landscape studied to apply to smaller lots.
Parking Units Open Space Units
Retail: 3 spaces/1000sf Commercial: 1 sf/50 sf
Restaurant: 10 spaces/1000sf Residential: 200 sf/unit
Office: 2.5 spaces/1000sf
Residential: 1.5 spaces/unit
(assumed 2 bedroom
units, 1000sf each)
DRAFT
Scenario I: RESTAURANT & OFFICE
This scenario includes ground story restaurant and
upper story office in the corner building and a story
office building along High Street. Restaurant parking
requirements are the highest, met here by reducing the
number of buildings on site and incorporating office in
the ground story of one building. Retail requires just
slightly more spaces than office and could easily be
accommodated in this scenario. Interior parking lot
landscaping could be utilized in the extra parking spaces.
Conversely, this scenario requires the least amount of
open space with all commercial space.
53 01
Pon P A
600
Parking a, spaces�a
�v
J v
Na
X
1600 sr
Building
Uses
Parking
Spaces
Open Space
(sq. ft.)
restaurant
18
36
Agroundfloor
upper floor
office
5
32
office
4
32
Bgroundfloor
upper floor
office
4
32
REQUIRED
31
132
PROVIDED
31
433
*200 sf Connection between A and B is included in the sf of
ground story A.
10 NOVEMBER 13, 2017
DRAFT
Scenario II: RETAIL & RESIDENTIAL
This scenario includes retail space in the ground story
of both buildings along High Street and residential in
the upper stories plus another 2 -story and one 1.5 -story
building on the side street. Retail requires slightly less
parking required than restaurant spaces. Residential has
the fewest number of parking spaces required, so the site
can accommodate up to 4 buildings.
Residential requires the most open space on the site.
The requirements are easily met with two of the smallest
open space type: the pocket plaza. No other open space
type can be accommodated on this site reasonably as the
site is just under half an acre, but these sites are generally
within range of public open space.
Side Street
Required C
55Areer
,u i
elback
11501f 200 Sf 1200 sf
Scenario III: OFFICE & RESIDENTIAL
This scenario is very similar to Scenario II, with office uses
instead of retail uses in the ground story of buildings A
and B on High Street. Building C is 2 -story all residential
and Building D is 1.5 -story all residential, the same as
Scenario II. The parking required is just one space less
than Scenario II, as fractional required spaces count as a
whole space.
The open space is the same as in Scenario II.
Side Street
Building
Uses
Parking
Required
25Areer
D
C
A
6
36
tiadd��p
residential
3
360
retail
bck
27
Bgroundfloor
upper floor
1600 Sf
2
265
11505f
20 sf 1200 s
00 sf
280
d
upper floor
residential
2
240
d)
2
230
Dgroundfloor
upper floor
residential
1
115
No`
23
1553
PROVIDED
23
2245
C w
�
B
X �
dor Lan ape
iseror per
Fv(
151.115R11d(c),
1325 sf �
1325 sf
COp�lonA
Building
Uses
Parking
Open Space
Agroundfloor
retail
6
36
upper floor
residential
3
360
retail
4
27
Bgroundfloor
upper floor
residential
2
265
residential
3
280
Cgroundfloor
upper floor
residential
2
240
residential
2
230
Dgroundfloor
upper floor
residential
1
115
REQUIRED
23
1553
PROVIDED
23
2245
*200 sf Connection between A and B is included in the sf of
ground story A.
*200 sf Connection between C and D is included in the sf of
ground story C.
Building
Uses
Parking
Open Space
Agroundfloor
office
5
36
upper floor
residential
3
360
office
4
27
Bgroundfloor
upper floor
residential
2
265
residential
3
280
Cgroundfloor
upper floor
residential
2
240
residential
2
230
Dgroundfloor
upper floor
residential
1
115
REQUIRED
22
1553
PROVIDED
22
2245
*200 sf Connection between A and B is included in the sf of
ground story A.
*200 sf Connection between C and D is included in the sf of
ground story C.
REVISIONS TO THE BRIDGE STREET DISTRICTS DEVELOPMENT CODE: HISTORIC CORE DISTRICTS 11
DRAFT
12 NOVEMBER 13, 2017
HISTORIC DUBLIN:
EXISTING ZONING CODE
PROPOSED REVISIONS
May 9, 2017, revised June 1, 2017, revised July 17, 2017, revised July 31, 2017,
revised October 3, 2017, revised November 13, 2017
CODAMETRICS
(f) Residential and business uses that have convenient (B) Intent
access to existing and future transit stops. The Bridge Street District zoning districts are generally
(3) Open Space
The Bridge Street District should have a variety of
functional, well-designed open spaces that enhance the
quality of life for residents, businesses, and visitors.
Open spaces should:
(a) Include a wide range of characters from small
intimate spaces to larger neighborhood and
community uses, including small parks and
playgrounds to provide gathering spaces for
neighborhoods,
(b) Be arranged and designed as part of a district -
wide open space network that defines and
connects neighborhoods and the larger Dublin
community,
(c) Be located within convenient walking distance of
all residents and businesses.
(4) Buildings
Buildings should have a range of high-quality
residential, commercial, mixed-use and civic
architectural styles to reinforce the unique identities
of each part of the District. Buildings should be
characterized by:
(a) Easily convertible spaces that allow for uses to
change overtime,
(b) Residential uses with a variety of housing types,
sizes, and price levels,
(c) Abroad mix of shops, offices, and housing
integrated within and among a variety of building
types, and
(d) Architecture that reflects Dublin's commitment to
high quality and enduring character.
§ 153.058 BRIDGE STREET
DISTRICT (BSD) DISTRICTS
SCOPE AND INTENT
(A) Scope
The following Bridge Street District (BSD) districts are
hereby created. The districts described by §153.058 are
intended to be used for all land within the Bridge Street
District. Unless otherwise specifically noted, after the
effective date of this amendment all development and
redevelopment within the BSD zoning districts shall be
consistent with §153.057, General Purpose and subject
to the regulations of §§153.058 through 153.066. Other
provisions of Chapters 152 and 153 of the Dublin Code of
Ordinances apply in the BSD zoning districts. Where there
are conflicts, the provisions of §§153.058 through 153.066
shall prevail. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit an
application for rezoning to any non -BSD zoning district
provided in this Chapter.
based on the District Framework of the Bridge Street
District Area Plan. The purpose of the Framework is to
allow development regulations to be adapted to the unique
conditions present in each area. Although each district is
unique, the five Vision Principles are intended to create a
cohesive area, based on the concepts of walkability and
urban vitality to support the quality of life for residents of
all generations.
The titles of each district are intended to describe the
predominant land use character and/or special geographic
locations rather than a single type of use. The following
further describes the intent of each BSD zoning district.
(1) BSD Residential
The intent of this district is to accommodate single-
family, two-family, townhouse, live -work and
multiple -family uses in mid -rise development. The
BSD Residential district integrates existing and new
residential developments to create true neighborhoods
and add to the population base needed to help
support nearby retail and office development. Uses
are generally limited to residential and small-scale
residential support uses, as listed in Table 153.059-A.
(2) BSD Office Residential
The intent of this district is to accommodate a mix of
office and multiple -family residential development at
higher densities and in larger buildings. This district
offers great flexibility to take advantage of visibility
and access for office uses, with opportunities to create
residential neighborhoods to support the adjacent BSD
zoning districts. Uses include a mix of residential,
personal service, and commercial uses, as listed in
Table 153.059-A.
(3) BSD Office
The intent of this district is to allow a mix of offices
and retail support uses, as listed in Table 153.059-A.
The BSD Office district provides significant additional
development capacity and redevelopment opportunities
that foster office uses with a walkable design along
signature streets, and provides increased accessibility
and an improved roadway network to ease traffic
pressure along major roadways.
(4) BSD Commercial
This district applies generally to existing retail centers
and other low-rise commercial uses, including single
use freestanding retail buildings, as listed in Table
153.059-A. Properties initially zoned into this district
may be eligible for rezoning to the BSD Vertical
Mixed Use District or to other surrounding BSD
zoning districts when future redevelopment to higher
densities is desired.
(5) BSD Historic Core
This district applies to the historic center of Dublin
and reinforces the character of this area as the
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT §153.058 3
DEVELOPMENT CODE BSD DISTRICTS
SCOPE & INTENT
centerpiece of the Bridge Street District. The district
focuses on ensuring sensitive infill development
and redevelopment and providing an improved
environment for walking while accommodating
vehicles. The district accepts building types that are
consistent with the historic development pattern of
Historic Dublin, subject to review by the Architectural
Review Board, and permit similar uses that support a
highly walkable setting, as listed in Table 153.059-A.
(6) BSD Historic South
This district is intended to apply to the smaller, cottage -
scale buildings on the southern end of South High
Street in the historic core of Dublin. The district
focuses on ensuring sensitive infill development and
redevelopment and providing an improved environment
for walking while accommodating vehicles. The
district accepts building types that are consistent with
the historic development pattern of Historic Dublin,
subject to review by the Architectural Review Board,
and permits similar uses that supporta highly walkable
setting, as listed in Table 153.059-A.
(7) BSD Historic Residential
The intent of this district is to permit the preservation
and development of homes on existing or new lots that
are comparable in size, mass, and scale, while
maintaining and promoting the traditional residential
character of the Historic Dublin area. The purpose
of these regulations is to protect the scale and character
of the original platted village by maintaining
regulations consistent with the previous Historic
Residential zoning in place prior to the adoption of this
amendment, as listed in Table 153.059-A.
(8) BSD Sawmill Center Neighborhood
This district applies to the majority of the commercial
areas at the east end of the District. The standards
of the BSD Sawmill Center Neighborhood create
an active, walkable destination through integration of a
strong mix of uses. Development within this district
relies on the provision of physical and visual
connections through improved access and enhanced
visibility from Sawmill Road, and links to adjacent
neighborhoods and open spaces.
This district accommodates a wide variety of building
types and permitted uses, as listed in Table 153.059-
A. Redevelopment of the BSD Sawmill Center area
creates a walkable, mixed use core as the east anchor of
the District. The district is subject to the specific
neighborhood standards defined in §153.063(0),
establishing open space patterns, location requirements
for building types, and permitting pedestrian -oriented,
mixed use shopping areas.
(9) BSD Historic Transition Neighborhood
This district complements the BSD Historic Core
district by accommodating a variety of building types
within a finer grained street and block network and
uses consistent with that district. It accommodates uses
similar to those in the BSD Historic Core district, as
listed in Table 153.059-A. Development allows an
extension of the walkable mixed use character of the
BSD Historic Core district on the larger parcels within
this district. The district is subject to the specific
neighborhood standards defined in §153.063(D). These
requirements establish open space patterns and location
requirements for building types, provide additional
residential opportunities, and extend the small scale
commercial activities of the BSD Historic Core district.
(10) BSD Indian Run Neighborhood
This district applies to the larger parcels north and west
of the Indian Run and south of I-270, including
adjacent properties fronting the north side of Bridge
Street. The BSD Indian Run Neighborhood district
is intended to develop as a new walkable, mixed use
district that takes advantage of excellent highway
visibility, an improved road network, and proximity to
Historic Dublin and the natural areas flanking the
Indian Run. Development within the district relies on a
comprehensive road network providing connections
within the Indian Run district and to the rest of the
District, as well as sensitivity of development at its
edges given its proximity to Historic Dublin and the
Indian Run.
This district accommodates a wide variety of building
types and permitted uses, as listed in Table 153.059-A.
Redevelopment of the area creates a walkable, mixed
use core as the west anchor of the District. The district
is subject to specific neighborhood standards defined in
§153.063(E). These regulations are intended to
establish natural and man-made open space patterns,
build pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular networks,
provide location requirements for building types; and
foster a pedestrian -oriented, neighborhood scale mixed
use shopping area.
4 § 153.058 DRAFT DATE
BSD DISTRICTS November 13, 2017
SCOPE & INTENT
11 BSD Scioto River Neighborhood
The standards of the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood
are intended to create an active, walkable destination
through integration of a vibrant mix of uses.
Development in this district is oriented toward the
Scioto River and the public spaces along the
riverfront, and includes important vehicular and
bicycle links to adjacent neighborhoods and open
spaces.
This district accommodates a wide variety of building
types and permitted uses, as listed in Table 153.059-
A. Development of the BSD Scioto River
Neighborhood area establishes a walkable, mixed-use
core as the center of the Bridge Street District. The
district is subject to the specific neighborhood
standards defined in §153.063(F), establishing open
space patterns, location requirements for building
types, and permitting pedestrian -oriented, mixed-use
shopping areas.
12 BSD Vertical Mixed Use
The intent of this district is to allow a wide variety of
mid -rise, mixed use development, including vertical
mixed use with ground floor retail, and large format
retail with liner buildings, as listed in Table 153.059-
A. It is intended to be available for areas initially
zoned into the BSD Indian Run Neighborhood, BSD
Scioto River Neighborhood and BSD Sawmill Center
Neighborhood districts, once these areas are
developed and the applicable neighborhood standards
are no longer needed to establish the organization and
hierarchy of places. The district may be applied to
areas initially zoned to the BSD Commercial District
or elsewhere in the Bridge Street District as may be
deemed appropriate when future redevelopment to
higher densities is desired. Accordingly, the district is
not intended to be mapped at the time the BSD zoning
districts are initially adopted.
13 BSD Public
This district applies to a variety of public spaces and
facilities, including but not limited to schools, parks,
open spaces, and places that accommodate more
intensive recreation, such as outdoor entertainment
venues, as listed in Table 153.059-A. It also applies
to lands in and adjacent to rivers and creeks on which
development is limited due to inclusion in a Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated
floodplain as regulated by this chapter, or lands that
have special cultural or environmental sensitivity.
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.058 C,
DEVELOPMENT CODE BSD DISTRICTS
those modifications to the Existing Structure
shall not be further modified in a manner
that brings the Existing Structure out of
compliance with those specific requirements.
2. For Existing Structures within the BSD
Historic Core and Historic Residential
Districts, the Architectural Review Board
shall determine those building type
requirements that will apply to specific
buildings.
3. All new construction in the BSD Historic
Core District shall meet the requirements of
§153.062, §§153.170 through 153.180, and
the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines.
4. All new construction in the BSD Historic
Residential District shall meet the
requirements of §153.063(B), §§153.170
through 153.180 and the Historic Dublin
Design Guidelines, in addition to the
requirements of §153.062 as determined
to be architecturally appropriate by the
Architectural Review Board.
(g) Refer to §153.059(A)(6) for requirements for
Existing Uses.
(3) General Requirements
Every building, erected, altered or moved, shall be
located on a lot as defined herein, or as otherwise
permitted by this chapter. All building types shall meet
the following requirements.
(a) Zoning Districts
Each building type shall be constructed only
within its designated BSD zoning district. Table
153.062-A, Permitted Building Types in Each
BSD Zoning District, outlines which building
types are permitted in which BSD zoning districts.
Refer to §153.058, BSD Districts Scope and
Intent, for a description of each district.
(b) Uses
Each building type may house the uses allowed in
the district in which it is located. Refer to Table
153.059-A. Additional use restrictions may apply
based on the specific building type requirements
TABLE 153.062-A. PERMITTED BUILDING TYPES IN EACH BSD ZONING DISTRICT
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 27
DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES
D Distri
C00
d
7
m
c
m
'�O
3
O O O
O
•Y
d
C:
Y
U
{/�
�L =" UL
cc
7"
cX
C
cc
C
d
E
u
•O
u
•O
u� =.O•yam
I=t
N
u
•O
,6
u
u
Ot NL
3°
VL
°°
t
d
o
=
=
=° °°
=
z
O
O
u
x
x
SZ -Z v z
nZ
>
a
x
Single Family Detached
•
•
�
Single Family Attached
•
•
• • •
•
Apartment Building
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
c
y Loft Building
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
a
F Corridor Building
•
•
•
•
•
•
m
Mixed Use Building
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
°m
Commercial Center
•
•
•
o0
S
Large Format Commercial
•
•
•
•
•
>n
n
n�
m
Historic Mixed Use Building
•
•
o
c
Historic Cottage Commercial Building
•
•
0
Civic Building
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
v
ao
Parking Structure
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•�
Podium Apartment Building
•
•
•
•
m
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 27
DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES
particular care must be taken to render these
elements less visible to public view through
architectural integration or other means
of screening as approved by the required
reviewing body. These elements shall not be
used to meet blank wall requirements.
(b) Fagade Divisions
1. Architectural elements or forms shall be
used to divide the surface of the fagade
into pedestrian scaled vertical increments
appropriate to the architectural character
of the building type. Acceptable divisions
include, but are not limited to:
A. A recess or projection along the building
fagade for a minimum of 18 inches in
depth.
B. Use of a distinctive architectural element
protruding from or recessed into the
fagade a minimum of three inches,
including pilasters, entranceways, or
storefronts.
2. Architectural elements, forms, or expression
lines may be used to divide portions of the
fagade into horizontal divisions appropriate
to the architectural character of the building
type. Elements may include a cornice, belt
course, corbelling with table, moulding,
stringcourses, pediment, or other continuous
horizontal ornamentation with a minimum
one -and -a -half inch depth.
3. Where changes in roof plane are required by
the building type, they shall be used to divide
the roof mass into increments no greater than
the dimensions permitted for each building
type and shall correspond to recesses and
projections in building mass. Permitted
changes include a change in roof type and/
or horizontal or vertical variations in the roof
plane.
4. Unless otherwise determined to be
architecturally appropriate by the required
reviewing body, minimum increments shall be
provided pursuant to the building type tables.
(0)BUILDING TYPES
The following defines the building types permitted in the
BSD zoning districts. Refer to Table 153.062-e - the list
of symbols used on _- building type tables to-iflustrateth�
individual
individual building type feqmrementa-��
building is represented on every
building type
TPS
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 37
DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES
TABLE 153.062-C. BUILDING TYPE TABLE LEGEND
Symbo
Building Type Requirement
Symbol
Building Type Requirement
A
Mu a Principal Buildings
W
Upper Story
B
Front Pro Line Coverage
X
Parking within Building
C
Occupation o ner
Y
Occupied Space
D
Front Required il!!59 Zone (RBZ)
Z
Ground Story Street Facade Transparency
E
Corner Side RBZ
AA
Upper Story Transparency
F
G
Front Setback
Corner Side SetbackO�
BB
CC
Transparency (Street Facing Facades)
Blank Wall Limitations (Street Facing Facades)
H
Side Yard Setback
<� 7
Garage Openings
I
Rear Yard Setback
`. E� Parking Lot Ground Story Transparency
J
Minimum Lot Width
1 3nsparency (Non -Street Facing Facades)
K
Maximum Lot Width
GG
nk Wall Limitations (Non -Street Facing Facades
L
Maximum Building Length or Depth
HH
Prin I Entrance Location
M
Minimum Lot Depth
II
Number o treet Facade Entrances
N
Parking Location
JJ
Number of Par'hW Lot Entrances
O
Loading Facility Location
KK
Mid -Building Pedestr way
P
Entry for Parking Within Building
LL
Facade Divisions
Q
Access
MM
Vertical Increments
R
Minimum Building Height
NN
Horizontal Facade Divisions
S
Maximum Building Height
00
Required Change in Roof Plane or Type
T
Accessory Structure Height
PP
Permitted Roof Types
U
Minimum Finished Floor Elevation
QQ
Tower
V
Ground Story
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 37
DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES
(10) Historic Cottage Commercial
1. STREET FRONTAGE
Maximum 1story,
Connections between
Multiple Principal Buildings
Permitted
Minimum 15 -ft. setback
F oitPrincipal Frontage
50% minimum
0
Property Line Coverage
Transparency Minimum 25%20%
Occupation of Corner
Required
0
Non -Principal Frontage Street
60%
0
Property Line Coverage
maximum
from principal
Front RBZ
0-25 ft. [see note 1]
0
Corner Side RBZ
6-15 0-25 ft. [see note 1]
0
RBZ Treatment
Landscape, patio, or
is �t
streetscape
Access
Right -of -Way Encroachment
Projecting signs, eaves,
5. FACADE MATERIALS
awnings
Overall Height: Minimum Height
Maximum Height
2. BUILDABLE AREA
5. ROOF TYPES
Ground Story Principal Frontage Floor
Side Yard Setback
3 ft.
0
Rear Yard Building Setback
25 ft.
0
Rear Yard Parkine Setback
5 ft.
All Other Stories Floor to Floor Heights:
AAtntmvm-Lot Width 30 ft.
maxi 11tJ 11 Lot Width None
Building Footprint 1800 sq. ft. maximum 0
Building Length 70 ft. 50 ft. maximum m
Building Spacing 18 ft. minimum m
Permitted Enclosed
Maximum 1story,
Connections between
Maximum 12 -ft. depth,
Buildings
Minimum 15 -ft. setback
Add'tl Semi -Pervious
from front facade
Max. Building Coverage 50% total
Occupied Space Required on principal frontage
Max. Impervious Coverage 75%65%
cade
•FaRequirements
Add'tl Semi -Pervious
1. STREET FACADE TRANSPARENCY
Coverage 10%
Transparency Minimum 25%20%
3. PARKING LOCATION, _EI "_` I
R. NON STREET FAEABE TRANSPARENEY
Rear erside, pevided the
Ge ie a' T a isp&r&fxy f 1596
Location
d
from principal
frontages by
Principal Entrance Street facade of each building
Location
building
of En t, anues eve 50 it
Pa. chir Eut Facade, Not app' cable
4. FACADE DIVISIONS
is �t
Access
Ie
5. FACADE MATERIALS
Overall Height: Minimum Height
Maximum Height
1stories
2stories, 24 ft.
5. ROOF TYPES
Ground Story Principal Frontage Floor
to Floor Heights: Minimum Height
8 ft.
m
Maximum Height
11 ft.
All Other Stories Floor to Floor Heights:
Minimum Height
7.5 ft.
Maximum Height
11 ft.
Maximum Height within 50 ft of the
Rear Lot Line:
1.5 stories, 18 ft.
56
DRAFT
Ground Story on
Principal Frontage All uses except residential
Street
HpperAll Other Stories All permitted uses
Parking within Building Not permitted
Occupied Space Required on principal frontage
cade
•FaRequirements
Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(K) for design
requirements general to all buildings.
1. STREET FACADE TRANSPARENCY
Transparency Minimum 25%20%
Blank Wall Limitations Required on ground story of
street facades
R. NON STREET FAEABE TRANSPARENEY
Ge ie a' T a isp&r&fxy f 1596
mai-Bla ilk al! {dot requ ed.
H 11itatio is
3. BUILDING ENTRANCE
Principal Entrance Street facade of each building
Location
of En t, anues eve 50 it
Pa. chir Eut Facade, Not app' cable
4. FACADE DIVISIONS
is �t
mac
N v:sio is of the -ground- Ste ry.
Ie
5. FACADE MATERIALS
Permitted Primary Stone, brick, wood siding
Materials
5. ROOF TYPES
Pitched roof, other types
permitted with approval (refer
Permitted Types to §153.062(C). Flat Roof
elitialucenays alud_bra�
Tower Not Permitted
Note 1: When anyfront or corner property line is within five feet
or less of the back of curb, the RBZ shall begin five feet off the
back of curb to allow for adequate sidewalk width.
§ 153.062 (0) (10)
BUILDING TYPES -
HISTORIC COTTAGE COMMERCIAL
DRAFT DATE
November 13, 2017
DRAFT
PLAN illustrating (a) Building Siting
0 Non -Principal Frontage Street 0
01
NOTE: Graphic figures are intended
to illustrate one result of
one or more of the general
requirements and do not
represent all requirements or
actual development.
10,
0 0
SECTION illustrating (b) Height and (c) Uses
attic under pitched roof attic under pitched mot dpoin
midpoint A i -fP pitch
of Pitch
- (D m m
m m I( ® m
ELEVATION illustrating (d) Facade Requirements
C
® m ® typical
0o HE FM o 000 000 Uf,..
FIGURE 153.062-W: HISTORIC COTTAGE COMMERCIAL BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM.
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 (0) (10) 57
DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING P s -
HISTORIC COTTAGE COMMERCIAL
E
m
® m ® typical
0o HE FM o 000 000 Uf,..
FIGURE 153.062-W: HISTORIC COTTAGE COMMERCIAL BUILDING TYPE DIAGRAM.
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 (0) (10) 57
DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING P s -
HISTORIC COTTAGE COMMERCIAL
§ 153.059 USES
and compliance with any use specific standards
referenced in the Use Table and the applicable
(A) INTENT
provisions of Chapter 153.
(1) The intent of §153.059 is to establish uses for land and
(d)
An "S" in a cell indicates a use that is allowed in
buildings desired in each BSD zoning district based on
that BSD zoning district only if limited in size,
the vision for each area described in the Dublin
subject to compliance with any use specific
Community Plan (Bridge Street District Area Plan) and
standards referenced in the Use Table and the
the Bridge Street District's five Vision Principles. This
applicable provisions of Chapter 153.
is achieved through the variety of permitted,
(e)
A "T" in a cell indicates a use that is allowed in
conditional, accessory and temporary uses allowed in
that BSD zoning district for a limited period of
each zoning district. In some cases, special siting and
time pursuant to a permit from the City, subject
size limitations to establish the development character
to compliance with any use specific standards
articulated in the Dublin Community Plan apply.
referenced in the Use Table and the applicable
(2) This section ensures vibrant, mixed-use, pedestrian-
provisions of Chapter 153.
oriented development by emphasizing certain uses in
each zoning district and positioning the Neighborhood
(f)
A blank cell indicates that the use is prohibited in
Districts to thrive as critical activity nodes by
that district.
concentrating commercial activity in these special (3)
Use Specific Standards
character areas. Refer to § 153.063, Neighborhood
(a)
Additional standards may apply to either
Standards, for the neighborhood district requirements.
permitted or conditional uses in a BSD zoning
(3) The titles of each zoning district describe the
district. These additional standards are cross-
predominant land use character and/or special
referenced in the last column of Table 153.059-A
geographic locations rather than a single type of use.
as use specific standards and detailed in
Zoning district titles shall not be construed as requiring
§153.059(0).
a particular use and shall not preclude other uses from
(b)
In some cases, additional restrictions on uses
being established in each district, as permitted in this
apply to specific building types in §153.062(0)
section. Refer to §153.058, BSD Districts Scope and
and to the Bridge Street District neighborhood
Intent, for the intent of each zoning district.
districts in §153.063.
(4)
Similar
Use Determination
(B) GENERAL PROVISIONS
(a)
When a proposed land use is not explicitly listed
(1) Permitted and conditional uses available in each BSD
in Table 153.059-A, the Director shall determine
zoning district are shown in Table 153.059-A.
whether it is reasonably included in the definition
Permitted and conditional uses may be restricted by
of a listed use, or that the proposed use meets the
location, size, period of operation, or other use-specific
following criteria to the extent that it should be
standards as designated in Table 153.059-A.
treated as a permitted or conditional use in the
(2) Table 153-059-A - Explanation of Terms
district.
(a) Listed uses are defined in §153.002(A).
1. The use is not specifically listed in any other
(b) A "P" in a cell indicates a use that is permitted by
BSD zoning district.
right in that BSD zoning district, subject
2. The use is generally consistent with the intent
to compliance with any use specific standards
of the BSD zoning district and this chapter.
referenced in the Use Table and the applicable
3. The use will not materially impair the present
provisions of Chapter 153.
or potential use of other properties within the
( usesame
district or bordering districts.
fight in that BSE) zoning diatfict on any upper
4. The use has no greater potential impact on
floor .f the structure, subject to compliance with
surrounding properties than those listed in
any use specific «..lrd referenced in the r
the district in terms of aesthetics, traffic
Table and the applicable provisions of Chapter
generated, noise, potential nuisances and
153. Unless otherwise restricted by specific
other impacts related to health, safety and
building type requirements of 153.062(0),
welfare.
permitted or conditional uses not specified as "U'
5. The use will not adversely affect the relevant
may occur on any floot, including basements ot
elements of the Community Plan, including
1mvet lev cis, subject to applicable use specific
the Bridge Street District Area Plan.
(b)
The Director's written determination shall be
(c) A "C" in a cell indicates a use that is allowed
provided to the applicant and may be appealed to
in that BSD zoning district only upon approval of
the Board of Zoning Appeals.
a conditional use as described in §153.236
6 § 153.059
DRAFT DATE
USES
November 13, 2017
Table 153.059-A: Permitted and Conditional Uses in BSD Districts
KEY: P= Permitted = C=Conditional S=Size Limited T=Time Limited Permit
o
PRINCIPAL USES
RESIDENTIAL
Dwelling, Single-family P
BSD DISTRICTS
SPECIFIC
STDS.
SEE
X153.059
(C)
(1)(a)
L�OE�H
u
0 W
teHH
00
O
Z
u uZ u-
0 0 p 0 Z
H
O W
2 0 2 a' 2 F
P P
z
�o
Q0
00QUO
wo
ZZ0
"
Jo
gmooQJ
Qwo
V1z0
�o
0170
Uwo
V17I
w
JN
X
w—
>X
m
d
Dwelling, Two-family P
Dwelling, Townhouse P
P
P
P
P
P
(1)(b)
Dwelling, Live -work C
P
P
P
P P
P
P
P
P
(1)(c)
Dwelling, MultiplefamilyP
CIVIC/PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL
P
P
UP
Up
UP P
P
P
P
P
(1)(d)
Cemetery
P
Community Center C
C
P
P
P
P
P
(2)(a)
Community Garden P
P
P
P
P
P P P
P
P
P
P
P
(2)(b)
Day Care, Adult or Child C
P
P
P
P
P P
P
P
P
P
(2)(c)
District Energy Plant C
C
C
C
C
C C
C
C
C
C
(2)(d)
Education Facility C
P
P
P
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
Elementary or Middle School
P
P
P
P
P P P
P
P
P
P
P
Government Services, Safety C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
High School
P
P
P
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Hospital
C/S
C/S
C/S
C/S
C/S
C/S
C/S
(2)(e)
Library, Museum, Gallery P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
(2)(f)
Municipal Parking Lot
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Religious or Public Assembly C/S
C/S
C/S
cis
cis cis
C/S
C/S
C/S
C/S
C/S
(2)(g)
Park or Open Space P
P
P
P
P
P P P
P
P
P
P
P
Transportation, Park & Ride
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Transportation, Transit Station
COMMERCIAL
Animal Care, General Services, C
Veterinary Offices, and
Veterinary Urgent Care and
Animal Hospitals
C
C
P
C
P
P
P P
P
P
P
P
C
PP
C
C
(3)(a)
Bank C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Bed and Breakfast
P
P
(3)(b)
Conference Center
C
C
C
C
C
C
Eating and Drinking C/S
P/S
/C
P/S
/C
P
P
PIS
/C
P
P
P
P
P
(3)(c)
Entertainment / Recreation, C/S
Indoor
P/S
/C
P/S
/C
P/S
/C
PIS
/C
P
P
P
P
C
(3)(d)
Exercise and Fitness C/S
C
P
P
C
PIS
PIS
/C
C
P
P
P
P
(3)(e)
/C
Fueling / Service Station
C
(3)(f)
Hotel
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Office, General C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
U
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.059 (�
DEVELOPMENT CODE USES
Table 153.059-A: Permitted and Conditional Uses in BSD Districts
KEY: P= Permitted = C=Conditional S=Size Limited T=Time Limited Permit
BSD
DISTRICTS
SPECIFIC
SIDS.
SEE
§153.059
(C)
o
w
U0
�w
0�
U
O
o
U
u
OW
tea'
O
SU
u
O�
7
O
2m
u Z
0
00
W
2W=
Z
u
OZ
0 qa
2F
Z
�o
Qmo
0170
7,0
zZz
"
Lis,w
Jo
gmo
X170
Qw0
vZ=
�O
omo
0170
7,7,0
vZ=
JN
¢Q
�X
w—
>�
J
m
d
Office, Medical
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Parking Structure
P/C
P/C
P/C
C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
(3)(g)
Parking Lot Surface
C
P
C
C
P
P
C
C
(3)(h)
Personal, Repair, & Rental
Services
C/S
P/S
/C
P/S
/C
P/S
/C
P/S
/C
P/S
/C
P/S
/C
P
P
P
P
(3)(i)
Research & Development
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
U
Retail, General
C/S
P/S
/C
P/S
/C
P
P/S
/C
P/S
/C
P/S
/C
P
P
P
P
(3)0)
Sexually -oriented Businesses
C
(3)(k)
Skilled Nursing, Rehabilitation,
Home for the Aging, and
Nursing Homes
C
C
C
C
Vehicle, Sales Rental, and Repair
C
C
(3)(p
Wireless Communications
Refer to Chapter 99 of Dublin Code of Ordinances
ACCESSORY USES
Accessory uses are permitted only in connection with a permitted or approved conditional use on the same property, and must be
clearly subordinate and incidental to that use. No accessory use may be operated when a permitted or approved conditional use
does not exist on the property.
ATM, WalkHpP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Bicycle Facilities
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Community Activity or Special
Event
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
(4)(a)
Construction Trailer/Office
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
(4)(b)
Day Care, Adult or Child
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
(2)(c)
Drive-in/Drive-through
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
(4)(c)
Dwelling, Accessory
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
(4)(d)
Dwelling, Administration, Rental,
or Sales Office
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
(4)(e)
Eating & Drinking
C
P
P
P
P
P/S
/C
P
P
P
P
P
P
Essential Utility Services
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Exercise and Fitness
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Farmers Market
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Helipad/Heliports
C
C
C
C
C
C
Home Occupation
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
(4)(f)
Outdoor Dining and Seating
P/C
P/C
I P/C
I P/C
I P/C
P/C
I P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
(4)(fg
Outdoor Display or Seasonal
Sales
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
(4)(h)
Parking, Structure
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
(3)(f)
Parking, Surface
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
(4)(i)
Renewable Energy Equipment
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
(4)(j)
Renewable Energy Equipment,
Wind
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
(4)(k)
10 § 153.059 DRAFT DATE
USES November 13, 2017
Table 153.059-A: Permitted and Conditional Uses in BSD Districts
KEY: P= Permitted — C=Conditional S=Size Limited T=Time Limited Permit
BSD DISTRICTS
USE
SPECIFIC
STDS.
J
J
¢
¢ Z
z
w
w
u
u u Z u
�o
Jo
�o
JN
o
Vo
V
OW
0� 00 OZ
Qm0
>mo
omo
¢Q
J
SEE
w
�w
tea'
o O
7 H0
0 W qa
0170
wo
QUO
Qwo
0170
Cwo
�X
w—
m
§153.059
0�
O
V SU
2 N 2 a' 2 F
zzz
v�zz
v�zz
>>
d
(C)
Residential Model Home
T
T
T
T
T T
T
T
T
T
(4)(1)
Retail or Personal Services
C
P
P
P P
P P
P
P
P
P
Swimming Pool
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Transportation, Transit Stop
P
P
P
P P
P P
P
P
P
P
Vehicle Charging Station
P
P
P
P P
P P
P
P
P
P
Wireless Communications
Refer to Chapter 99 of Dublin Code of Ordinances
(C) USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS
Certain uses listed in this section may be permitted or
conditional only with additional use specific standards.
Additional use specific standards may apply to uses within
specific building types and neighborhood districts, refer to
§153.062(0) for use and occupancy requirements based on
building type and §153.063 for use requirements for neigh-
borhood districts.
(1) Residential Uses
(a) Dwelling, Single -Family
1. Applications for development shall not
contain more than 35 detached single-family
dwelling units.
2. Development applications containing
detached single-family dwelling units shall
not be accepted if any of the property lines
of the proposed units would be located
within 400 feet of any single-family detached
dwelling constructed or approved within the
BSD Residential district after the effective
date of this amendment.
3. No single-family detached dwelling unit may
be constructed within 500 feet of the I-270
right-of-way as measured from the nearest
property line.
4. Single-family detached dwellings shall have
no more than one principal building and its
permitted accessory structures located on
each lot.
5. Single-family dwellings in the BSD
Historic Residential District shall meet the
requirements of §I53.063(B) and shall not be
required to meet the standards of §153.062(0)
(1).
(b) Dwelling, Townhouse
1. If single-family attached residential units are
located across the street from existing single-
family detached dwellings, no more than
eight attached units may be permitted in a
building.
2. Ground floor residential uses are not
permitted on Bridge Street in the BSD
Historic Transition Neighborhood District.
(c) Dwelling, Live -Work
1. No more than two non-resident employees are
permitted in addition to the residents) of the
dwelling.
2. The non-residential use must be operated by a
resident of the live -work dwelling unit.
3. Signs are permitted in accordance with
§153.065(H).
(d) Multiple -Family
Multiple -family uses are not permitted on ground
floor elevations fronting Principal Frontage Streets
in the BSD Office Residential and Office districts.
(2) Civic/Public/Institutional Uses
(a) Community Center
Incidental sales of such products as refreshments,
athletic supplies for activities conducted on the
premises, and similar products are permitted.
(b) Community Garden
1. Incidental sales of items grown on the
premises are permitted. Areas used for sales
shall be located at least 10 feet from the edge
of the pavement of any street. Parking shall
be located off-street or in permitted on -street
locations. One, 24 -square -foot sign shall be
permitted, located at least 10 feet from the
edge of the street and not within the public
street right-of-way.
2. Refuse and compost bins must be constructed
to be rodent -resistant and located as far as
practicable from abutting residential uses.
Refuse must be removed from the site at least
once a week.
3. No outdoor work activity that involves power
equipment or generators may occur after 9:00
pm or prior to 7:00 am.
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.059 11
DEVELOPMENT CODE USES
4. One accessory building, not exceeding 100
square feet in gross floor area, may be
permitted, provided the location meets all
setback requirements applicable to
accessory buildings as provided in
§153.074.
(c) Day Care, Adult or Child
1. The use shall at all times comply with the
requirements of O.R.C. §5104.
2. Outdoor recreation areas shall be located to
the side or rear of the principal structure
3. and be enclosed with a permitted fence. The
outdoor recreation area shall be screened
using fencing and/or landscaping to provide
a minimum 50% opaque screen.
4. All outdoor play equipment and shade
structures visible from the right-of-way or
adjacent properties shall use subdued, earth
toned colors.
5. Adult and/or child day care uses are
prohibited in civic building types as the
sole principal use.
(d) District Energy Plant
Incidental sales of electrical energy to public
utilities are permitted.
(e) Hospital
Hospitals shall be limited to no more than
75,000 square feet of gross floor area per
structure, not including associated parking
structures.
(f) Library, Museum, Gallery
Incidental sales of refreshments and items
related to exhibits or activities at the facility are
permitted.
(g) Religious or Public Assembly
Religious or public assembly structures shall be
limited to no more than 100,000 square feet of
gross floor area, not including associated
parking structures.
(3) Commercial
(a) Animal Care, General Services, Veterinary
Offices, and Veterinary Urgent Care and Animal
Hospitals
All activities shall be conducted indoors. No
outdoor animal exercise or activity areas shall be
permitted.
(b) Bed and Breakfast
1. The property owner shall reside on the
property and/or manage the facility. No
more than eight guest units are permitted.
2. Guest accommodations are limited to short-
term stays of no more than 14 days.
(c) Eating and Drinking
1. Eating and drinking facilities shall be
limited to no more than 3,500 square feet of
gross floor area for single tenant buildings
in the BSD Office, BSD Office Residential,
and BSD Residential districts, unless
otherwise permitted as a conditional use.
2. Eating and drinking facilities in multi -
tenant buildings in the BSD Office, BSD
Office Residential, and BSD Residential
districts shall be limited to no more than
5,000 square feet of gross floor area, or
20% of the gross floor area of the ground
floor of the principal structure, whichever is
smaller, unless otherwise permitted as a
conditional use.
4. Deliveries and refuse (such as but not
limited to grease traps, recycling, and trash)
pick-up in the Historic South shall be
limited to between the hours of 8 00a
local time and 5:00pm local time.
(d) Entertainment or Recreation, Indoor
1. Indoor entertainment or recreation uses
shall be limited to no more than 25,000
square feet of gross floor area in the BSD
Office, BSD Office Residential, BSD
Residential, BSD Commercial, and BSD
Vertical Mixed Use districts, unless
otherwise permitted as a conditional use.
2. In the BSD Public district, the use must be
owned and operated by either a public or
non- profit organization.
(e) Exercise and Fitness
1. To avoid large, single tenant uses that
detract from the urban, walkable intent of
the Bridge Street District, exercise and
fitness uses shall be limited to no more than
10,000 square feet of gross floor area in the
BSD Residential, BSE) Histefie-SetHht and
BSD Historic Transition Neighborhood
districts. Exercise and fitness facilities
exceeding 10,000 square feet in this district
may be permitted as conditional uses.
2. To avoid large-scale uses that detract from
the intended scale of the Historic South
district, exercise and fitness uses shall be
limited to no more than 3,600 square feet of
gross floor area.
1 § 153.057 DRAFT DATE:
USES NOVEMBER 13, 2017
(t) Fueling/Service Station
1. Fuel pumps shall be located on the same lot
as a permitted building type.
2. Fuel pumps are not permitted between the
principal structure and an adjacent principal
frontage street
3. Where pumps are facing any street type
except for an alley or service street, a street
wall at least three feet high shall be placed
between the pumps and associated
vehicular circulation area and the street.
Refer to
4. §1 53.065(E)(2) for street wall
requirements.
5. Each fueling/service station shall be
buffered from adjacent properties as
required in
6. §153.065(D)(4) and meet the applicable
requirements of § I 53.065(D)(5).
7. Motor vehicles may be continuously stored
outdoors on the property for no more than
24 hours.
8. Refer to § I53.062(L) for vehicular canopy
requirements.
(g) Parking, Structure
1. Parking structures completely lined by
space available for occupancy along a
public or private street frontage, and
parking structures located on the interior of
blocks with other building types located
between the parking structure and the
street, are permitted. All other parking
structures, including podium parking
structures with non -occupied space along
public and private street frontages, are
conditional uses.
2. When constructed as a principal use, either
as a public or a private parking structure, no
more than 75% of the parking spaces shall
be used to provide the required accessory
3. parking for other principal uses located
within 600 feet of the structure, unless
otherwise approved with a parking plan in
accordance with §1 53.065(B)(1)(f).
4. Where applicable, the building type
requirements of §153.062(0)(12) — (13)
shall also apply.
(h) Parking, Surface Lot
1. All surface parking lots shall meet the
surface parking lot design requirements of
2. §153.065(B)(6).
3. When constructed as a principal use,
surface parking lots shall not have frontage
on or have direct access from a principal
frontage street unless permitted by the City
Engineer.
(i) Personal, Repair, and Rental Services
1. Personal, repair, and rental service
establishments shall be limited to no more
than 10,000 square feet for single tenant
buildings in the BSD Office, BSD Office
Residential, and BSD Residential districts,
unless otherwise permitted as a conditional
use.
2. Personal, repair, and rental services in
multi- tenant buildings in the BSD Office,
BSD Office Residential, and BSD
Residential districts shall be limited to no
more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor
area, or 20% of the gross floor area of the
ground floor of the principal structure,
whichever is smaller, unless otherwise
permitted as a conditional use.
3. Personal, repair, and rental service uses
shall be limited to no more than 25,000
square feet of gross floor area in all other
BSD zoning districts except the BSD Indian
Run Neighborhood, BSD Sawmill Center
Neighborhood and BSD Scioto River
Neighborhood, unless otherwise permitted
as a conditional use.
0) Retail, General
To avoid large, single tenant uses that detract
from the urban, walkable intent of the Bridge
Street District, general retail uses in the
BSD Residential, Office Residential, Office,
Commercial, Historic Core and Public districts
shall be limited to no more than 20,000 square
feet of gross floor area, unless otherwise
permitted as a conditional use.
(k) Sexually Oriented Business Establishments
1. Sexually Oriented Business Establishments
shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter
120 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances.
2. No person shall operate, locate, or permit
the location of a sexually oriented business
establishment within 750 feet (as measured
from property line to property line) of any
residential use or district, school, preschool,
adult or child care, religious or public
assembly, or any other civic/public/
institutional use (within the City of Dublin
or other municipality), or another sexually
oriented business establishment.
(1) Vehicle Sales, Rental, and Repair
There shall be not more than one full access
driveway for each 100 feet of lot frontage
or portion thereof.
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.059 1 J
DEVELOPMENT CODE USES 1J
2. Vehicular use areas are not permitted
between the principal structure and a
principal frontage street. Where vehicular
use areas are located between a principal
structure and any other street type, a street
wall shall be installed along that portion of
the lot line between the vehicular use areas
and the street. Refer to § 153.065(E)(2) for
street wall requirements.
(4) Accessory and Temporary Uses
(a) Community Activity and Special Event
1. The site of the activity or event shall be
adequately served by utilities and sanitary
facilities.
2. The activity or event shall not become a
safety hazard or public disturbance and
shall not cause substantial adverse impacts
on surrounding properties or land uses by
creating excessive noise, glare, heat, dust,
odors, or pollutants as determined by the
Director and Fire Marshal.
3. A permit shall be obtained for the
Community Activity or Special Event from
the City of Dublin Events Administration.
(b) Construction Trailer/Office
Construction trailers and/or offices shall comply
with the setbacks applicable to principal
structures on the property, but are not required
to comply with street frontage requirements for
building types. Construction trailers and/or
offices shall comply with the provisions of
§153.097.
(c) Drive-in/Drive-through
1. Drive-in/drive-throughs are permitted
only as accessories to banks in the BSD
Vertical Mixed Use and BSD Historic
Transition Neighborhood districts
following approval of a Conditional Use
application by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
2. Drive-in/drive-through vehicular stacking
areas and associated service locations shall
not be on the side of a building facing a
principal frontage street. Where drive-in/
drive-through access lanes are facing a non -
principal frontage street, a street wall at
least three feet high shall be placed between
the access lanes and the street. Refer to
§153.065(E)(2) for street wall requirements.
3. No menu boards, speakers, or service
windows shall be located between any
fagade of the principal structure and a front
or corner side property line.
4. Drive-in/drive-through vehicle stacking
spaces shall be at least 20 feet long.
Stacking spaces may not impede on-site or
off-site vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian
circulation. Where five or more stacking
spaces are provided, the individual stacking
Imes shall be clearly delineated. The
number of stacking spaces and a traffic and
pedestrian circulation plan shall be
submitted by the applicant with the
conditional use application and approved
by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
5. Uses with drive-in/drive-through facilities
shall be buffered from adjacent properties
as required in §153.065(D)(5).
6. Audible electronic devices such as
loudspeakers, service order devices, and
similar instruments shall not be located
within 25 feet of the lot line of any
residential district or use and shall be
subject to
7. §132.03(A)(6).
8. Refer to §153.062(L) for vehicular canopy
location and design requirements.
9. Structures related to drive-in/drive-throughs
shall not have frontage on, or be readily
visible from, any shopping corridor.
10. Protective bollards, when used, shall be
painted to match one of the colors used on
the nearest structure with which the
bollards are associated.
(d) Dwelling, Accessory
An accessory dwelling located in a single-family,
two-family, or townhouse dwelling must comply
with the following standards:
1. No more than one accessory dwelling unit
is permitted on a lot with a single-family,
two-family, or townhouse dwelling. Where
townhouse dwellings do not have
individual lots, no more than one accessory
dwelling unit is permitted for each
townhouse unit in the development
2. An accessory dwelling unit shall be limited
to no more than 800 square feet of gross
floor area.
3. When accessory to a single-family
dwelling, the accessory dwelling unit may
be located either within the single-family
dwelling structure or in a permitted
accessory structure.
4. When accessory to a townhouse dwelling,
the accessory dwelling unit may only be
located in a permitted accessory structure or
within the basement level of the principal
dwelling.
5. When accessory to a single-family dwelling
1 A § 153.057 DRAFT DATE:
`7 USES NOVEMBER 13, 2017
or two-family dwelling, the accessory
dwelling unit shall have a separate entrance
from the principal dwelling unit, and that
entrance shall not face the front lot line and
shall not be located on the same building
fagade as the principal building entrance
closest to the street.
6. The owner of the dwelling must occupy
either the principal dwelling unit or the
permitted accessory dwelling unit.
7. Ownership of the accessory dwelling unit
may not be separate from the ownership of
the principal dwelling unit.
(e) Dwelling Administration, Rental, or Sales
Office
These uses shall comply with the provisions of
§I53.073(D) and setbacks applicable to
principal structures on the property, but are not
required
to comply with street frontage requirements for
building types unless the use is conducted within
a permanent principal structure.
(t) Home Occupations
All home occupations in the BSD Historic
Residential district shall comply with the
provisions of §153.073. In all other BSD zoning
districts, home occupations shall comply with
the following standards.
1. The use must be conducted entirely within
the principal dwelling or accessory
buildings.
2. No business involving retail sales of goods
on the premises is permitted.
3. No person not a member of the household
residing on the premises shall work on the
premises.
4. Not more than 25% of the ground floor
gross floor area of the principal dwelling
shall be devoted to the home occupation.
5. The exterior of the structure shall not be
modified to accommodate the home
occupation.
6. No display or signs pertaining to the home
occupation shall be visible from the street.
7. No equipment shall be used that creates
noise, vibration, sound, smoke, dust, odors,
heat, glare, X -Ray or electrical disturbance
to radio or television that is discernible m
adjacent dwelling units or at the property
line.
8. All home occupations that require a license
from the state or City shall maintain a valid
license at all times and shall operate in
compliance with the terms of that license
and all applicable regulations of the state or
City at all times.
9. Home occupations shall not include or
involve motor vehicle or equipment repair,
the sale of weapons or hazardous materials,
or other activities that would constitute a
nuisance in a residential area.
(g) Outdoor Dining and Seating
1. Outdoor dining and seating areas, furniture,
and enclosures shall be set back at least five
feet from the curb and at least five feet
from all street trees and street furniture. In
no case shall these amenities be placed in a
manner that would provide less than six
feet of clear area for pedestrian use.
2. The use of outdoor speakers shall require a
conditional use. Outdoor speakers shall
comply with the provisions of §
132.03(A)(6) of the Dublin City Code.
3. Advertising is not permitted on dining
furniture, accessories, or other similar
amenities.
4. Dining furniture shall be of the same
design, material and color for all furniture
associated with the use. When not in
regular use, outdoor furniture shall be
stored in a location that is not visible to the
public, unless the patio furniture is all-
weather material, set up for use and not
covered in any way, and weather conditions
make the use of furniture possible.
(h) Outdoor Display or Seasonal Sales
1. Outdoor seasonal plant display shall
comply with the provisions of § 153.099.
2. Outdoor sale of merchandise is permitted,
and shall comply with the provisions of
3. §153.099(C)(2). Merchandise shall only be
displayed during the hours of operation for
the principal use. No permit is required.
4. Outdoor sales of Christmas trees and
pumpkins shall comply with the provisions
of Chapter 116 of the Dublin City Code.
(i) Parking, Surface (Accessory)
1. Where the non-residential gross floor area
of the principal structure is 100,000 square
feet or more and the principal structure is on
a lot that is four acres or less, surface
parking shall not be used to provide
required parking.
2. However, surface parking may be used for
a maximum of 5% of the required spaces
provided the parking lot is located to the
side or rear of the principal structure and
not fronting on a public street.
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.059 1 C
DEVELOPMENT CODE USES 1 J
3. This requirement applies only to principal
structures constructed after the effective
date of this amendment
0) Renewable Energy Equipment
1. In the BSD Historic Core and BSD Historic
Residential districts, only equipment for the
collection of solar and geothermal energy is
permitted.
2. Ground -mounted equipment for the
collection of geothermal energy is
permitted only to the rear of and within five
feet of the principal structure.
3. Ground -mounted equipment for the
collection of solar energy is permitted to
the side or rear of the principal structure,
but not within five feet of a side or rear
property line. Rooftop equipment for the
collection of solar energy is permitted
provided it extends no more than 18 inches
beyond the maximum permitted height of
the principal structure.
4. Building -mounted renewable energy
equipment shall be integrated into the
architectural character of the principal
structure.
Ground -mounted renewable energy
equipment shall be sited to minimize view
from the public right-of-way and adjacent
properties, and shall be camouflaged to the
extent that the equipment can function
normally.
(k) Renewable Energy Equipment, Wind
I . Ground -mounted equipment for the
collection of wind energy is permitted to the
rear of the principal structure, may not
exceed the maximum permitted height of
the principal structure by more than 40 feet,
and must be set back from each property
line a distance equal to the height of the
equipment that exceeds the height of the
principal structure.
2. As an exception, within 200 feet of the I-
270 right-of-way, ground -mounted wind
energy equipment shall be limited to 150
feet and must be set back from each
property line a distance equal to the height
of the equipment.
3. Height of the equipment is measured to the
farthest extent of any part of the
equipment
4. Building -mounted equipment for the
collection of wind energy must be
integrated into the architectural character of
the principal structure.
5. Rooftop -mounted equipment for the
collection of wind energy shall be permitted
to exceed the maximum permitted height of
the principal structure by no more than 15
feet.
(1) Residential Model Home
Residential model homes shall comply with the
provisions of §153.073(D).
1 G § 153.057 DRAFT DATE:
V USES NOVEMBER 13, 2017
§ 153.058 BRIDGE STREET
DISTRICT (BSD) DISTRICTS
SCOPE AND INTENT
(A) Scope
The following Bridge Street District (BSD) districts are
hereby created. The districts described by §153.058 are
intended to be used for all land within the Bridge Street
District. Unless otherwise specifically noted, after the
effective date of this amendment all development and
redevelopment within the BSD zoning districts shall be
consistent with §153.057, General Purpose and subject
to the regulations of §§153.058 through 153.066. Other
provisions of Chapters 152 and 153 of the Dublin Code of
Ordinances apply in the BSD zoning districts. Where there
are conflicts, the provisions of §§153.058 through 153.066
shall prevail. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit an
application for rezoning to any non -BSD zoning district
provided in this Chapter.
(B) Intent
The Bridge Street District zoning districts are generally
based on the District Framework of the Bridge Street
District Area Plan. The purpose of the Framework is to
allow development regulations to be adapted to the unique
conditions present in each area. Although each district is
unique, the five Vision Principles are intended to create a
cohesive area, based on the concepts of walkability and
urban vitality to support the quality of life for residents of
all generations.
The titles of each district are intended to describe the
predominant land use character and/or special geographic
locations rather than a single type of use. The following
further describes the intent of each BSD zoning district.
(1) BSD Residential
The intent of this district is to accommodate single-
family, two-family, townhouse, live -work and
multiple -family uses in mid -rise development. The
BSD Residential district integrates existing and new
residential developments to create true neighborhoods
and add to the population base needed to help
support nearby retail and office development. Uses
are generally limited to residential and small-scale
residential support uses, as listed in Table 153.059-A.
(2) BSD Office Residential
The intent of this district is to accommodate a mix of
office and multiple -family residential development at
higher densities and in larger buildings. This district
offers great flexibility to take advantage of visibility
and access for office uses, with opportunities to create
residential neighborhoods to support the adjacent BSD
zoning districts. Uses include a mix of residential,
personal service, and commercial uses, as listed in
Table 153.059-A.
(3) BSD Office
The intent of this district is to allow a mix of offices
and retail support uses, as listed in Table 153.059-A.
The BSD Office district provides significant additional
development capacity and redevelopment opportunities
that foster office uses with a walkable design along
signature streets, and provides increased accessibility
and an improved roadway network to ease traffic
pressure along major roadways.
(4) BSD Commercial
This district applies generally to existing retail centers
and other low-rise commercial uses, including single
use freestanding retail buildings, as listed in Table
153.059-A. Properties initially zoned into this district
may be eligible for rezoning to the BSD Vertical
Mixed Use District or to other surrounding BSD
zoning districts when future redevelopment to higher
densities is desired.
(5) BSD Historic Core
This district applies to the historic center of Dublin
and reinforces the character of this area as the
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT §153.058 3
DEVELOPMENT CODE BSD DISTRICTS
SCOPE & INTENT
centerpiece of the Bridge Street District_ The district
focuses on ensuring sensitive infill development
and redevelopment and providing an improved
environment for walking while accommodating
vehicles. The district accepts building types that are
consistent with the historic development pattern of
Historic Dublin, subject to review by the Architectural
Review Board, and permit similar uses that support a
highly walkable setting, as listed in Table 153.059-A.
(6) BSD Historic Residential
The intent of this district is to permit the preservation
and development of homes on existing or new lots
that are comparable in size, mass, and scale, while
maintaining and promoting the traditional residential
character of the Historic Dublin area. The propose
of these regulations is to protect the scale and
character of the original platted village by maintaining
regulations consistent with the previous Historic
Residential zoning in place prior to the adoption of
this amendment, as listed in fable 153.059-A.
(7) BSD Sawmill Center Neighborhood
'T'his district applies to the majority of the commercial
areas at the east end of the District The standards
of the BSD Sawmill Center neighborhood create
an active, walkable destination through integration
of a strong mix of uses. Development within this
district relies on the provision of physical and visual
connections through improved access and enhanced
visibility from Sawmill Road, and links to adjacent
neighborhoods and open spaces.
'Phis district accommodates a wide variety of building
types and permitted uses, as listed in Table 153.059-
A Redevelopment of the BSD Sawmill ('enter area
creates a walkable, mixed use core as the east anchor
of the District. 'the district is subject to the specific
neighborhood standards defined in §153.063(C),
establishing open space patterns, location requirements
for building types, and permitting pedestrian -oriented,
mixeduse shopping areas.
(8) BSD Historic TrarnsitiornNeighborhood
This district complements the BSD Historic Core
district by accommodating a variety of building types
within a finer grained street and block network and
uses consistent with that district. It accommodates
uses similar to those in the BSD Historic Core district
as listed in Table 153.059-A. Development allows an
extension of the walkable mixed use character of the
BSD Historic Core district on the larger parcels within
this district. The district is subject to the specific
neighborhood standards defined in § 153.063(D).
These requirements establish open space patterns
and location requirements for building types, provide
additional residential opportunities, and extend the
small scale commercial activities of the BSD Historic
Core district.
(9) BSD Indian Run Neighborhood
This district applies to the larger parcels north and
west of the Indian Run and south of I-270, including
adjacent properties fronting the north side of Bridge
Street The BSD Indian Run Neighhorhood district
is intended to develop as a new walkable, mixed use
district that takes advantage of excellent highway
visibility, am improved road network, and proximity
to Historic Dublin and the natural areas flanking the
Indian Run. Development within the district relies on
a comprehensive road network providing connections
within the Indian Run district and to the rest of the
District, as well as sensitivity of development at its
edges given its proximity to Historic Dublin and the
Indian Run.
This district accommodates a wide variety of building
types and permitted uses, as listed in Table 153.059-A.
Redevelopment of the area creates a walkable, mixed
use core as the west anchor of the District. The district
is subject to specific neighborhood standards defined
in §157.063(F,). 'T'hese regulations are intended to
establish natural and man-made open space patterns;
build pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular networks,
provide location requirements for building types, and
foster a pedestrian -oriented, neighborhood scale mixed
use shopping area.
N0)BSD Scioto River Neighborhood
The standards of the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood
are intended to create an active, walkable destination
through integration of a vibrant mix of uses.
Development in this district is oriented toward the
Scioto River and the public spaces along the riverfront,
and includes important vehicular and bicycle links to
adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces.
This district accommodates a wide variety of building
types and permitted uses, as listed in Table 153.059-A.
Development of the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood
area establishes a walkable, mixed-use core as the
center of the Bridge Street District The district
is subject to the specific neighborhood standards
defined in §153.063(1), establishing open space
patterns, location requirements for building types, and
permitting pedestrian -oriented, mixed-use shopping
areas.
(11) BSD Vertical Mixed Use
The intent of this district is to allow a wide variety of
mid -rise, mixed use development, including vertical
mixed use with ground floor retail, and large format
retail with liner buildings, as listed in Table 153.059-
A. It is intended to be available for areas initially
zoned into the BSD Indian Rim Neighborhood,
BSD Scioto River Neighborhood and BSD Sawmill
Center Neighborhood districts, once these areas are
developed and the applicable neighborhood standards
are no longer needed to establish the organization and
hierarchy of places. The district may be applied to
areas initially zoned to the BSD Commercial District
4§ 153.05$ EFFECTIVE DATE
BSD DISTRICTS MARCH 29, 2017
SCOPE & INTENT
or elsewhere in the Bridge Street District as may be
deemed appropriate when nature redevelopment to
higher densities is desired. Accordingly, the district is
not intended to be mapped at the time the BSD zoning
districts are initially adopted.
(12) BSD Public
This district applies to a variety of public spaces and
facilities, including but not limited to schools, parks,
open spaces, and places that accommodate more
intensive recreation, such as outdoor entertainment
venues, as listed in Table 153.059-A. It also applies
to lands in and adjacent to rivers and creeks on which
development is limited due to inclusion in a Federal
Emergency Management -Agency (FEMA) designated
floodplain as regulated by this chapter, or lands that
have special cultural or environmental sensitivity.
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.058
DEVELOPMENT CGDE BSD DISTRICTS
SCOPE & INTENT
those modifications to the Existing Structure
shall not be further modified in a manner
that brings the Existing Structure out of
compliance with those specific requirements.
2. For Existing Structures within the BSD
Historic Core and Historic Residential
Districts, the Architectural Review Board
shall determine those building type
requirements that will apply to specific
buildings.
3. All new construction in the BSD Historic
Core District shall meet the requirements of
§153.062, §§153.170 through 153.180, and
the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines.
4. All new construction in the BSD Historic
Residential District shall meet the
requirements of §153.063(B), §§153.170
through 153.180 and the Historic Dublin
Design Guidelines, in addition to the
requirements of §153.062 as determined
to be architecturally appropriate by the
Architectural Review Board.
(g) Refer to §153.059(A)(6) for requirements for
Existing Uses.
(3) General Requirements
Every building, erected, altered or moved, shall be
located on a lot as defined herein, or as otherwise
permitted by this chapter. All building types shall meet
the following requirements.
(a) Zoning Districts
Each building type shall be constructed only
within its designated BSD zoning district. Table
153.062-A, Permitted Building Types in Each
BSD Zoning District, outlines which building
types are permitted in which BSD zoning districts.
Refer to §153.058, BSD Districts Scope and
Intent, for a description of each district.
(b) Uses
Each building type may house the uses allowed in
the district in which it is located. Refer to Table
153.059-A. Additional use restrictions may apply
based on the specific building type requirements
TABLE 153.062-A. ING TYPES IN EACH BSD ZONING DIST
Single Family Detached
Single Family Attached
Uf
a Apartment Building
Loft Building
0
Z Corridor Building
w
Mixed Use Building
7
m Commercial Center
UJ Large Format Commercial Building
H
H
Historic Mixed Use Building
WHistoric Cottage Commercial
0.
Civic Building
Parking Structure
Podium Apartment Building
BSD DISTRICTS
m
e 7
0F
C OO0OOd °
d
Oi°C°r
°
d° k d
C 0: y ° v° 0:O —0 Q�0 °
9 V V O OL r
viE
o
" "v r'v my vv v "
0: O O V 2 SZ Az W oz > a 2
• J
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 27
DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES
UNEEnn
UUMEnnn
■■■■oma
■■■■■oma
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 27
DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES
particular care must be taken to render these
elements less visible to public view through
architectural integration or other means
of screening as approved by the required
reviewing body. These elements shall not be
used to meet blank wall requirements.
(b) Facade Divisions
1. Architectural elements or forms shall be
used to divide the surface of the facade
into pedestrian scaled vertical increments
appropriate to the architectural character
of the building type. Acceptable divisions
include, but are not limited to:
A. A recess or projection along the building
facade for a minimum of 18 inches in
depth.
B. Use of a distinctive architectural element
protruding from or recessed into the
facade a minimum of three inches,
including pilasters, entranceways, or
storefronts.
2. Architectural elements, forms, or expression
lines may be used to divide portions of the
facade into horizontal divisions appropriate
to the architectural character of the building
type. Elements may include a cornice, belt
course, corbelling with table, moulding,
stringcourses, pediment, or other continuous
horizontal ornamentation with a minimum
one -and -a -half inch depth.
Where changes in roof plane are required by
the building type, they shall be used to divide
the roof mass into increments no greater than
the dimensions permitted for each building
type and shall correspond to recesses and
projections in building mass. Permitted
changes include a change in roof type and/
or horizontal or vertical variations in the roof
plane.
4. Unless otherwise determined to be
architecturally appropriate by the required
reviewing body, minimum increments shall be
provided pursuant to the building type tables.
(0)BUILDING TYPES
The following defines the building types permitted in the
BSD zoning districts. Refer to Table 153.062-C for the list
of symbols used on the building type tables to illustrate the
individual building type requirements. Because some of the
individual building type requirements do not apply to every
building type, not every symbol is represented on every
building type.
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 37
DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES
ABLE 153.062-C. BUILDING TYPE TABLE LEGEND
Symbol
Building Type Requirement
Symbol
Building Type Requirement
A
Multiple Principal Buildings
W
Upper Story
B
Front Property Line Coverage
X
Parking within Building
C
Occupation of Corner
Y
Occupied Space
D
Front Required Building Zone (RBZ)
Z
Ground Story Street Facade Transparency
E
Corner Side RBZ
AA
Upper Story Transparency
F
Front Setback
BB
Transparency (Street Facing Facades)
G
Corner Side Setback
CC
Blank Wall Limitations (Street Facing Facades)
H
Side Yard Setback
DD
Garage Openings
I
Rear Yard Setback
EE
Parking Lot Ground Story Transparency
J
Minimum Lot Width
FF
Transparency (Non -Street Facing Facades)
K
Maximum Lot Width
GG
Blank Wall Limitations (Non -Street Facing Facades
L
Maximum Building Length or Depth
HH
Principal Entrance Location
M
Minimum Lot Depth
II
Number of Street Facade Entrances
N
Parking Location
JJ
Number of Parking Lot Entrances
O
Loading Facility Location
KK
Mid -Building Pedestrianway
P
Entry for Parking Within Building
LL
Facade Divisions
Q
Access
MM
Vertical Increments
R
Minimum Building Height
NN
Horizontal Facade Divisions
S
Maximum Building Height
00
Required Change in Roof Plane or Type
T
Accessory Structure Height
PP
Permitted Roof Types
U
Minimum Finished Floor Elevation
QQ
Tower
V
Ground Story
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.062 37
DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING TYPES
(10) Historic Cottage Commercial
(a) Building Siting
1. Street Frontage
Transparency
Multiple Principal Buildings
Permitted
Blank Wall Limitations
Front Property Line Coverage
Minimum 50%
3. Building Entrance
Occupation of Corner
Required
O
Front RBZ
0-25 ft 1
G
Corner Side RBZ
0-15 ft1
Parking Lot Facades: Number
of Entrances
RBZ Treatment
Landscape, Patio, or
Streetscape
4. Fagade Divisions
Right -of -Way Encroachment
Projecting signs, eaves,
awnings, patios, &
canopies
Vertical Increments
2. Buildable Area
IWY
Horizontal Facade Divisions
Minimum Side Yard Setback
3 ft.
CD
Minimum Rear Yard Setback
5 ft.
5. Fagade Materials
Minimum Lot Width
Maximum Lot Width
30 ft.
None
O
Maximum Building Length or Depth
70 ft.
Maximum Impervious Coverage
Additional Semi -Pervious Coverage
75%
10%
3. Parking Location & Loading
Parking Location
Rear or side, provided
the minimum front
property line coverage
is met
Loading Facility Location
Not applicable
Entry for Parking within Building
Not applicable
Access
Refer to
§153.062(N)(1)(c)
0
(b) Height
Minimum Height
1 story
Q
Maximum Height
2 stories
Ground Story: Minimum Height
Maximum Height
8 ft.
11 ft.
Upper Stories: Minimum Height
Maximum Height
7.5 ft.
11 ft.
(c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements
Ground Story Residential uses prohibited
Upper Story No additional requirements
Parking within Not permitted
Building
Occupied Space Not applicable
(d) FaSade Requirements
Refer to §153.062(D) through §153.062(N)for design
requirements general to all buildings.
1. Street Fagade Transparency
Transparency Minimum 25%
Blank Wall Limitations Required on ground story only
2. Non -Street Fagade Transparency
Transparency
Minimum 15%
Q
Blank Wall Limitations
Not required
3. Building Entrance
Principal Entrance Location
Principal frontage street facade of
building
Street Facades: Number of
Entrances
1 per every 30 ft. for buildings
over 50 ft. minimum
Parking Lot Facades: Number
of Entrances
Not applicable
4. Fagade Divisions
Vertical Increments
No greater than 30 ft.
IWY
Horizontal Facade Divisions
Not applicable
Required Change in Roof
Plane or Type
At every vertical division
5. Fagade Materials
Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Wood Siding
6. Roof Types
Pitched roof; other types
Permitted Types permitted with approval (refer to
§153.062(D))
Tower Not permitted
Note:
1 When any front or corner property line is within five feet or less of the
back of curb, the RBZ shall begin five feet off the back of curb to allow
for adequate sidewalk width.
56 § 153.062 (0) (10) EFFECTIVE DATE
BUILDING TYPES - MARCH 29, 2017
HISTORIC COTTAGE COMMERCIAL
Note: Graphic figures ere intended to
illustrate one result of one or more of
the general requirements and do not
represent all requirements or actual
development.
FIGURE 153.062-W: HISTORIC COTTAGE COMMEP.CIP BUILDING TYPE DIAGPAM.
Zone
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT C) 153.062 f01 (10) 57
DEVELOPMENT CODE BUILDING PS
-
HISTORIC COLLAGE COMMERCIX
1 3, 5Q USES
and compliance with any use specific standards
referenced in the Use Table and the applicable
(A) INTENT
provisions of Chapter 153.
(1) The intent of §153.059 is to establish uses for land and
te)
An -S" in a cell indicates a use that is allowed
buildings desired in each BSD zoning district based
in that BSD zoning district only if limited in
on the vision for each area described in the Dublin
size, subject to compliance with any use specific
Community Plan (Bridge Street District Area Plan)
standards referenced in the Use Table and the
and the Bridge Street Districts five Vision Principles.
applicable provisions of Chapter 153.
This is achieved through the variety of permitted,
(f)
A "T" in a cell indicates a use that is allowed in
conditional, accessory and temporary uses allowed in
that BSD zoning district for a limited period of
each zoning district In same cases, special siting and
time pursuant to a permit from the City, subject
size limitations to establish the development character
to compliance with any use specific standards
articulated in the Dublin Community Plan apply
referenced fn the Use Table and the applicable
(2) This section ensures vibrant, mixed-use, pedestrian-
provisions of Chapter 153.
oriented development by emphasizing certain uses in
(g)
A blank cell indicates that the use is prohibited fn
each zoning district and positioning the Neighborhood
that district.
Districts to thrive as critical activity nodes by
concentrating commercial activity in these special
(3) Use
Specific Standards
character areas. Refer to §153.063, Neighborhood
(a)
Additional standards may apply to either
Standards, for the neighborhood district requirements.
permitted or conditional uses in a SSD zoning
(3) The titles of each zoning district describe the
dishict 'These additional standards are cross -
predominant Land use character and/or special
referenced in the last column of 'Table 153.059-A
geographic locations rather than a single type of use.
as use specific standards and detailed in
Zoning district titles shall not be construed as requiring
§153.059(0).
a particular use and shall not preclude other uses from
(b)
In some cases, additional restrictions on uses
being established in each district, as permitted in this
apply to specific building types in §153.062(0)
section. Refer to §153.058, BSD Districts Scope and
and to the Bridge Street District neighborhood
Intent, for the intent of each zoning district
districts in §153.063.
(4) Similar
Use Determination
(1) Permitted and conditional uses available in each
BSD zoning district are shown in Table 153.059-A.
Permitted and conditional uses may be restricted by
location, size, period of operation, or other use -specific
standards as designated fit Table 153.059-A.
(2) Table 153-059-A - Explanation of Terms
(a) Listed uses are defined fn §153,002(A).
b) A "P" in a cell indicates a use that is permitted
by right in that BSD zoning district, subject
to compliance with any use specific standards
referenced fn the Use'lable and the applicable
provisions of Chapter 153.
(c} A "U" in a cell indicates a use that is allowed by
right in that BSD zoning district on any upper
floor of the structure, subject to compliance with
any use specific standards referenced in the Use
Table and the applicable provisions of Chapter
153. Unless otherwise restricted by specific
building type requirements of 153.062(0),
permitted or conditional uses not specified as "U"
may occur on any floor, including basements or
loner levels, subject to applicable use specific
standards.
(d) A 'C" in a cell indicates a use that is allowed
in that BSD zoning district only upon approval
of a conditional use as described in §153.236
(a) When a proposed land use is not explicitly listed
fn Table 153.059-A, the Director shall determine
whether it is reasonably included fn the definition
of a listed use, or that the proposed use meets the
following criteria to the extent that it should be
treated as a permitted or conditional use in the
district.
1. The use is not specifically listed in any other
BSD zoning district
2. The use is generally consistent with the intent
of the BSD zoning district and this chapter.
3. The use will not materially impair the present
or potential use of other properties within the
same district or bordeung districts.
4. The use has no greater potential impact on
surrounding properties than those listed in
the district in terms of aesthetics, traffic
generated, noise, potential nuisances and
other impacts related to health, safety and
welfare.
5. The use will not adveisely affect the relevant
elements of the Conrmunfty Plan, including
the Bridge Street District Area Plan.
(b) The Director's written determination shall be
provided to the applicant and may be appealed to
the Board of Zoning Appeals.
6 § 153.059 EFFECTIVE DATE
USES MARCH 29, 2017
TABLE 153.059-A: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN BSD ZONING DISTRICTS
KEY
BSD Zoning Districts
Use
Specific
Standards
See
§C) 3.059
P Permitted
U Permitted on
Upper floor only
C Conditional Use
S Size Limited
T Time Limited
m
++
y
M
'H
d
a
J
d
;2
w
O
u
w
O
m
i
d
E
E
O
U
U
H
_
H
_
0
ns
M 0
�a
s
H IM
d
ZZ
0
=s
�' O
=a
Ms
� om
C O
"Z
L
C 0
�s
U O
-a
C
� om
O dZ
mZ
` 0
js
0
�a
-C
G om
W
mZ
k
m
2
t d
y N
>D
a
3
a
PRINCIPAL USES
Residential
Dwelling, Single -Family
P P
(1)(a)
Dwelling, Two -Family
P
Dwelling, Townhouse
P P P P P
(1)(b)
Dwelling, Live -Work
Dwelling,
C P P P P P P P P
(1)(c)
Dwelling, Multiple -Family
P P P U U P P P P P
(1)(d)
Civic/Public/Institutional
Cemetery
P
Community Center
C C P P P P P
(2)(a)
Community Garden
P P P P P P P P P P P P
(2)(b)
Day Care, Adult or Child
C P P P P P P P P P
(2)(c)
District Energy Plant
C C C C C C C C C C
(2)(d)
Educational Facility
C P P P P P P P P P P
Elementary or Middle School
P P P P P P P P P P P
Government Services, Safety
C C C C C C C C C P
High School
P P P P P P P P P P
Hospital
C/ S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S
(2)(e)
Library, Museum, Gallery
P P P P P P P P P P P
(2)(f)
Municipal Parking Lot
P P P P P P P P P P
Religious or Public Assembly
C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S C/S
(2)(g)
Parks and Open Space
P P P P P P P P P P P P
Transportation, Park & Ride
C C C C C C C
Transportation, Transit Station
C C P P C C C
Commercial
sm
Animal Care, General Services,
Veterinary Offices, and
Veterinary Urgent Care and
Animal Hospitals
C
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
(3)(a)
Bank
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Bed and Breakfast
P
(3)(b)
Conference Center
C
C
C
C
C
C
Eating and Drinking
C/S
�C
�C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
(3)(c)
Inter ainment / Recreation,
C/S
C
/C
/C
C
P
P
P
P
C
(3)(d)
Exercise and Fitness
C/S
C
P
P
C
/S
C
P
P
P
P
(3)(e)
Fueling / Service Station
C
(3)(f)
Hotel
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Office, General
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
U
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT § 153.059 (�
DEVELOPMENT CODE USES
TABLE 153.059-A: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN BSD ZONING DISTRICTS
KEY
BSD Zoning Districts
Use
L
P Permitted
m
0
0
=s
C 0
` 0
k
Specific
U Permitted on
m
J
�s
�s
js
Standards
upper floor only
++
d
i
M 0
�' O
U O
0
See
C Conditional Use
y
d
E
U
�a
=a
-a
�
m
§C) 3.059
S Size Limited
.o
u
u
s
Ms
C
�.0
-C
2
�
T Time Limited
H
E
H
H
H
:5P�
PG
Pt
'yd
d
a
d
w
w
O
d
CO
M
yN
3
a
O
O
U
_
_
=Z
"Z
LnZ
LnZ
>D
a
Office, Medical
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Parking, Structure
P/C
P/C
P/C
C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
(3)(g)
Parking, Surface Lot
C
P
C
C
P
P
C
C
(3)(h)
all, Repair, & Rental
C/S
%C
P
P
P
P
(3)(i)
Serso
C
/C
/C
/C
Research & Development
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
U
Retail, General
C/S
C
/C
P
/C
/C
P
P
P
P
(3)(7)
Sexually Oriented Business
C
(3)(k)
Establishment
Skilled Nursing, Rehabilitation,
Home for the Aging, and
C
C
C
C
Nursing Homes
Vehicle Sales, Rental and Repair
I C
C
(3)(1)
Wireless Communications
Refer to Chapter 99 of Dublin Code of Ordinances
ACCESSORY AND
TEMPORARY USES
ATM, Walk -Up
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
Bicycle Facilities
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P P
Community Activity and Special
T T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T T T (4)(a)
Event
Construction Trailer/Office
T T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T T T (4)(b)
Day Care, Adult or Child
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P P (2)(c)
Drive-in/Drive-through
C
C
C
C
C
C C (4)(c)
Dwelling, Accessory
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P (4)(d)
Dwelling Administration, Rental,
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P (4)(e)
or Sales Office
Eating & Drinking
C P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P P
Essential Utility Services
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P P
Exercise and Fitness
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P P
Farmers Market
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P P
Helipad/Heliports
C
C
C
C C C
Home Occupation
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P (4)(f)
Outdoor Dining and Seating
P/C P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C P/C P/C (4)(g)
Outdoor Display or Seasonal
T T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T T (4)(h)
Sa les
Parking, Structure
P/C P/C
P/C
P/C
C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C P/C P/C (3)(f)
Parking, Surface Lot
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P P (4)(i)
Renewable Energy Equipment
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P P (4)(j)
Renewable Energy Equipment,
C C
C
C
C
C
C C C (4)(k)
Wind
Residential Model Home
T T
T
T
T
T
T
T T (4)(1)
Retail or Personal Services
C P
P
P
P
P
P
I P
P P
10 § 153.059 EFFECTIVE DATE
USES MARCH 29, 2017
TABLE 153.059-A:
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN BSD ZONING DISTRICTS
KEY
BSD Zoning Districts
Use
L
a0,�
P Permitted
m
0
�s
0
=s
= 0
` 0
k
Specific
U Permitted on
m
J
�s
j
4, One accessory building, not exceeding
100 square feet in gross floor area, may be
permitted, provided the location meets all
setback requirements applicable to accessory
buildings as provided in §153.074,
(c) Day Care, Adult or Child
1. The use shall at all Times comply with the
requirements of'O.R.C. §5104.
2. Outdoor recreation areas shall be located
to the side or rear of the principal structure
and be enclosed with a permitted fence. The
outdoor recreation area shall be screened
using fencing and/or landscaping to provide a
minimum 50% opaque screen.
3. All outdoor play equipment and shade
structures visible from the right-of-way or
adjacent properties shall use subdued, earth
toned colors.
4. Adult and/or child day care uses are
prohibited in civic building types as the sole
principal use.
(d) District Energy Plant
Incidental sales of electrical energy to public
utilities are permitted.
(e) Hospital
Hospitals shall be limited to no more than 75,000
square feet of gross floor area per structure, not
including associated parking structures.
(f) Library, Museum, Gallery
Incidental sales of refreshments and items
related to exhibits or activities at the facility are
permitted.
(g) Religious or Public Assembly
Religious or public assembly structures shall be
limited to no more than 100,000 square feet of
Mss floor area, not including associated parking
structures,
(3) Commercial
(a} Amin,1 Care, General Services, Veterinary
Offices, and Veterinary Urgent Care and Animal
Hospitals
All activities shall be conducted indoors. No
outdoor animal exercise or activity areas shall be
permitted.
(b) Bed and Breakfast
I. The property owner shall reside on the
property and/or manage the facility. No mare
than eight guest units are permitted.
2. Guest accommodations are linnfed to short
-
term stays of no more than 14 days.
(c) Eating and Drinking
Eating and drinking facihdes shall be limited
In no more than 3,500 square feet of gross
floor area for single tenant buildings in the
BSD Office, BSD Office Residential, and
BSD Residential districts. unless otherwise
permitted as a conditional use.
Eating and drinking facilities in multi -tenant
buildings in the SSD Office, BSD Office
Residential, and BSD Residential districts
shall be ffinited to no more than 5,000 square
feet of grass floor area, or 20% of the gross
floor area of the ground floor of the principal
structure, whichever is smaller, unless
otherwise permitted as a conditional use.
(d) Entertainment or Recreation, Indoor
1. Indoor entertainment or recreation uses shall
be limited to no more than 25,000 square
feet of gross floor area in the BSD Office,
BSD Office Residential, BSD Residential,
BSD Commercial, and BSD Vertical Mixed
Use districts, unless otherwise permitted as a
conditional use.
2. In the BSD Public district, the use must be
owned and operated by either a public or non-
profit organization.
(e) Exercise and Fitness
'Lo avoid large, single tenant uses that detract from
the urban, walkable intent of the Bridge Street
District, exercise and fitness uses shall be limited
to no more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor
area to the BSD Residential and BSD Historic
Transition Neighborhood districts. Exercise and
fitness facilities exceeding 10,000 square feet in
this district may be permitted as conditional uses.
(f) Fueling/Service Station
1. Fuel pumps shall be located on the same lot
as a permitted building type.
2. Fuel pumps are not permitted between the
principal structure and an adjacent principal
frontage street,
3. Where pumps are faefng any street type
except for an alley or service street, a street
wall at least three feet high shall be placed
between the pumps and associated vehicular
circulation area and the street. Refer to
§153.065(E) (2) for street wall requirements.
4. Each faehngiservice station shall be buffered
from adjacent properties as requhed in
§153.065(D)(4) and meet the applicable
requirements of §153.065(D)(5).
5. Motor vehicles may be continuously stored
outdoors on the property for no more than 24
hours.
6. Refer to §153.062(L) for vehicular canopy
requirements.
12 163.059 EFFECTIVE ®ATE
USES MARCH 29, 2017
RECORD OF ACTION
city of
Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
OHIO, USA Thursday, August 10, 2017 1 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
S. Historic Dublin — BSD Code Amendment Historic Dublin
17-OS2ADMC Administrative Request — Code
Proposal: An amendment to Sections 153.058, 153.059, and 153.062 of the Bridge
Street District Code to create the Historic South District and associated
regulations within this new district.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council under the
provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234.
Location: Historic District
Applicant: City of Dublin, Dana McDaniel, City Manager.
Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, Planner I; and Jennifer Rauch, AICP, Planning
Manager.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us; (614) 410-4690,
jrauch@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: httv;/Idublinobigg5a.gov/arb/17-05
MOTION: Mr. Brown moved, Mr. Miller seconded to approve this Administrative Request Code
Amendment with a recommendation that City Council hear further input from the community and the
Architectural Review Board.
VOTE: 4-0.
RESULT: This Administrative Request Code Amendment will be forwarded to City Council with a
recommendation of approval.
RECORDED VOTES:
Victoria Newell
Absent
Amy Salay
Yes
Chris Brown
Yes
Cathy De Rosa
Yes
Robert Miller
Yes
Deborah Mitchell
Absent
Stephen Stidhem
Absent
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Avinwi
Nich le M. Martin
Planner I
PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410,4600 fax 614.410.4747
14cUif
Dun
OHIO, USA
MEETING MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, August 10, 2017
AGENDA
Thomas Kohler, Subarea A — United Healthcare Signs 5900 Parkwood Place
17-073AFDP Amended Final Development Plan (Approved 4 — 0)
2. St. John's Lutheran Church — Bell Tower
17-066CU
6135 Rings Road
Conditional Use (Tabled 4 — 0)
3. PUD —Autumn Rose Woods 7150 & 7270 Hyland -Croy Road
17-062FDP/FP Final Development Plan (Approved 4— 0)
Final Plat (Recommended for Approval 4 — 0)
4. BSD -P — Columbus Metropolitan Library, Dublin Branch 75 North High Street
17-069Z Rezoning (Recommended for Approval 4 — 0)
S.
2M
Historic Dublin — BSD Code Amendment Historic Dublin
17-052ADMC Administrative Request — Code (Recommended for Approval 4 — 0)
Historic Dublin — Zoning Map Amendment Historic Dublin
17-074Z Rezoning (Recommended for Approval 4 — 0)
Historic Dublin — BSD Code Amendment
17-052ADMC
Historic Dublin
Administrative Request — Code
The Vice Chair, Chris Brown, said the following application is for an amendment to Sections 153.058,
153.059, and 153.062 of the Bridge Street District Code to create the Historic South District and
associated regulations within this new district. He said this is a request for a review and recommendation
of approval to City Council under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234.
The Vice Chair stated cases 5 and 6 would be heard together but voted on separately.
6. Historic Dublin — Zoning Map Amendment
17-074Z
Historic Dublin
Rezoning
The Vice Chair, Chris Brown, said the following application is for an amendment to the Zoning Map for 25
parcels to establish Bridge Street District - Historic South as a new zoning district. He said the parcels are
adjacent to S. High Street, south of Spring Hill and north of John Wright Lane. He said this is a request
PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 10, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 8
for a review and recommendation of approval to City Council under the provisions of Zoning Code
Sections 153.232 and 153.234.
Nichole Martin explained the Code Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment cannot stand alone,
therefore, a consolidated presentation is being provided this evening. She presented the background for
these two applications:
May 2016: City Council directive to address character of new development within the southern Historic
District
October 2016: Planning initiated the first public workshop which included four stations addressing
transitional zoning, building character, parking, and infill development.
December 2016: A second public workshop built upon the first by surveying stakeholders to determine
appropriate zoning district boundaries and development standards.
March 2017: An Architectural Review Board (ARB) Work Session was held to review the outcomes of
the public meetings.
June 2017: Planning Staff and CodaMetrics held a public open house and an ARB Special Meeting to
answer questions and receive feedback from the public and the Board.
July 2017: The ARB recommended approval with one minor condition.
Ms. Martin stated the Commission's charge this evening is to review the proposal, taking into account the
Architectural Review Board's consideration and to make a recommendation to City Council, who will make
the final determination.
Ms. Martin stated there are amendments requested for three sections of the Code:
§153.058 — BSD Districts Scope and Intent
• Creation of the Historic South District and identification of the sub -district's intent.
§153.059 - Uses
• Identification of permitted and conditional uses for the Historic South District.
• Application of use -specific standards for Eating and Drinking facilities, and Exercise and Fitness
facilities.
o Eating/Drinking facilities are size -limited, with limited hours of operation, and limited hours
for commercial deliveries and refuse collections. The hours of operation can be modified as
part of a request for a Conditional Use.
o Exercise and Fitness facilities are size -limited.
§153.062 — Building Types
• Revisions to the building type standards for the Historic Cottage Commercial building.
• Building height is limited to two stories or a maximum of 24 -feet to the eave; and one and half
stories or a maximum of 18 -feet to the eave within 50 -feet of the rear lot line.
• A reduction in the footprint of any individual building to 1,800 square feet to ensure scale is
consistent with the existing character of the sub -district (individual buildings on the same parcel
can be connected via an "enclosed connection" or hallway).
• Maximum building coverage is limited to 50 percent of a site, and maximum impervious coverage
has been reduced to 65 percent (from the earlier proposal of 75 percent).
• On-site parking cannot be visible from High Street; it must be located behind buildings.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 10, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 8
Ms. Martin said the request is to Rezone 25 parcels (and portions of parcels) from BSD Historic Core to
the BSD Historic South District. She presented the Proposed Zoning Map, showing the existing and
proposed BSD zoning districts. She pointed out the new BSD Historic South District that will be applied to
land generally along S. High Street, south of Spring Hill and north of John Wright Lane. She stated the
new district will have more limited building types as well as more limited uses.
Ms. Martin noted that the Zoning Code does not contain specific review criteria for a Zoning Code
Amendment, however, the Planning Report has outlined considerations that are appropriate to discuss
when amendments and rezoning are under consideration. She reported that Staff found those guidelines
to have been met based on the Council directive and consistency with the Bridge Street District Special
Area Plan.
Ms. Martin stated the Architectural Review Board's recommendation to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for a Code Amendment includes the following condition:
1) That the Use Table be updated to reflect that Parking Structures are not permitted or conditional
as an Accessory Use in the Historic South District.
She said since the ARB meeting, Staff has addressed the typographical error. Therefore, she said Staff is
recommending that the PZC recommend approval to City Council with no conditions.
Ms. Martin stated Planning and the ARB's recommendation to the PZC for a Rezoning Map Amendment
for the inclusion of the Historic South Zoning District is recommended with no conditions, which they also
recommend to City Council with no conditions.
Cathy De Rosa inquired about the design guidelines. She asked if the guidelines that cover the entire
Bridge Street District would apply here.
Mr. Martin explained that back in May 2016, Council gave Planning two specific directives with respect to
the BSD Code: 1) Sign Code Amendment; and 2) Amendment for development character in the southern
Historic District. Hopefully soon, she said the Commission will see large scale amendments to the BSD
Code, and as part of that, they will be creating design guidelines for the entire BSD, including specific
standards that speak to the Historic District. She added that any application that came forward today
would still be reviewed under the current BSD Code and the existing HistoiicDublin Design Guidelines.
The Vice Chair called for public comment.
Steve Rudy, 129 S. Riverview Street, Dublin asked to read from a letter that was drafted from The
Historic Dublin Neighborhood Association, of which he is the president, and was addressed to the
Commission and Staff. All of these comments were already presented to the ARB on July 26 (reference
those minutes for additional detail) but he wanted it on record for this PZC meeting. He said they like
that amendments are being made to the Code to ensure historic structures in the Historic District are not
slowly erased. Preserving the Historic District with its charming architecture, cottage scale, lawns, and
views is a community asset that is a goal we should all share. He said a lot of input from the residents
has been shared at each of the meetings related to this topic. The nine concerns for the new district are
summarized below:
Limit overall building height to 22 feet and do not make the requirement only about number of
stories permitted.
The second story of a 1.5 -story structure should be limited in floor space to one half the floor
space permitted for the first floor.
New buildings should not front any alleys. Alleys and streets should not be considered street
frontage, therefore, not subject to street frontage requirements.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 10, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 8
4. Density and parking are linked problems. Adequate parking must be required on site because
street parking is already in use. Buildable area and rear yard setbacks should be 25 feet not 5
feet. Parcels may not be combined. Maximum building coverage should be 50% not 40%.
Impervious coverage should be a maximum of 40% and semi -pervious coverage should be a
maximum of 75%.
5. The appeal of this district is the village -like appearance and many of the buildings were once
residences and they have lawns, gardens, large trees, and views to other properties. Dense
urban should be kept in the north and east and not south of Bridge Street.
6. Include the southeast corner of Bridge and High down to Spring Hill alley in this new district so
the homeowners east of Blacksmith Lane can have the same protection; this block of historic
buildings should not be left out.
7. Permitted building type chart needs to be amended.
8. Old Dublin Design Guidelines should be kept intact and in force.
9. Prohibition of combining lots was restated and buildings should not be linked.
Chris Brown addressed the history of the area because he said every quaint village area grew that way
because of particular characteristics from their history. He said there was a house, outhouse, little barn or
shed and that actually contributed to that open character Mr. Rudy is talking about now but at the time,
he has seen enough old pictures and renderings and plaques that showed a particular density to that
area. He indicated part of the question becomes how to keep that integrity. He noted the scale of the
building is crucial. He added the nature of that area to him, fit their needs and requirements at the time
and some of that has become not required as technology, plumbing, electricity have come along and
livestock is no longer needed. He said he did not want to inhibit the growth and the maintenance of that
natural character of the history of the community. He suggested that sometimes, a creative architect, can
utilize what would have been an outbuilding and create a structure that responds to the community. He
concluded he understood what Mr. Rudy was discussing but what Staff is trying to create with everyone
is that there is latitude that the area stays attractive to people for a long time that can afford to maintain
it, contribute to the character, and contribute to the community feel.
Mr. Rudy said economic prosperity is part of it.
Mr. Brown said he has a hard time codifying good architecture and what works as a community and there
are some very good examples of communities that are built from ground up that have stayed modest in
scale. He explained the goal is to preserve the nature and the character of that village and codify that in
some way, shape, or form.
Mr. Papsidero said Staff had a direct charge from City Council to propose amendments to the Code that
would ensure that the southern part of the district would be protected from any new development that
was out of scale or character with the existing pattern and Staff has fulfilled that charge with this
proposal.
Mr. Brown said that is what this is about — preservation, to which Mr. Papsidero agreed. He said Mr. Rudy
is stating this is not necessarily responding to that level with setbacks, height of buildings, and everything
else. Mr. Brown asked if that is something that could be developed and modified as the character
guidelines are developed or whether that needs to be part of this proposal.
Mr. Papsidero said some of the communities recommendations are very specific such as height of floors
and setbacks, etc., which is part of the Zoning Code. He said if the Commission were to support the Code
Amendments, staff recommends that the Commission refers staff back to the ARB so they can review
that because they are the reviewing body based on location.
Lori Burchett reported that the ARB felt that the response from Staff adding maximum height
requirements and reducing the building footprint, was responsive to the concerns of the community. She
said the ARB was very supportive and there was one dissenting vote from one board member, the rest of
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 10, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 8
the Board was supportive of what Staff and the Consultant have brought forward. She added there have
been a variety of comments from other interested parties in the area that were also taken into
consideration to find the best solutions.
Jane Fox, 6193 Dublin Road, said it is wonderful that City Council asked that the character of the historic
district be preserved. She reported she served on the ARB for a little while so she understands where this
direction has gone and Planning has spent a lot of time trying to listen to everybody's input. The area
that we are talking about, she said, only impacts a certain number of residents, very few, and most of
their properties abut the backs of these properties. When residents came together, she said the primary
concern was to absolutely preserve the historic character. She said a lot of elements can be codified but
character cannot be and that is not being addressed in this proposal. She said it will be but believes it
should be done congruently. She said the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines have not been able to hold
the line on what has been happening in the Historic District and maybe it is because they are a little
outdated and contradict the BSD Zoning Code. She emphasized if we do not have this hand-in-hand now,
preservation of historic character is not guaranteed. She noted that the Zoning Code is very difficult for
residents to understand because it is so complex. She said they are coming to the City with specific
revisions because it is the best suggestion they can make. She restated the City needs hand-in-hand
Guidelines to go along with the Code Amendments to guarantee character preservation.
Ms. Fox said the alleys are a huge problem. In the BSD Code, she said alleys are defined as service
streets. She noted Blacksmith Lane and Pinney Hill Lane are alleys/service streets and cannot be used as
principle or non -principle streets. She said when we start building on them, the traffic burden is
increased, it is difficult for fire and safety to have access, the density and infill is increased, parking is
reduced, and this proposal does not address parking. She asked if this level of infill is permitted as she
questioned where the people would park. She emphasized that the alleys be defined as alleys and the
lanes are alleys. She restated parking should be addressed. She said the Historic Dublin Business
Association has been reaching out to Planning for more parking. She indicated the Historic Dublin
Business Association has a wonderful plan that provides a lot of parking back there. She said if parking is
not addressed, both the businesses and the residents will be hurt. She said the one declining vote in the
ARB was by the Board Member that lives in the area because he believes this proposal is not quite there,
either. She emphasized parcels cannot be permitted to be combined because then it changes the
character. Lastly, and most importantly she said, the percentage of coverage needs to be seen in context
and the typical footprint in Historic Dublin now needs to be understood. She asked the Commission to
consider what they are trying to preserve, and manage. She said she would support an organic
incremental developmental pattern. A five-foot setback on the alleys is not enough room and concluded
that if the few neighbors sat down with Planning they could come up with a plan to make everyone
happy.
Tom Holton, 5957 Roundstone Place, said the proposed changes do not preserve the character of the
Historic District or consider Dublin's quality of life for those moving to Dublin to raise a family. He said
that is important because this is a special place. And at one time, he said Dublin was divided into
quadrants. He indicated this is the last quadrant of that Historic District that has not been fully
developed. He said that Franklin Street and S. Riverview Street are special places; in the spring and fall,
there is hardly better places in Dublin to walk as it is magical. He stated the Historic District itself used to
be defined by the boundaries of the Old Village of Dublin and the center of that is the intersection of
Bridge and High Streets.
Mr. Holton said if growth is the factor for this area, it will be at the cost of the character and at the cost
of the residents who live there now including their quality of life, which we say we value.
Brian Jones, 37 S. Riverview Street, said at the last ARB meeting, Staff said they intend to go back and
visit the Guidelines after the Zoning Code was amended. He said the Code should support the Historic
Dublin Design Guidelines. The most definable characteristic of old Dublin, he said, is its intimate, small,
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 10, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 8
village -scale buildings. He said they are located close together along the sidewalk, range from 1 — 2.5
stories in height, and nearly all of the buildings have a residential quality; buildings are not linked. He
concluded this Code update is changing the character, dramatically.
Mr. Brown said we have an Architectural Review Board and a Historical Society, and it seems we are
trying to restrict development that might potentially get out of scale. He explained each new proposal
would be reviewed to make sure it fits the character and the scale, which we are trying to set guidelines
for.
Mr. Papsidero said historic districts have review -applied design guidelines that try to massage a proposal
but zoning standards are still needed relative to dimensional standards — height, square footage, lot
coverage, and impervious coverage; both tools are needed. He said the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines
are not changing any time soon and are in place. He restated staff was directed by Council to come up
with Code Amendments that would reduce the mass and scale of any new development. As a result, he
reported staff has presented:
o A reduction in height;
o A reduction in the maximum square footage of any individual building;
o A way to connect those structures together;
o A maximum of 50% building coverage; and
0 65% maximum total impervious coverage.
Mr. Papsidero emphasized this proposal is still constraining the amount of development, regardless of the
individual form. He added the smaller boxes are much more in character with the existing historic
cottages then previous development proposals. He said that those proposals uncluded a much bigger box
then would be allowed under these proposed regulations.
Mr. Papsidero explained the building links were a recommendation by the City's consultant, because she
was concerned that we still needed to balance design sensitivity and character with the ability of an
individual property owner to do certain things with their property and saw linkages as a viable way to
accomplish that.
Mr. Brown said when he first read the proposal he noted how much more restrictive it is compared to
what is required currently.
Mr. Papsidero reported that staff debated internally regarding the impact of these proposed regulations.
He indicated it is the general opinion that these proposed amendments will not prohibit any kind of new
investment.
Bob Miller asked for staffs perspective on the residents concern about the alleys. Ms. Burchett said the
alleys are actually not a principle frontage street as part of this Code so those will be somewhat
protected.
Ms. Martin said the BSD Code is not a standard residential zoning district and therefore, it is a denser,
urban environment, which is why the setback is proposed at five feet as opposed to 25 feet and it is
based on building type. Mr. Papsidero confirmed that has been on the books and is not being changed.
He said the change here is the idea of reducing the height within 50 feet of that rear yard line, again to
minimize the physical impact on the adjacent residences. He pointed out that with the 1,800 -square -foot
maximum building footprint, the building form that could result from this proposed Code is smaller in
some cases than some of the more recent single-family construction, which is much larger.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 10, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 8
Ms. De Rosa asked if the concerns brought forward this evening about the five-foot setbacks, etc. had
been discussed because she had not seen comments in any of the notes from prior meetings. Ms. Martin
said Denise Frantz King had read the entire letter at the July ARB meeting that Mr. Rudy was referencing
this evening. She reported the Chair of that meeting did not request staff respond to each of the
comments. A number of the items highlighted in that letter, she said, were based on a document from
June, which was not what the ARB was tasked with reviewing that evening; and that is not what has
been presented to the Commission tonight. She noted some of the items requested were already
incorporated and updated. From staff's perspective, the Chair thought the other items had been
discussed at length at the ARB Special Meeting in June and that the items that we reached consensus on
between the public and the ARB, those were reflected in the update and the three members that
recommended approval felt comfortable with that.
Mr. Papsidero added that the first public workshop had well over 50 residents in attendance at which
stage they all spent a lot of time discussing details. At the second workshop, he said, there were
approximately 30 residents and changes were made after that workshop. He said there has been a great
deal of community dialogue in a public setting including one-on-one conversations with residents as that
has been the focus of the process from the beginning — very transparent. Ms. Martin added 30 people
attended the Open House in June.
Ms. De Rosa asked if the connectors were discussed in those meetings or if it is staff's view that the
residents by -in -large are supportive. Ms. Martin noted some residents are not supportive but others may
be. She restated the linkages were a recommendation from the City's consultant. She emphasized they
are limiting building size significantly — a maximum of 1,800 square feet is a fairly small footprint. She
explained the connectors are meant to be set back from the structure and there is a maximum width
requirement. She added the form is heavily dictated and begins to speak to the passage that was read
out of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines about the residential character at a story and a half to two
and a half stories although this one is a maximum of 2 stories, which is less than the Historic Dublin
Design Guidelines.
Ms. De Rosa said the graphic examples of buildings appear to be more than 50% lot coverage. She said
she is a visual person and context matters but this does not appear in character. Mr. Papsidero noted the
graphics are meant to be illustrative and not of the development capacity of the ground. He said from a
graphic example standpoint, they included two graphics where there might have been 12 graphics. He
said they demonstrate ways in which all different measurements are depicted graphically in a 3-D
rendering. He said they tried to avoid 6, 8, or 10 different drawings.
Ms. De Rosa suggested that it would be more helpful to really show that the character is actually going to
be maintained by these standards. She said the drawings do not currently depict what she is hearing staff
articulate or what she has read in the Code. In fact, she said, just the opposite because it appears dense
and out of character as they are not demonstrating a cottage feel.
Amy Salay said she is also not an architect and is a very visual person. She said pictures really help her to
understand what is being discussed.
Ms. Salay said she agreed with Mr. Rudy about the setback in those backyards that do not back up to an
alley.
Ms. Salay said overall, she is concerned this is going to chill investment in that part of the district. She
said several of the existing empty buildings are suffering from what she calls, benign neglect, where they
are rotting on their foundations and it comes to a point where it will not be safe as it will be in danger of
collapse - then it is condemned, torn down, and gone forever.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 10, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 8
Ms. Salay said there have been huge houses built in the Historic District but that is the only way it makes
economic sense to invest all that money. She said there are very few people that want to invest a lot
more than what they could ever expect to get in return. She indicated that everyone likes the little gift
shops that go into these buildings but it is hard to make it work, long term and it is more a labor of love
than an economic decision.
Ms. Salay stated there is a real delicate balance we have to be cognizant of. The residents down there
need to know they will not have a mammoth building in their backyard. By the same token, we need to
figure out what we want up on High Street and the kind of business we want to try to incent. Otherwise,
we are going to lose it all just from structures falling in and being demolished. She concluded that the
City is not quite there yet with this proposal but she does not know how to fix it.
Mr. Brown said this is not normally under the Commission's purview but the ARB and Staff have reviewed
and discussed the proposal; it is not perfect but he does not feel he is in a position to come up with the
answer. He said he understands limiting the size, footprint, and height but it is always hard to quantify
and codify character and the preservation is fundamental and that in itself is an economic driver. He
suggested the graphics are deceptive from what the verbiage states. He asked how organic development
should be codified because all of this is a throwback to the agricultural times where there was just a little
community pop up and different sectors serve different needs and some of those buildings were linked.
He said there were also a lot of auxiliary structures at the time. He said now it is a different dynamic with
different economic drivers; people live far differently and need the ability to do that. He said he is not
opposed to bridging buildings together. He said he understands the residents want to preserve all that
and he also feels it is very important.
Ms. De Rosa said we have two choices: 1) recommend that this proposal go back to the ARB to have
further conversations; or 2) the PZC can forward this proposal onto City Council. She indicated she sees a
little more scrubbing will be done but in terms of moving it forward, it might make more sense to now
get Council involved in the conversation. She said she only sees 5 or 6 different points this evening that
probably need more work along with revised drawings to assist further discussion. She stated the Historic
Dublin Design Guidelines are an important perspective to use with this as well since character is so much
of the conversation for this part of the City.
Ms. Salay agreed to the second approach. Ms. Salay encouraged the residents to consider the economic
realities and what could happen to some of those historic buildings.
Mr. Brown said he believes staff, the ARB, and the Commission have done their due diligence and this
should be forwarded now to Council. He emphasized the Commission would be forwarding the proposal
to City Council because they believe Council is in a better position to build upon this.
The Vice Chair called for a motion on Case 5
Motion and Vote
Mr. Brown moved, Mr. Miller seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the Administrative
Request Code Amendment with a recommendation that City Council hear further input from the
community and the Architectural Review Board. The vote was as follows: Ms. De Rosa, yes; Ms. Salay,
yes; Mr. Miller, yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Recommended for Approval 4 — 0)
Motion and Vote
Mr. Brown moved, Mr. Miller seconded, to recommend approval to City Council to approve this Rezoning
to amend the Zoning Map for the inclusion of the Historic South District with a recommendation that City
Council study and work with the community and the Architectural Review Board to further study
setbacks, height restrictions, and connectors. The vote was as follows: Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes;
Mr. Miller, yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Recommended for Approval 4 — 0)
Cray of
Dublin
OHIO. usn
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 10, 2017
17-052ADMC - HISTORIC DUBLIN - CODE
Reviewing Board
Summary
Planning and Zoning Commission
An amendment to Sections 153.058, 153.059, and 153.062
Site Location
of the Bridge Street Distract Code to create the Historic
Historic Dublin
South District and associated regulations within this new
distract.
Proposal
Code Amendment (ADMC)
Zoning Map
Zoning
BSD -HC, Bridge Street District, Historic Core District
Property Owners
Varies
Applicant/Representative
Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Applicable Land Use Regulations
Zoning Code Section 153.232 & 153.234
ARB Recommendation
At the July 26, 2017 meeting, ARE recommend
approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for
amendments to Sections 153.058, 153.059, and
153.062 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code.
Staff Recommendation
Approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for
amendments to Sections 153.058, 153.059, and
153.062 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code.
Contents
A. Context Map.................................................2
B. Overview......................................................3
C. Details.........................................................3
D. Criteria Analysis............................................4
E. Recommendation..........................................5
Case Manager
Nichole M. Martin, Planner I
(614) 410-4635
nmartinnc dublin.oh.us
Neat Steps
Upon a recommendation of approval from the Planning and
Zoning Commission the code amendments will be
forwarded to City Council for review and approval. The
amendments will require two readings before City Council
and will be in effect after the 30 -day referendum period
after the second reading.
Indian Run Or
E&I
W Brid
E Bridge St
St cf)
4
4
S,
-d,
cf)
Waterford Q�
Marion St b
AQr
Longview Dr O
9
Grandview Dro
Tuller Rd
rn
0
m
;t
Clark St
9
0
0
S;LELL,�
53]
Martin Rd
W"A"tio I&
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 17-052ADMC I Historic Dublin Code Amendment
Thursday, August 10, 2017 1 Page 3 of 5
B. Overview
1. Case Summary
In 2007, a special area plan identified planning objectives for Historic Dublin, which were
incorporated into the 2013 Bridge Street District Special Area Plan as of the Community
Plan. The plan recognizes a desire to "enhance and revitalize Historic Dublin as an activity
center within the City that is vibrant, pedestrian -oriented and user friendly with a mix of
uses to support economic, civic, recreational and housing opportunities for all segments of
Dublin's population".
The proposed code amendment is intended to respond to the community desire to allow for
a mix of uses while preserving the existing residential character, which is a critical
component to a support vibrant, walkable, mixed use community.
2. Background
In October 2016, staff initiated a major update to the BSD Code. As directed by City
Council, the prioritized tasks included amendments for the Historic Dublin core in response
to development pressures. The City engaged Clarion Associates and CodaMetrics to revise
the regulations to ensure development is consistent with the neighborhood character of the
Historic District south of Bridge Street.
In coordination with CodaMetrics, Planning engaged the community in two public
workshops: October 2016, and December 2016. The first workshop offered four stations
addressing the following topics: transitional zoning, building character, parking and infill
development. The second workshop built on the outcomes of the first by surveying
residents, business owners, and land owners to determine appropriate zoning district
boundaries and development standards. Subsequently in March 2017, an ARB work session
was held to review the outcomes of the public meetings and provide preliminary direction to
the consultant regarding revisions. In June 2017, a public open house and special ARB
meeting was held to gain feedback regarding the proposed zoning map amendment.
At the July 26, 2017 ARB meeting, the Board formally reviewed the request for an
amendment to the BSD Code, and considered public comment on the proposal. The Board
determined the proposed amendments to the intent, uses, and building types are consistent
with the directive from Council and major concerns raised throughout the public process
dating back to October 2016. The ARB recommended approval with one condition to
address an undetected error. Both the Administrative Review Team and Planning Staff
recommended approval to the ARB for this application to preserve the existing residential
character south of Spring Hill while still preserving the opportunity to continue building
along W. Bridge Street.
C. Details
1. Proposal
The proposed code changes place limits on the size and scale of all future development
within a new sub -district (BSD -HS, Bridge Street District — Historic South). The proposed
amendments define the new zoning district and outline permitted uses for the new district.
Additionally, permitted building types are defined for the district, which are proposed to
include Single Family Detached, Historic Cottage Commercial and Civic building types. The
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 17-052ADMC I Historic Dublin Code Amendment
Thursday, August 10, 2017 1 Page 4 of 5
Historic Cottage Commercial building type is refined to more closely align with the existing
character in the southern portion of Historic Dublin, which is dominated by 1.5 - to 2 -story
"cottage"type residential -style buildings.
a. 153.058 — BSD Districts Scope and Intent
Creation of the Historic South District and identification of the sub -district's
intent.
b. 153.059 — Uses
Identification of permitted and conditional uses for the Historic South District.
Parking structures are not permitted or conditional as primary or
accessory uses in the new sub -district.
Application of use specific standards for Eating and Drinking, and Exercise and
Fitness facilities.
Eating and Drinking facilities are sized -limited, with limited hours of
operation, and limited hours for commercial deliveries and refuse
collections. The hours of operation can be modified as part of a request
for a Conditional Use.
o Exercise and Fitness facilities are size limited.
c. 153.058 — Building Types
• Revisions to the building type standards for the Historic Cottage Commercial
building.
• Building height is limited to two stories or a maximum of 24 feet to the eave;
and one and half stories or a maximum of 18 feet to the eave within 50 feet of
the rear lot line.
• A reduction in the footprint of any individual building to 1,800 square feet to
ensure scale is consistent with the existing character of the sub -district
(individual buildings on the same parcel can be connected via an "enclosed
connection" or hallway).
• Maximum building coverage is limited to 50 percent of a site and maximum
impervious coverage has been reduced to 65 percent (from the earlier proposal
of 75 percent).
• On-site parking cannot be visible from High Street; it must be located behind
buildings.
D. Criteria Analysis
1. Review Considerations
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 these amendments. These are provided below, along with
relevant analysis. The Planning and Zoning Commission is not limited to these
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 17-052ADMC I Historic Dublin Code Amendment
Thursday, August 10, 2017 1 Page 5 of 5
considerations, and may choose to give each its own weight as part of the deliberations for
a recommendation to City Council.
Zoning Code Amendment Analysis
1) Intent and Purpose: Whether the amendment is consistent with the intent
and purpose of this Chapter and the Community Plan.
Intent met.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the planning goals identified in the
Community Plan.
2) Error or Omission: Whether the change is the result of an error or
omission in the original text.
Not applicable.
The change is not based on an error or omission of language in the Code.
3) Area Effects: The potential effects on areas that are most likely to be
directly affected by the change.
Intent met.
By adopting the language, the form of new buildings is required to be consistent
with the form of existing traditional "cottage -style" structures in Historic Dublin south
of Spring Hill and north of John Wright Lane, realizing that history cannot be
recreated, but complimented through the construction of sensitive new development
over time.
4) Creation of Nonconformities: Whether the change might result in the
creation of significant nonconformities on properties in the city.
Intent met.
The amendments may create instances of buildings not in conformance with the
permitted building types, particularly more recently constructed buildings. Such
nonconformities are addressed within the City of Dublin Zoning Code and subject to
ARB review relative to future modifications or changes.
E. Recommendation
A recommendation of approval to City Council is recommended by the Architectural
Review Board and Planning Staff to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an amendment
to the Zoning Map for the inclusion of the Historic South District with one condition. The
condition was to address an undetected error and has been updated prior to the Planning
and Zoning Commission's review:
1) The Use Table be updated to reflect that Parking Structures are not permitted or
conditional as an Accessory Use in the Historic South District.
'citv of
Dublin
OHIO. USA
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 10, 2017
17-074Z - HISTORIC DUBLIN ZONING MAI
Reviewing Board Summary
Planning and Zoning Commission An amendment to the Zoning Map for 25 parcels to
Site Location establish Bridge Street District - Historic South as a new
Parcels adjacent to S. High Street, south of Spring zoning district.
Hill and north of John Wright Lane. Zoning Map
Proposal
Zoning Map Amendment (Z)
Zoning
BSD -HC, Bridge Street District, Historic Core District
Property Owners
Varies
Applicant/ Representative
Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Applicable Land Use Regulations
Zoning Code Section 153.232 & 153.234
ARB Recommendation
At the July 26, 2017 meeting, ARB recommend
approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for
an amendment to the Zoning Map for the inclusion
of the Historic South Zoning District.
Staff Recommendation
Approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for
an amendment to the Zoning Map for the inclusion
of the Historic South Zoning District.
Contents
A. Context Map.................................................2
B. Overview......................................................3
C. Details.........................................................3
D. Criteria Analysis............................................4
E. Recommendation..........................................5
Case Manager
Nichole M. Martin, Planner I
(614)410-4635
nmartin@dublin.oh.us
Next Steps
Upon a recommendation of approval from the Planning and
Zoning Commission the zoning map amendment will be
forwarded to City Council for review and approval. The
rezoning will require two readings before City Council with
the rezoning in effect after the 30 -day referendum period
after the second reading.
PLANNING 5800 Shier Ring Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.474 dublinohiousa.gov
l � T
AIL
Indian Rung, N Wing Hill
Elementary N
N
^� E Bridge St
W`.grdge St
N
U3
Dublin.
Community ,..�
Church ! Scioto 1
�.:.
z SITE
N N N
rt
-Historic -District- s
L'n
John Wright' - N
fi
0
0
7
A
� aDr
A kot
e
Short St
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 17-074Z I Historic South Rezoning
Thursday, August 10, 2017 1 Page 3 of 5
B. Overview
1. Case Summary
The area rezoning is intended to align the zoning designations for properties in the southern
Historic District with proposed amendments to the Bridge Street District (BSD) Code, and is
intended to be consistent with the objectives defined in the 2010 Bridge Street Corridor
Vision Report as incorporated into the Dublin Community Plan (Bridge Street District Plan).
The City of Dublin is sponsoring this application to rezone 25 parcels (and portions of
parcels) to the new BSD Historic South District (refer to the Planning Report for case 17-
052ADMC, Zoning Code Amendment, for additional information about the new zoning
district).
2. Background
In October 2016, staff initiated a major update to the BSD Code. As directed by City
Council, the prioritized tasks included amendments for the Historic Dublin core in response
to development pressures. The City engaged Clarion Associates and CodaMetrics to revise
the regulations to ensure development is consistent with the neighborhood character of the
Historic District south of Bridge Street.
In coordination with CodaMetrics, Planning engaged the community in two public
workshops: October 2016, and December 2016. The first workshop offered four stations
addressing the following topics: transitional zoning, building character, parking and infill
development. The second workshop built on the outcomes of the first by surveying
residents, business owners, and land owners to determine appropriate zoning district
boundaries and development standards. Subsequently in March 2017, an ARB work session
was held to review the outcomes of the public meetings and provide preliminary direction to
the consultant regarding revisions. In June 2017, a public open house and special ARB
meeting was held to gain feedback regarding the proposed zoning map amendment.
At the July 26, 2017 ARB meeting, the Board formally reviewed the request for an
amendment to the BSD zoning map, and considered public comment on the proposal. The
Board determined the proposed rezoning is consistent with the directive from Council and
major issues raised throughout the public process dating back to October 2016. The ARB
recommended approval with one condition to address and undetected error. Both the
Administrative Review Team and Planning Staff recommended approval to the ARB for this
application to preserve the existing residential character south of Spring Hill while still
preserving the opportunity to continue building along W. Bridge Street.
C. Details
1. Process
Code Section 153.066(B)(2) provides the Administrative Review Team with "other powers
and duties" which includes making recommendations to the Architectural Review Board for
amendments to the Zoning Code. The proposed amendment were forwarded to the ARB for
its consideration and a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council for the proposed
amendment.
City of Dublin Planing and Zoning counion
Casa 17C74Z l Historic South P¢onmg
Thursday, Argues 10.20171 Page 4 of
2. Proposal
The new BSD Historic South District will be applied to
land generally along South High Street, south of Spring
HIII and north of John NtrightLane (show to theright).
D. Criteria Malysis
1. Review Considerations
JheZoning Code does not provide for specific review
standards for Zoning Map amendments. However,
there are certain conslderabons that are appropriate
when reviewing an appllcabon for there amendments.
Thea are provided below, along with relevant aralyAs.
11 -he Planning and Zoning Commission Is not limited to
there conslderabons, and may choose to give each Its
own weight as part of the dellberabons for a
recommendabon to GN Council.
1) Future Land Use
Intent met.
JheFuture Land Use map of the Dublin Community Plan was updated and adopted by
GN Council on July 1, 2013. The Future Land Use map Identfies the podons of the
Bridge Street Dlstict west of the Scioto River as Mixed Use Village Center and Include
targeted areas near arterials or major collectors that are Intended to provide dally retail,
major grocers and other conveniences to serve the Dublin community within a 3 to 5-
mlle radius. Village Centers Incorporate moderately-sized nodes of commercial acfivity
with a Larger size of 125,000 square feet of grog leasable space. Integrated office uses
are encouraged In a manner appropriate to the overall area. Mixed Resldental uses are
encouraged and should be Integrated to facilitate Sensation acbmty and to provide
support for commercial uses. The Land Use Plan Includes two Village Center areas.
Historic Dublin Is targeted for Srepervabon and compabbie Infill development as Dublin's
founding core.
2) Bridge Street District Special Area Plan
Intent met.
Much of the area Included In the proposed Zoning Map amendment isset within the
"Historic Dublin District" character neighborhood, which the area plan notes Is "which
has opportunity to grow and carefully intensify while preserving historic character and
protecfing edshng neighborhoods. This can occur through strategic Infill development,
Improved pedestrian access and parking, Increased focus on the Scioto River and Indian
Run Creek, and most significantly, long-term redevelopment of the Indian Run
Elementary and/or Sells Middle School Ates. Historic Dublin has become one of the
pri rte Insplrabons for the Bridge Street Corridor Vlslon�ue to Its traditon as a walkable
disk at of mixed retail, residental, office and cultural/civic uses and to the fact that it
constbutes Dublin's center of comrrunity. The emergence of Historic Dublin as a
desfinabon for dining and locally based retail has heightened the District's role as the
center of community, This Is also the dlstict where future growth faces the most
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 17-074Z I Historic South Rezoning
Thursday, August 10, 2017 1 Page 5 of 5
significant physical constraints." The proposed Zoning Map amendment to the BSD
Historic Core Neighborhood will facilitate implementation of the land use, transportation,
and open space objectives of the Bridge Street District Area Plan of the Dublin
Community Plan.
E. Recommendations
A recommendation of approval to City Council is recommended by the Architectural
Review Board and Planning Staff to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an amendment
to the Zoning Map for the inclusion of the Historic South District with no conditions.
"'r
BOARD ORDER
Dublin Architectural Review Board
ul^" I " Wednesday, July 26, 201716;30 pin
The Architectural Review Board took the fallowing action at this meeting:
Historic Dublin — BSD Code Amendment Historic Dublin
17.052ADMC Administrative Request- Code
Proposal: Amendments to Sections 153.058F 153.059, and 153,062 of the Bridge
Street District Zoning Code. These revisions address the structural
components to the BSD Zoning Code to add a new district and to
address building type requirements for the Historic Cottage Commercial
building type
Request Review and recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning
Commission regarding proposed amendments under the provisions of
Zoning Cale Sections 153.232, 153,234 and 153.056, and the Hatorx
&& Design Guy mes,
Applicant Dana L McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin.
Planning Contacts: Nichole M, Martin, Planner 1; and Jeri M, Rauch, AICP, Planning
Manager
Contact Information: (614) 4104635, nnadin@dublinoh,us; and
(614) 410.4690, jrauch@dublin.oh.us
MOTION: Mr. Musser moved, Mr, Rinaldi seconded, to recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for an Adminlsbative Request for BSD Cade Amendments with one condition:
1) That the Use Table be updated to reflect that Parking Structures are not permitted or condAbnal
as an Accessory Use in the Historic South District.
VOTE; 3-1
RESULT: The request for BSD Code Amendments was recommended for approval and forwarded to the
Planning and Zoning Commission but City Council is the hnal reviewing body.
RECORDED VOTES:
David Rinaldl
Yes
Shannon Stenberg
Yes
Everett Musser
Yes
Jeffrey Leonhard
No
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Nkha M. Mallin, Planner I
PLANNING 5800 Shier RlnpRoad Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614410,4747 dublinohluusa.gov
BOARD ORDER
Cky o
IDblifn Architectural Review Board
oeio,use Wednesday, July 26, 2017 15:30 pm
The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting
Historic Dublin—Zoning Map Amendment
17w074Z
Historic Dublin
Rezoning
Proposal: An amendment to the Zoning Map to establish Bridge Street District
Historic South as a new zoning district,
Location: The sites are located within Historic Dublin along S, High Street, south of
Spring HIII and north of John Wright Lane,
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for a Standard District Rezoning under the provisions of
Zoning Code Sections 153.232, 153.234 and 153066,
Applicant Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin,
Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, Planner 1
Contact Information: (614) 4104635, nmaningdublln,ch,us
MOTION; Mr, Rlnaldl moved, Ms, Stenberg seconded, W recommend approval to the Planning and
Zoning Commission for the modl0ed zoning map with no conditions.
VOTE: 3-1
RESULT: The request for a Standard District Rezoning was recommended for approval to the Planning
and Zoning Commission to permit a new zoning d'strid — Historic South but City Council Is the Bnal
reviewing body.
RECORDED VOTES:
David R'inaldi
Yes
Shannon Stenberg
Yes
Everett Musser
Yes
Jeffrey Leonhard
No
STA FCERTIFICATION
Nic o M. Martin, Planner 1
PUNNING 5800 Shier RingsRoad Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614,410,4600 fav 614,410,4747 dublinnhmusa.gov
Dublin Architectural Review Board
July 26, 2017 —Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 11
u
3. Historic Dublin — BSD Code Amendment
17-052ADMC
The Chair, David Rinaldi, said the following
153.059, and 153.062 of the Bridge Street
structural components to the BSD Zonini
requirements for the Historic Cottage Cor
recommendation of approval to the Plann
under the provisions of Zoning Code Sect
Design Guidelines.
Historic Dublin
Administrative Request — Code
application is a request for Amendments to Sections 153.058,
District Zoning Code. He indicated these revisions address the
Code to add a new district and to address building type
imercial building. He said this is a request for a review and
ng and Zoning Commission regarding proposed amendments
ons 153.232, 153.234 and 153.066, and the Historic Dublin
Nichole Martin said she has prepared a consolidated presentation of the Administrative Request for
Amendments to the Zoning Code as well as Rezoning to permit a new zoning district — Historic South as
one case cannot really stand without the other.
The Chair introduced the other case below, which is combined with the case 17-052ADMC for purposes of
review.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
July 26, 2017 —Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 11
4. Historic Dublin — Zoning Map Amendment Historic Dublin
17-O74Z Rezoning
The Chair, David Rinaldi, said the following application is a request for an amendment to the Zoning Map
to establish Bridge Street District Historic South as a new zoning district. He said the sites are located
within Historic Dublin along S. High Street, south of Spring Hill and north of John Wright Lane. He said
this is a request for a review and recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission
for a Standard District Rezoning under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232, 153.234 and
153.066.
Ms. Martin presented a potential process/timeline dependent on the recommendation being made this
evening:
7/26/17
Cases reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to make a recommendation to the Planning
and Zoning Commission (PZC).
8/10/17
Cases reviewed by the PZC to make a recommendation to City Council (CC).
8/28/17
Cases reviewed by CC and a determination made for the Code Amendments and Rezoning.
Ms. Martin presented an aerial view of the boundaries of the Historic District and noted only that area will
be affected within the BSD.
Ms. Martin said the Code changes proposed per Section are summarized as follows:
§153.058 — BSD Scope and Intent
• Creation of the Historic South District and identification of the sub -district's intent.
§153.059 — Uses
• Identification of permitted and conditional uses for the Historic South District.
• Application of use -specific standards for Eating and Drinking facilities, and Exercise and Fitness
facilities.
o Eating and Drinking facilities are size -limited, with limited hours of operation, and limited
hours for commercial deliveries and refuse collections. The hours of operation can be
modified as part of a request for a Conditional Use.
o Exercise and Fitness facilities are size -limited.
§153.062 — Building Types
• Revisions to the building type standards for the Historic Cottage Commercial building.
• Building height is limited to two stories or a maximum of 24 -feet to the eave; and one and half
stories or a maximum of 18 -feet to the eave within 50 -feet of the rear lot line.
• A reduction in the footprint of any individual building to 1,800 square feet to ensure scale is
consistent with the existing character of the sub -district (individual buildings on the same parcel
can be connected via an "enclosed connection" or hallway).
• Maximum building coverage is limited to 50 percent of a site, and maximum impervious coverage
has been reduced to 65 percent (from the earlier proposal of 75 percent).
• On-site parking cannot be visible from High Street; it must be located behind buildings.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
July 26, 2017 —Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 11
Ms. Martin said the Code does not identify specific criteria for reviewing Code Amendments, however, the
Planning Report has outlined considerations based on the BSD Special Area Plan for the Historic District's
existing character. She said Staff and the ART are supportive of these modifications, therefore, approval
is recommended to this Board for the BSD Code amendments. She also stated that the ARB's
recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission but City Council will then be
the final reviewing body.
Ms. Martin said, in some cases, there may be a creation of non -conformities, given the nature of the
district as these structures have been built over time but that will be addressed in the standard section of
the Code.
With respect to the Rezoning portion, Ms. Martin said there are 25 parcels proposed to be rezoned, which
she noted. She said that these parcels are currently identified as the BSD Historic Core District and are
now being proposed to be located within the Historic South District, which will be applied to land along S.
High Street, south of Spring Hill, and north of John Wright Lane. With the creation of this district, she
said all of the aforementioned uses and permitted building types will now be permitted in this district but
this district does not permit the Historic Mixed -Use Building type; therefore, some of the concerns about
the character of development that will occur in this district is significantly limited; and, the Historic
Cottage Commercial building, which is permitted in this district, has been modified to address those
concerns.
Ms. Martin presented the entire BSD Zoning Map as it would be proposed to Council. She said the ART is
recommending the ARB recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission with no conditions
for a Standard District Rezoning to permit a new zoning district — Historic South. She restated City Council
will be the final reviewing body.
The Chair invited the public to comment.
Kathy Lannan, 37 S. Riverview Street, requested the ARB send this latest draft back for further review
with the Planning Department. As a homeowner that lives north of Spring Hill, she said, she would love to
see this softer touch extended behind their properties. She said there are foundations there that need
tender loving care and the heavy construction is a concern. She inquired about parking structures being
permitted as a conditional use in this new area; that was not in the June draft and they feel very strongly
that they do not want parking structures permitted.
Ms. Martin indicated parking structures being permitted as an accessory conditional use in this new area
must have been an error in the July draft. The Chair clarified a parking structure is not a Conditional Use
and the current version needs to be amended. Ms. Martin noted the error in the table and ensured that
would be cleaned up prior to submittal to the PZC and suggested additionally, that be made a condition
this evening.
Ms. Lannan said she was happy to see the height restriction on the story and a half building but
wondered if that went far enough to limit the size of these buildings. She asked if it would make sense to
also define "the upper half story as being limited to half of the livable square footage permitted for the
first floor" - somehow to limit the height. She referenced the new house on Riverview Street that she
described as very beautiful. Supposedly, she said, at a height of a story and a half but it is taller than the
two-story buildings around it. She emphasized she would like to see a good solid definition of a one and a
half story building in the revised Code amendments.
Ms. Lannan said she sees the development at 35 S. High Street and it has room additions, small buildings
in the back, and incorporates parking, but it is all subordinate to the historic structure, which is an
example of infill development she would like to see.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
July 26, 2017 —Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 11
Ms. Lannan noted the linkages proposed. She said all these buildings can be linked together as an infill
project and she believes that will close up the openness that currently exists; she is looking for a small
cottage development. She is concerned that we will end up with a wall of buildings that will close up the
area.
Denise Frantz King, 170 S. Riverview Street, said she was deputized by the leadership of the Historic
District Association to come and carry the message tonight because they are on vacation. She said there
has been a lot of input from residents at public input sessions offered by the City, which they appreciate
and it is a credit to staff that they listen and carry the message to Council.
While progress is being made, Ms. King said the revisions to the Code still need some work. She
suggested that as much time that everyone has spent on this, it is worth getting it right before Council
votes on it. She noted the most important feature is the historic character. She indicated portions of the
Historic District have been written off with a great sense of loss so it is important to preserve this
community -wide asset. The boundaries for Historic South should include all of the properties east of High
Street and south of SR 161, she said, as this backs up to residents of the Historic District. She said Mill
Lane, S. Blacksmith Lane, Spring Hill Lane, Eberly Hill Lane, Pinney Hill Lane, and John Wright Lane
should not be considered principal or non -principal frontage streets but rather High Street should be
considered a principal frontage street. Part of the definition of the BSD Code Section 163.061(D) and
Section 153.060 is to preserve the character of the area that has buildings, little green spaces, trees, and
parking lots; it is not just a mass of buildings along the alleys for example. She referenced Code Section
153.061(D) that states:
"Alleys and service streets are very low capacity, low speed, and located near the rear
lots that minimize the driveway interruptions in the pedestrian realm. Alleys and service
streets provide access to parking facilities, loading facilities, and service areas for refuge
and utilities."
Ms. King clarified their point is - that is what the alleys and service streets should be used for. She added
Section 153.060 states:
"Alleys and service streets shall not be considered street frontage and shall not be
subject to street frontage requirements as described in Sections 153.059 to 153.065."
Ms. King said linkages between buildings need to be discouraged; linkages may be more favorably
considered if the maximum building coverage on the lot is maintained at 40%. She emphasized they did
not want buildings around the entire block or property with a courtyard in the middle, which will diminish
the historic character and will instead take on this urbanized city block feel, which detracts from the asset
that is Historic Dublin.
Ms. King said the major concern of the residents is the proposal for infill density in the Historic District
whose inherent character and existing physical conditions are described and protected by the Historic
Dublin Design Guidelines, which states:
"Perhaps the most definable characteristic of Historic Dublin is its intimate small village
scale. The buildings are located close together along the sidewalk and range from one to
one and a half stories in height. Nearly all the buildings have a residential quality and
contrast to the centers of many other historical Ohio communities that have a continuous
streetscape of commercial buildings with storefronts, cornices, and shared party walls.
The spaces between the buildings offer owners and tenants an opportunity to create
small gardens, seating areas, and open space. Mature trees also contribute to the
character of a well-established community. The combination building materials, physical
Dublin Architectural Review Board
July 26, 2017 —Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 11
setting, and spatial relationships among the historic buildings make Historic Dublin
unique."
Ms. King said this is not something new the residents are advocating, this is something that has been on
all of our books and important to a lot of people in this community for over two decades, approximately.
Ms. King said the residents are concerned that the Zoning Code speaks only to the physical
measurements of infill and not to the character of the architecture and the new BSD Design Guidelines
should define and promote historically appropriate architectural styles. She added the models in the
document do not appropriately reflect what we are proposing and therefore should be altered.
Ms. King inquired about principal permitted uses in Table 153.062-A. She asked why Elementary, Middle,
and High Schools, as well as a library and civic building are listed under Core 2/Historic South because
there is really not enough room for any of those types of building/uses. She said the residents are
comfortable with Exercise and Fitness uses and Surface Parking lots. She pointed out that parking is not
really addressed in these standards and both the Historic Dublin Business Association and the Resident's
Association feel very strongly that this is half a plan to go forward with these revisions without specifically
addressing parking. She reported that the Business Association computed that they have more employees
south of SR 161 than there are parking spaces. She said they are working really hard to grow and we
want them to succeed. She said their message is that with any new infill development there needs to be
a requirement for enough parking onsite to support whatever is built. She reported the businesses have
already complained that other business employees are parking in front of their businesses and their
customers cannot park there; therefore, she asked the Board not to make the situation worse.
Ms. King inquired about the limits on Eating/Drinking establishments and suggested the hours could be
expanded beyond the proposed 7 am — 10 pm hours on the weekends to 11 pm. She cited that at 10:15
at night on several occasions, she has witnessed an empty Village Tavern and they even have a permit to
stay open later.
Ms. King indicated the residents are willing to work with the City. She had additional revisions to the table
on page 14 that included the zoning conflicts with the Dublin Historic Design Guidelines. She said she
would like the Guidelines to be the definitive outline for the ARB to use as a primary standard for the
preservation and maintenance of buildings, landmarks, and landscapes within the Board's jurisdiction.
Ms. King reported that Mayor Peterson told one of their members that he favored a sit-down with City
Council - himself specifically, Staff, and residents to work out what will be presented to Council on this.
She indicated she hoped she had given some food for thought to the ARB this evening and maybe the
ARB could join them in this meeting, and delay it just a little bit longer to get it right.
Michael B. Steele, said he owns the building at 138 S. High Street that is the southern most commercial
property on the east side of Dublin Road. He said they have been there for 11 years and took a year to
build it but they were pleased with the outcome. He stressed he has a tremendous amount of experience
in construction and building so he understands all the details of what has been discussed this evening.
Mr. Steele referred to Dublin, Ireland and said there is a tremendous range of architectural history in that
city and Dublin, Ohio has a very small range. He reported the building he purchased was built in 1877
and it has had minor changes. He indicated there is a fairly good history here in this little pocket. He said
even in historic cities there is still variety, change, and evolution of structures. He said he has been very
pleased with the location for his business and has no desire to go elsewhere as it is wonderful. He said he
likes what he sees with regard to our small little city — business district versus some others that have
tried to do it and failed.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
July 26, 2017 —Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 11
Mr. Steele asked what triggered this rezoning proposal and evolution to this point. He agreed that we
should go slow with this and not approve it until there are no revisions. He concluded he would like to
see this proposed business change to be more formalized and more structured.
Mr. Steele restated he has been here 11 years, 2 blocks from The Village Tavern but he has this habit of
driving to lunch at the various eateries here and not once has he driven from his office and not been able
to park within 50 feet of the destination at noon, two to three days per week. He said the comments
about parking are overrated. He reported he has seven parking spaces available on his property for his
tiny little building and the most vehicles he has ever seen in there is three.
Mr. Steele said when he came to the ARB 11 years ago, something bothered him — priorities. He said the
first case was for a 2 foot by 3 foot sign for a structure on the east side of Dublin Road and he recalled
the ARB spent two hours and five minutes on the sign and turned it down. He said the second proposal
was for additions to an existing business and that took 30 minutes to approve. He said he went next and
within 15 minutes he was approved for a total 100% gut and redo of an existing structure, inside out, top
to bottom. At that time, he concluded there was something wrong with that picture and it impacted him
greatly. He tried to figure out what was important to the ARB and what they were trying to accomplish.
He said the ARB has been outstanding through history for what it has done but asked what the purpose
of this rezoning was when it is working and did this come about because a few people did not want
change.
The Chair closed the public portion and thanked everyone for commenting that hit on specific topics that
were continuously discussed by this Board.
Ms. Martin said Staff really appreciates the comments from the public. She said some of the areas that
were touched on were not part of this application but they are items on-going within the larger BSD Code
and Design Guidelines update.
David Rinaldi thanked Staff for all the effort that has gone into this, and at the last ARB meeting, the
Board Members thought they really got this down to a handful of comments and Staff has addressed the
ones that this Board had, including the limitation of uses and the hours of operation. He asked if the
operator would be able to request a conditional use to expand the hours or if this was cut and dry. Ms.
Martin answered the use specific standard for operations is 7am — 10pm but any restaurant could request
a conditional use from the PZC but the ARB would need to make a recommendation to the Commission,
first.
Mr. Rinaldi said he was pleased about the definitive story height because it always raised confusion
amongst the public as well as a Board.
Mr. Rinaldi said linkages were discussed at length the last time. He said from his perspective, there is a
delicate balance here. If we make everything too restrictive, he indicated, we are not going to have
anything happen here and it is not going to help the district but adversely would be detrimental to the
district. He concluded he thought the Board struck a balance.
Jeff Leonard asked if there is a provision for existing historic structures that grandfathers them in so if a
building is not occupied and falls down, the building could be rebuilt to look exactly like it was. He said he
did not think (former) Biddies for example could be rebuilt since it is a long building and that we should
look at that.
Mr. Leonard said he agrees with his neighbors about linkages because nothing else in Dublin, specifically
the Historic District looks like that. He said he agreed with a lot of what Mr. Steele said but parking in the
evening is an issue around the commercial structures for sure after 4:30 pm or 5:00 pm. Right behind
where he lives, he said, there is parking for the businesses that are there and they are parking on top of
Dublin Architectural Review Board
July 26, 2017 —Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 11
each other already and those are the lots that are potentially up for development. He suggested that if
more buildings are added, he does not know where people would park. He mentioned the traffic on the
alleys and suggested a traffic study be performed before more construction is permitted. He said in the
morning, cars are moving at 40 mph down Blacksmith alley, not stopping at any stop signs and in the
evening it is repeated in the opposite direction. He said he agreed with Ms. King in that we have half of a
good plan. He agrees with protecting what is historic in the north but thought this would force people to
build structures that are just not going to fit in.
Shannon Stenberg explained one of the reasons for several discussions about moving that boundary was
because of the Donato's building; if it were to be reconstructed, it would not fit in this historic cottage
commercial, which is why the ARB did not support changing the boundary.
Ms. Martin clarified the idea behind these Code amendments is not to recreate history but to allow for the
development of new buildings that are consistent with the character that the residents had expressed
they would like adjacent to single-family residential areas. With respect to existing structures, she stated,
the ARB has purview over all demolitions so an applicant would need to demonstrate that the structure
was not salvageable and meets certain criteria prior to redevelopment.
Mr. Leonhard clarified that he was speaking of instances where Mother Nature was the cause or perhaps
a fire, etc. He reiterated that the linkages are consistent with what is proposed but not with what is
existing.
Mr. Rinaldi reiterated that the building lot coverage is 50% now and so a lot could not be filled. He said
the other delicate balance is that people want more parking but the impervious areas are being limited so
more green space is attained but there is less parking. He stated they cut back 10% of impervious
materials but there will be less room for parking on that lot. He said there are significant trade-offs. He
said the overarching theme here is that the new area is being treated with a lighter touch then what is
currently permitted. If the fear is more development, he said, he does not believe that is the case here at
all.
Ms. Stenberg said she agreed with the intention as Mr. Rinaldi just stated. She said the Board considered
what would happen should a demolition request be granted for whatever reason. She said several of the
comments regarding parking and traffic and the amount of people that will be coming into this area is
going to be conditional on the specific building or a specific use and all of those applications will be
coming to the Board. One of the changes she really did appreciate, she said, was the impervious
coverage to be reduced to 65% to prevent the entire area that is left to be covered by parking. She said
the Board is supporting changes but they are still ensuring that there will be green space and beautiful
views of the trees as well as their shadows. She concluded this revised proposal has addressed some of
the previous issues very well.
Mr. Rinaldi noted that everyone likes the Donato's building but the lot coverage would not meet this Code
at all and maybe we would not have that parking behind there.
Mr. Leonhard indicated that the fear of the residents is - there is an empty space behind Donato's and
some of the other buildings and they would not be held to the softer standards should they get
developed now.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if they modified somewhat what was allowed within the current Historic Core.
Ms. Martin clarified that the Historic Core amendments were part of the Work Session and Open House
but were not specifically part of Council's directive for this Southern Historic District Code amendment so
those will come before the Board later for another review as part of the overall BSD Code update.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
July 26, 2017 —Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 11
Mr. Leonhard asked if the process was being done out of order. Ms. Rauch answered Staff was looking at
a major Code update but because the City had had a lot of development pressure within the Historic
District, Council asked Staff to move forward with addressing this area specifically. She said the request
from Council was more to address the current concerns.
Everett Musser stated he agreed with Mr. Rinaldi that this review is a delicate balance. He reported there
have been some work sessions back to the first of the year and public input has been gathered and
considered as revisions were being made. He suggested that no matter how long we have this process,
we will not be able to please everyone. He said they are trying to develop some guidelines so the citizens
would be happy as well as attract new business to have a viable Historic District. Right now, he said, we
have done that and we will continue to work with it but it is only at a point where it does a pretty good
job of protecting the citizens as well as encouraging developers and businesses to come in. As Ms.
Stenberg pointed out, he said everything is going to come before the ARB where the Historic Dublin
Design Guidelines are followed and historic design is considered. He concluded that these revisions
should be moved forward with these proposed recommendations.
Mr. Rinaldi noted that Code diagrams can look like boxes on a block but that is not our goal here as a
representation of potential massing. He said the Board is very sensitive to the historic nature of what
goes on in terms of architecture. He said if one attends a meeting where the Board is discussing a new
proposal, there is a lot of talk about what is going on in terms of materials, scale, and massing. He said
the Code tends to be pretty dry but that is not how the Board approaches these elements. They take into
consideration the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines extremely and what that means for the district and
how these structures look within the rest of the district.
The Chair asked if there was anything with the sub -district itself that still needed to be addressed. He
asked if the Board had come as close to a sweet spot as they could. He restated the Board was just down
to a handful of comments the last time and believes they have since been addressed.
Ms. Stenberg stated this proposal meets all of the comments and questions that the Board had.
Mr. Rinaldi said he agreed with Mr. Musser in that we are not going to please everybody no matter how
restrictive we make the Code. If the Code is too restrictive, he indicated, we would not be able to change
anything in the district then that will not make everybody happy either.
Ms. Martin said Staff has prepared the condition for the Zoning Code Amendment portion:
1) That the Use Table be updated to reflect that Parking Structures are not permitted or conditional
as an Accessory Use in the Historic South District.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Musser moved, Mr. Rinaldi seconded, to recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for an Administrative Request for BSD Code Amendments with one condition:
1) That the Use Table be updated to reflect that Parking Structures are not permitted or conditional
as an Accessory Use in the Historic South District.
The vote was as follows: Ms. Stenberg, yes; Mr. Leonhard, no; Mr. Rinaldi, yes; and Mr. Musser, yes.
(Recommended for Approval 3 — 1)
Motion and Vote
Mr. Rinaldi moved, Ms. Stenberg seconded, to recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for the modified zoning map with no conditions. The vote was as follows: Mr. Musser, yes;
Mr. Leonhard, no; Ms. Stenberg, yes; and Mr. Rinaldi, yes. (Recommended for Approval 3 — 1)
RECORD OF DETERMINATION
Ciryof
Dublin Administrative Review Team
111(11', 1 ISA Thursday, July 20, 2017
The Administrative Review Team made the following determinatlon at this meeting:
4, Historic Dublin — Zoning Map Amendment
17.0742
Historic Dublin
Rezoning
Proposal: An amendment to the Zoning Map to establish Bridge Street District
Historic South as a new zoning district,
Location: The related sites are located within Historic Dublin, west of the Scioto
River.
Request: Review and recommendation 0 approval 0 qty Council for a Standard
District Rezoning under the provisions of Zoning Code Sedions 153,232
and 153,234,
Applicant, Dana 1, McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin,
Planning Contact: Nichola M. Martln, Planner 1; (614) 4104635, nmardn@dublin,oh,us
REQUEST: Recommendation of approval to the Archltedurel Review Board for an amendment to the
Zoning Map with no conditions for the inclusion of the Hbtorlc South Zoning Dlsbld.
Determination: Rezoning was forwarded to the Architectural Review Board with a recommendation of
approval as the next step In the approval process.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Vince .rap-5idl FAICP
Directopf Planning
PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, 143016 phone 614,410.600 fax 614,410,4747 dublinohlousa,gov
Administrative Review Team Minutes
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Page 5 of 7
u u_
■
■
■
UP
H IM
-010 1110
■_
11ARTf.17T.R.'RTl.�T97-T.RIsm
.C�nRSS7A:7iiR�T-fRRTl-1
4. Historic Dublin — Zoning Map Amendment Historic Dublin
17-074Z Rezoning
Nichole Martin said this is a proposal for an amendment to the Zoning Map to establish Bridge Street District
Historic South as a new zoning district. She noted the sites are located within Historic Dublin along S. High
Street, south of Spring Hill and north of John Wright Lane. She said this is a request for a review and
approval of proposed Zoning Code amendments under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232,
153.234 and 153.066.
Administrative Review Team Minutes
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Page 6 of 7
Ms. Martin reported the City of Dublin is sponsoring this application to rezone 25 parcels (and portions of
parcels) to the new BSD Historic South District.
Ms. Martin presented the Proposed Zoning Map, showing the existing and proposed BSD zoning districts.
She stated the new BSD Historic South District will be applied to land generally along S. High Street, south
of Spring Hill and north of John Wright Lane. The proposed Zoning Map amendment to the BSD Historic
Core, she said, will facilitate implementation of the land use, transportation, and open space objectives of
the Bridge Street District Area Plan of the Dublin Community Plan.
Ms. Martin said approval is recommended to the Architectural Review Board for an amendment to the
Zoning Map for the inclusion of the Historic South Zoning District.
Vince Papsidero asked if there were any questions or concerns regarding this application. [There were
none.] He called for a vote, the motion carried, and the Rezoning was recommended for approval by the
ART and forwarded to the Architectural Review Board for the meeting on July 26th.
14cUif
Dun
OHIO, USA
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Architectural Review Board
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
AGENDA
Work Session to review proposed amendments of the Bridge Street District Code as
they relate to the Historic District.
4:T-Til:E�17�ZitR'�F7R1�IfS11T.f7Rf^.T-T-S7R.i7.T.Tl.F1'i_S'leQeli�7:7-TT.�T.f7R-77
T.R-T.S7�1R.'IC1RJ7it7R-17
u
ITL61:I IC -i *moi to] 1
The Chair, David Rinaldi, said this is a work session to review proposed amendments to Sections 153.058,
153.059, and 153.062 of the Bridge Street District Code and review a proposed area rezoning. These
revisions address the intent, uses, zoning districts, and building types for Historic Dublin core districts.
Vince Papsidero thanked the Board for hosting the Open House prior to this meeting this evening as well
as this special work session. He said Staff and the consultant have been working for a number of months
on a Code update in response to issues raised by the community relative to the potential new commercial
development along S. High Street in the Historic District. He said Leslie Oberholtzer, CodaMetrics, is the
City's consultant who also participated in the development of the original Bridge Street Code. The
intention, he said, is to get the amendments approved by the end of the summer. He stated that Ms.
Oberholtzer will give a presentation and then we will take the Board's comments and questions.
PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov
Dublin Architectural Review Board
June 14, 2017 — SPECIAL Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 7
Leslie Oberholtzer, CodaMetrics, reported that revisions had begun in October 2016, and there was a
public outreach workshop where Staff created a series of stations for addressing concerns and to
promote in-depth discussions. She said the stations available for each participant to rotate through were
as follows:
• The first station introduced the potential for a new transitional zoning district between the Bridge
and High Street intersection and the residential buildings on neighboring streets and the south
end of High Street
• The second station addressed the current Code requirements for materials and design details
such as massing, windows, and roofs.
• The third station provided a discussion format for parking provisions in the area, focusing on the
difference between the areas north and south of Bridge Street.
• The fourth station presented some design options addressing potential infill development in the
rear of the lots along Blacksmith and Mill Lanes.
Ms. Oberholtzer said she was instructed to look specifically at the areas south of High Street and south of
Bridge Street. She said Staff was trying to figure out what could happen behind all those historic
buildings up and down High Street and what would be appropriate in terms of their relationship to the
residential on the other side of the lanes. She provided some images from those four stations to provide
a sense of the level of effort. She reported there was a good turnout at that first workshop and a lot of
input was received from the community.
Ms. Oberholtzer stated the second workshop was based on the results of the first workshop to discuss
details and uses that would be appropriate for this new proposed district. She reported there was some
discussion about parameters for hours that eating and drinking establishments could be open. She
presented an example of one of the surveys that were distributed at that second workshop. From the
information obtained and discussions with Staff, she said, some revisions were drafted. She indicated the
first draft of revisions is meant to engage everybody in conversation. She said the focus was on intent,
which is to allow for infill since this is the demand to support a mix of uses because it is already a mixed-
use area and to ensure the new development fits within the context. She indicated this is a very unique
location as it has its own character, form, and materials. She said the Code should be written so
everything fits within that context including the surrounding historic residential areas.
Ms. Oberholtzer said four items were focused on for revising the Code.
1. To introduce a new district;
2. To revise the map based on that new district;
3. To revise the building types; and
4. To revise the uses.
Ms. Oberholtzer said this is Code meant to define the building envelopes and regulations but it is not
meant to take -away the ARB Historic Dublin District Guidelines. To introduce this new BSD Core II
District, she stated she is editing the existing Code that lists all the different districts. She explained the
revisions follow the language in the Code for the existing Historic Core but limits Core II to the smaller
scale cottage feel.
Ms. Oberholtzer noted on a map the location of the new Historic Core II District being proposed and
highlighted the areas requiring rezoning. She said that within this new district, single-family detached and
historic cottage commercial building types will be permitted, and the existing historic mixed-use building
type will not be permitted. She explained the basic difference between the two is that the historic mixed-
Dublin Architectural Review Board
June 14, 2017 — SPECIAL Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 7
use building type has the connected street wall like the new construction at Bridge and High Streets; the
cottage commercial has more space and pushback. She added the civic building type is always permitted
as it is a flexible building for specific uses.
Ms. Oberholtzer said there are issues with the current mixed-use building type. She said the focus is
mainly to address what is happening in the back portion of the lots. She said the area along High Street
remains the same with one main exception — the buildings are now limited to two stories instead of two
and a half stories in height. The second exception is that an overall revision to the BSD and one of the
items to be likely removed from the Code is the transparency requirement on the back and interior sides
of buildings. She presented graphics to illustrate the revisions proposed from the backs of mixed-use
buildings measured approximately 100 feet to the lane:
Building footprint is limited to 1800 square feet;
Building length is limited to 50 square feet;
18 feet should be between separate buildings in the rear; and
An enclosed connection is permitted.
These revisions above, she said, are to allow cottages in the rear of these lots and presented graphics.
She noted the maximum 12 -foot connections between the cottages is to allow for a business to expand.
She said the cottages are limited to a single story in height and required to be 15 feet back from the face
of the building so the additional setback allows for more landscaping or a courtyard area. Additionally,
she said coverage is limited to 50%. She said there is a maximum height of 1.5 stories in the last 50 feet
so there is a swath along each lane that is limited to 1.5 stories since they would abut residential. She
emphasized the series of buildings is stepping back from the 2 stories permitted along High Street to 1.5
stories in the rear 50 feet of the lot along the lanes. She summarized the building massing in the rear,
height, and the amount of coverage of the lots have been focused on. She referred to a matrix, which
demonstrated how the uses are managed on the lots. She noted there is only a limitation of residential
uses along the principal frontage occupied space, which is a 20 -foot depth along High Street.
Everett Musser inquired about parking requirements for Historic Core II to which Ms. Oberholtzer
answered has not been addressed yet.
Ms. Oberholtzer said the same uses are permitted for the new district with three exceptions:
Banks are not permitted;
Eating and drinking establishments are limited; and
Surface parking lots as a principal use and parking structures are not permitted.
Ms. Oberholtzer further proposed that conditional use applications would no longer go to the Planning
and Zoning Commission but instead will come to the ARB for the recommendation to City Council at the
same time that everything else is being reviewed by the ARB.
Ms. Oberholtzer reported that the public fairly overwhelmingly said that eating and drinking
establishments were desired in this district but the use needed to be limited:
3,500 square feet (already exists in the Code)
Hours are 7 am to 10 pm
Deliveries and refuge pick-up between the hours of 8 am — 5 pm
Ms. Oberholtzer said that landscaping, parking, design guidelines in terms of materials, window, etc. will
be addressed with the overall BSD revisions to move the design standards to a handbook that will contain
softer language. She indicated that is already addressed with the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines so the
design standards will be reviewed during a later phase of work.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
June 14, 2017 — SPECIAL Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 7
Ms. Oberholtzer indicated she hopes the following are discussed this evening
1. Whether or not this proposal is in character with the existing context; and
2. Height and massing
The Chair invited public comment.
Jeff Leonhard, 55 S. Riverview Street, said he has resided there for almost four years and the area
proposed as Historic Core II is right by his house. He indicated he did not disagree with a lot of the
revisions but thought it was overkill for three empty lots. He said some limitations are good for these
empty spaces but he is concerned these revisions may restrict new development. He said there are so
many empty buildings up there now and even in the new construction at Bridge and High there are
empty spaces. He suggested that too many restrictions have already kept new businesses away and
developers are trying to avoid those restrictions by building new. There are buildings that are one storm
away from falling down or burning down, he said, and it has been that way since he has lived here.
Steve Rudy, 129 S. Riverview Street, thanked everyone for their hard work. He said he likes the shared
open space in this district, currently. He said he likes the revisions for permitting detached homes and the
maximum story height but would prefer absolute height. He said the following are not being protected:
topography, sight lines, or the openness. He said the Code looks great here but enforcement is a
different matter so he is not confident that the infill will be built as written here so he would like to see
the new development as far away from residential as possible.
Michael Carrol, 190 S. High Street, said he did not understand what was just presented. He said if the
intent is to get the community to say this is a good idea, then it needs to be presented in a way that
looks at the big picture instead of all these little details. He said he does not know what Dublin wants the
Historic District to look like or the traffic to be like; the historic buildings are not being protected. He
suggested the City provide incentives so people will keep up the old buildings. He said it is not fair to ask
this Board to say something cannot be demolished and then it just rots because it is not economically
feasible to fix it up. He affirmed the City put a lot of time and effort into these proposed revisions but he
is not certain it is a fix because he does not understand it.
Christina Wentz, 54 S. High Street, said she is a business owner in the district right now. She asked that
the parking minimum should be increased, especially for the areas farthest away from the public lots. She
stated she is a retail establishment and she needs those parallel spots on High Street for her staff and
drop in customers. With more businesses moving into the area, parking will just become worse.
Garrick Daft, 21 Indian Run Drive, said he does not understand the 7 am — 10 pm eating/drinking
establishment limitation. He suggested the limitation should be expanded to 6 am — 11 pm. He inquired
about uses because he did not understand what type of businesses are to be attracted. He said the area
is dead after the Village Tavern. He asked for clarification on some other revisions, too.
Jane Fox asked if his questions could be answered.
Ms. Oberholtzer said the difference between a Bed and Breakfast and eating/drinking establishments is
that the B&B is for overnight stays and the breakfasts are typically served to the guests staying there; the
B&B would not be open to the public unless an eating/drinking establishment was permitted in that
location. She said the reason behind the exclusion of entertainment, recreation, indoor exercise and
fitness use is the scale of those spaces, typically. She said potentially, the exercise and fitness could be
permitted as a conditional use just like the Historic Core District.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
June 14, 2017 — SPECIAL Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 7
Mr. Daft indicated that Harbor Yoga was an interesting place and a yoga studio would easily fit into a
3,500 -square -foot space to which Ms. Oberholtzer agreed. He said it is a beautiful area and is thankful
that all this planning and attention is being paid to this area to conserve the historic nature and to also
attract people.
The Chair asked for anyone else from the public that wanted to speak. [Hearing none.] He closed the
public portion and moved onto Board discussion. The Chair said he appreciated the comments and asked
the Board if they had any opinions on the uses or other revisions proposed. He asked if this proposal has
gone far enough.
David Rinaldi suggested that the uses be revisited as there could be more uses permitted, potentially that
would not be objectionable to this scale of buildings. Overall, he said he thought this addressed a lot of
the concerns that have been voiced and the scale of what is happening behind the Historic District. He
stated he liked the limitation of height on High Street, the footprint sizes, and more open space.
Jane Fox said there is some improvement but she would like to see that area go all the way up to SR 161
because there is a lot of area behind Donatos that is open for development and that abuts residential.
She said she liked that the floor minimum heights were decreased but the revision only brought them
down one foot — from 10 feet to 9 feet. She suggested we consider a height maximum clarified in footage
because the height of the building cannot always be controlled by the floor minimum heights. She liked
that Ms. Oberholtzer stated the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines still apply as they have to be an
overriding review standard more so than just the specifics of the Code because they state what the ARB
is supposed to be doing. That, she said, is that the Historic District has a sense of place and in order to
maintain that, the ARB has to look at the vernacular architecture but also at the intimate village scale and
the spaces between the buildings and that is where the linkages become a problem for her.
Ms. Fox noted the following have not been addressed at all
• Variations in land form;
• Topography;
• Patterns of streets, alleys, and sidewalks;
• Kind of paving materials permitted;
• Stone walls;
• Mature street trees; and
• Other environmental features that create the visually interesting community.
Ms. Fox said even though we are looking at the architectural massing details, we are not looking
holistically at what we are trying to preserve here. We could approve the proposal as it stands she said
but there will not be protection for historic character. She presented some photographs of examples to
demonstrate.
Ms. Fox asked the following question:
If you imagine your favorite block or place in the Historic District and it did not exist
tomorrow, would the present proposed Bridge Street District Zoning Code allow it to be
rebuilt again.
Ms. Fox said if we are going to change the Code, and there are particular aspects and characteristics of
this Historic District that are to be preserved. She added if this Code does not allow us to maintain,
preserve, protect, or recreate it, then we are missing the boat.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
June 14, 2017 — SPECIAL Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 7
Ms. Fox restated that she is concerned with the linkages, the lot coverage, and the density this type of
infill would bring. She indicated that a 50% lot coverage is not characteristic of the Historic District. She
said she is also concerned with allowing impervious material to reach a maximum of 85%. She presented
several photographs to demonstrate her point. She said the Historic District has a lot of open green
spaces with disconnected structures. She emphasized that the characteristics need to be made clearer
and considered. She said if areas are filled in with linkages, the sightlines will be decreased and if 85%
impervious is permitted there will be a lot of hardscape with no room for grass or mature trees. She
stressed that the linkages do not currently exist in the Historic District and if these linkages are permitted
to be chained together, the character of the District changes. She said there will no longer be as much
green space, mature trees, sightlines, or vistas that everyone finds so precious down there. She
emphasized this is important and needs to be addressed.
Ms. Oberholtzer restated that 18 feet is required between buildings and the connections/linkages are
meant to be 15 feet back and intended to create a little inset or courtyard and the building could only be
a single story. She suggested that maybe the Code be revised to state the 18- by 15 -foot courtyard
would have to have a certain percentage limitation of impervious material.
Mr. Musser inquired further about the linkages. Ms. Oberholtzer said from an economic perspective, an
1,800 -square -foot building could be allowed to expand for the businesses by connecting buildings. On a
Google map, she pointed out areas that do not have much room between buildings - it is not the
proposed 18 feet but rather more like 5 or 10 feet at the most. She said the point is to offset the
development in the rear of the lots. She said all of the cottages that exist up and down High Street are all
very close together with the green space in the back. She proposed that maybe the linkages could exist
along the High Street buildings but not in the rear buildings.
Shannon Stenberg recalled a discussion whereas parcels could not be combined in the Historic District
Core II. She asked if that could be added to these revisions. Ms. Oberholtzer explained that could be
done but by setting the maximum width of the building that was meant to be the solution.
Mr. Papsidero said Staff was responding to the concerns of the neighbors who did not want large scale
buildings so that is why these limitations are proposed.
Mr. Musser asked how the 50% lot coverage was determined by the consultant and if it was based on
research or other historic areas. Ms. Oberholtzer explained the illustrations in the proposed Code are the
same that were presented at the First Community Workshop, but simplified. She reported that during that
first workshop, she presented a typical lot with the coverage, (an appropriate) space between the
buildings which is about 18 feet, that included a series of cottage commercial buildings and then she
removed one of them in the rear to create a green space as another option. Throughout the whole
process she reported she kept requesting input from the residents and the consensus was as long as the
buildings that were in the rear had that scale, reduced in height, and matched the cottage feel, the green
space was not necessary.
Mr. Musser stated 50% lot coverage is okay. He said he likes the revised Code, the cottage concept, and
has no trouble with the linkages. He indicated he is concerned about the parking, landscaping, and
materials but understands that will be addressed at a later date.
Ms. Stenberg inquired about setbacks for the commercial buildings. Ms. Oberholtzer explained the zero
setback was to create the street wall and the rear has a setback because the lanes are so narrow. She
said there could be an issue when determining what fagade is the front and what is considered to be the
rear so that should be clarified.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
June 14, 2017 — SPECIAL Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 7
Ms. Stenberg inquired about floor height. Ms. Oberholtzer explained that 15 feet is typically desired for
the ground floor height of commercial businesses (such as chain restaurants) so 12 feet is fairly low but it
is more consistent with the existing buildings.
Mr. Rinaldi said it might be nice to explore the uses permitted to allow more flexibility in the Historic Core
II District. He noted that the 85% impervious number probably includes where some of the parking will
go; if we restrict that, then parking needs to be found elsewhere.
Ms. Fox indicated that if parking is an issue, then 50% lot coverage is too much and she would also like
to see a limitation on overall height of buildings because they are supposed to be subordinate to
contextually adjacent historic buildings.
Ms. Stenberg suggested that a definition of a half -story be included in the Code. She said a half story of
12 feet versus a half story of 9 feet is a big difference.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the overall height needs to be established. Ms. Fox said that even when there was a
case where the proposed building met the height requirement, the subordination to existing historic
buildings did not occur. She added she does not want to see the historic building become the least
important building.
The Chair concluded there have been some diverse comments made this evening.
Mr. Musser responded to the lot coverage. He said if economic development is desired, there needs to be
a certain amount of lot coverage, otherwise it is not economically feasible. He indicated there is a fine
line between preserving the Historic District and inviting new economic development.
Ms. Fox agreed but said even though we can see incremental improvements on these lots it has to be
restricted in some ways because she does not want to see economic development placed in front of
preserving a Historic District. This is a big city she emphasized and there are plenty of other places to
gain taxpayer money but once the Historic District is destroyed by insensitive infill, then the Historic
District is gone. She said 10% of historic structures have now been eliminated.
Mr. Musser said he did not think this Code would promote insensitive infill.
Ms. Fox repeated she wanted to see less density on the lots.
The Chair confirmed that the consultant received all the public input desired and research completed.
Mr. Papsidero said this was a very good conversation and all the comments will be evaluated. He said the
intent is to come back to the Board in July with a revised proposal to start the adoption process. He said
the revised Code will be posted online for the public beforehand. Notices, he said, will be sent to the
same neighbors as were invited this evening.
Ms. Burchett asked the audience if they had any additional comments to please put them on the
comment cards and they will be collected. She said if there are further comments, please feel free to
contact Planning Staff and they will forward them to Ms. Oberholtzer as well.
The Chair adjourned the meeting at 8:19 pm.
As approved by the Architectural Review Board on July 26, 2017
City of
Dublin
OHIO, USA
August 25, 2017
Historic Dublin Neighborhood Association (HDNA)
c/o Steven Rudy
129 S Riverview Street
Dublin, OH 43017
Denise Franz King
170 S Riverview Street
Dublin, OH 43017
RE: 7/26/17 ARB & 8/10/17 PZC Letters
Dear HDNA Members:
Thank you for your letters dated July 26 and August 10, 2017, regarding the proposed
Historic Dublin code amendment and Historic Dublin zoning map amendment. As directed by
City Council, these proposals are consistent with their goals to ensure new development is
in keeping with the character of the southern portion of the district, which is predominantly
residential.
Furthermore, thank you for your participation in this year-long process that included two
public workshops, an Architectural Review Board (ARB) work session, a public open house,
and ARB special meeting prior to the formal review and adoption process with ARB,
Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), and City Council.
Your suggested modifications to the proposed code amendment and rezoning were based
on the June draft of the proposal. It's important to note that some of your suggestions were
incorporated in the proposal that was revised on July 10 and July 31, 2017 for ARB and
PZC's review, respectively.
Below, please find a staff response to each of your suggested modifications:
1) Building Height. We have not modified the proposal to limit the size and scale of
the Historic Cottage Commercial building type, both in terms of number of stories
and overall height. The maximum height had been reduced to 2 stories with a
maximum linear height of 24 feet (it's important to clarify that throughout the code
building height is measured as the midpoint between the eave and peak of a roof).
Within 50 feet of a rear lot line, or in other words close to single family residential
lots, Historic Cottage Commercial buildings are proposed to be limited to a
maximum 1.5 stories with a maximum linear height of 18 feet (this is a significant
reduction compared to the current code provisions).
PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
August 25, 2017
re: 7/26/17 ARB & 8/10/17 PZC Letters
2) Interior Floor Space on the Second Floor. A successful form -based code allows
for flexibility of the interior layout and design of a building, while promoting a
desired character through the application of zoning standards to the site and
building exterior. We believe your proposal to reduce the amount of usable space on
the second floor is too restrictive, especially when combined with your proposal to
further reduce building height.
3) Buildings Adjacent to Alleys. Under the code, the alleys in the district are not
considered as appropriate for primary street frontage. Along with the proposed 1.5 -
story building height restriction along alleys, staff has requested CodaMetrics to
consider an appropriate increase in the minimum rear yard setback for buildings and
parking (the five-foot setback in the code has been in place since its adoption in
2012).
Regarding your comment to prohibit variances of the lot coverage requirement, the
right to requesting any variance (waivers in the case of the BSD code) is legally
guaranteed to all property owners and cannot be eliminated.
4) Parking. As a clarification, the code identifies parking and loading requirements in
§153.065(6) based on land use, which applies to all of the Historic District. No
changes are proposed to the parking standard with this code amendment. New
development is required to meet parking requirements based on the combination of
uses proposed. The Building Type and Use Table regulate where and what type of
parking is permitted, respectively. In addition, the July 31st revision included updates
to the Use Table deleting Parking Structures as permitted or conditional, primary or
accessory uses in the BSD — Historic South District (this was a typographical error).
Based on input from the public open house and ARB special meeting, the maximum
building coverage remains at 50 percent, but maximum impervious area has been
reduced to 65 percent to ensure the opportunity for greenspace and vistas at the
rear of lots, as requested by the neighborhood.
The axonometric renderings used to illustrate the various zoning standards are being
simplified to better communicate the intent of the regulations. In addition, to clarify
any confusion regarding the applicability of parking requirements, Staff has asked
the consultant to prepare new illustrations that depict development types (e.g. retail,
office, residential) as they would meet lot coverage, setback, open space, and
parking requirements.
5) Open Space. To clarify, open space is a required site development standard as
provided for in §153.064, based on land use. No changes are proposed to the open
space standard with this code amendment. Please refer to item 4 regarding how the
Building Type standards are addressing open space and vistas unique to the BSD —
Historic South District.
August 25, 2017
re: 7/26/17 ARB & 8/10/17 PZC Letters
6) Expanding the Geography of the Proposed Rezoning. The geography of this
proposal is consistent with the direction provided by City Council. In addition,
expansion of such boundaries would render existing development non -conforming,
would introduce inappropriately scaled development standards to this key corridor,
the result of which could be a negative impact on property values, and it would raise
questions regarding the procedural rights of those specific property owners, given
the point we are at in the rezoning process. At this time, staff does not support
modifying the boundaries of the new district.
7) Civic Building. The Civic Building has been permitted in every BSD District since
the code was adopted. But, staff concurs with your concern that the Civic Buildings
could be out of scale and character of the sub -district. We will be modifying the
proposal to eliminate the Civic Building Type from the permitted building types in
Table 153.062-A.
8) Historic Dublin Guidelines. No changes to the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines
are proposed with this amendment. The ARB will continue to have the purview to
review applications within the District under the BSD Code and Historic Dublin
Design Guidelines as they deem appropriate.
9) Limiting the Ability to Combine Tax Parcels. Lot combinations and lot splits are
governed by the City of Dublin's Subdivision Regulations — Chapter 152 of the
codified ordinances, as provided for in the Ohio Revised Code. Staff does not support
the modification that you request to prevent owners from combining adjacent
parcels. This request raises questions regarding the taking of property rights. The
Law Director's Office is researching the issue and will be prepared to address Council
on the matter.
Again, thank you for your continued interest in the future of Historic Dublin. We look
forward to working with all stakeholders in the district as this proposal continues through to
adoption.
Sincerely,
Vincent A. Papsidero, FAICP
Director of Planning
C. Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager
Donna Goss, Director of Development
Terry Foegler, Director of Strategic Initiatives
Historic Dublin Neighborhood Association
August 10, 2017
Planning & Zoning Commission Members
City of Dublin Planning Staff
City Hall, Dublin Ohio 43017
Dear Commission Members and Staff:
The Historic Dublin Neighborhood Association (HDNA) would like to thank City Council and Staff for
heading our calls for a distinct set of rules to govern the Historic District South of SR 161, known as
Historic District Core II/ or Bridge Street South. Without this effort, applying the BSD code to the
Historic District would continue the slowly erasure the historic structures and scale from the Historic
District. Preserving the Historic District with its charming architecture, cottage scale, lawns and views as
a community asset is a goal we trust we all share.
Members of the HDNA participated in large numbers in the two public input sessions held on the creation
and content proposed HDC II or Bridge Street South code in October and December of 2016 and the ARB
meetings in March and July. Attending such public input sessions is a great way to measure the pulse of
the people you represent. Reflecting some of that input the staff made a number of amendments to value
to area's historic cottage scale development when considering the density and scale of infill development
and restorations. But the following concerns, which we have raised, still need to be addressed. We ask
that you amend the HDC II Code as shown in italics below:
1. The code as presented emphasizes historic cottage style architecture which is appropriate for the
area included in the new HDC Il map, but an amendment is needed to limit overall building
height in feet to 22 feet. It cannot just refer to the number of stories. We have already seen
applications for faux 1.5 story buildings that exceed the height of two story historic buildings.
Height limits should reflect actual historic buildings in the HD Core IU Bridge Street South area,
not the new builds on the corners of Bridge and High. Amendment: Under Ground Story, delete
"II " feet and insert "10 "; under All other Stories, floor to floor heights, delete "II " feet and
insert "10 ". Add "Maximum height of'eaveline: 13 feet. " Under 5 Roof Types add "Gabled roof
with roofpitch no less that 8112."
2. The code refers to 1.5 story buildings. The second story of these buildings should be limited in
floor space to on half the floor space of the first floor, so that it is what it says it is_ Amendment
On page 12 tinder Historic Cottage Commercial, (b) Height, Overall Height, delete "2 " stories
and insert 1.5 with the second, floor space half the ground floor area ".
3. It is critical that new buildings not front on any alleys (as shown on the bottom of page 4
"Illustration of the scale of development in the code revisions for the rear of Historic Mixed Use
and Historic Cottage Commercial Building Types" and replete in the illustrations on page 13).
Alleys are alleys per the BSD Zoning Code Sec 153.061 (d) and 153.060. Further, alleys and
service streets shall not be considered street frontage and shall not be subject to street frontage
requirements described in 153.059 — 153.065. They are one car wide and should not be re -
categorized as primary streets. The term alley is recognized the Bridge Street District Code and
should be respected. The neighbors do not want new construction across the alley from their
living areas. This issue is linked to #4 below. Amendment: On page 12, Under Historic Cottage
Commercial, 1) Building Siting, Non -Principal Frontage Street Property Line Coverage, delete
"60% "and inset "50%" maximum with no variance.
4. It is critical that density and parking be recognized as the linked problem they are. For example,
Biddies is empty but every day the lot behind it is nearly full. If that space or others like it are
built upon there will be no place for the new tenants or customers or the employees and visitors
now using the space to park. The illustration on the bottom of pages 4 and 13 cited above shows
the entire block covered with buildings. The illustrations need to be revised to allow required
space for parking. The reality is that no one hurrying to a meeting south of SR 161 will travel
north and park in the sparkling new garage (it is assumed here that the July 26, 2017 ARB request
to prohibit parking structures south of SR 161 has been incorporated into the draft Code; if not,
then such an amendment is requested), cross a major intersection and walk several blocks and
then apologize for their tardiness. Parking is linked to density. Every open lot cannot be built out
as shown on pages 4 and 13. Adequate parking must be required on site because the street
parking is already in use. The illustrations in the code must reflect this or it will mislead potential
investors and back city decision -makers into a corner in the future. Amendment: On page 12
under Historic Cottage Commercial, Building Siting, 2. Buildable Area, Rear Yard Setback,
delete "5 feet" and insert "25 feet". Next line, delete "Minimum Lot Width /Maximum Lot
Width" and insert "100 feet, parcels may not be combined." Next line, Max Building Coverage,
delete "50%" and insert "40% with maximum impervious and semi pervious coverage of 75%".
Under 3 Parking Location, Loading & Access, Parking Location add "On-site parking sufficient
for tenants and customers is required. "
5. Part of the appeal of the HD is the village -like appearance. Many of the HD buildings were
residences. They have lawns, gardens, large trees, and views to other properties. There is a
pastoral aspect that has very real appeal and draws people in and makes them want to stay. If
someone wants dense urban, that is available to the north and east but dense does not belong
south of Bridge Street. Amendments responsive to this concern shown in ##4 above.
6. The HD Core IP HD South map should include the SE comer of Bridge and High down to Spring
Hill Alley in the HD Core II/HD South area. Like Mill Lane, the homeowners east of Blacksmith
Alley should have this protection. The goal for leaving out this block of historic buildings is
unclear. They should be included. Amendment; Include the historic block south of Bridge Street,
East of High Street, North of Spring Hill Alley and West of Blaelawnith Alley in the Historic Core
Hl Bridge Street South code.
7. A minor point: the chart of Permitted Building Types on Page 10 shows Civic Buildings (defined
as elementary, middle and high schools or a library as being permitted. This must be an error as
the library has been sited and school sites re larger than the entire district. Amendment, "On Page
10 under Civic Building, remove the dot. "
8. It is also suggested that the "Old Dublin Design Guidelines' be kept intact and in force. Any
I
ncorporation of principles from the National Trust for Historic Preservadon should strongthen
protection of scale and character rather than alter the current intent of the Guidelines.
9. The proposed Code, plus the amendments identified above would be moot or less affective in
achieving the desired result if historic lots were able to be combined. Amendment: Add
prohibition oJoombbung lois m the appropriate section
Thank you. Wc would be happy to answer any questions you may have
Sioc/e/,rJely,
Cc: Members of Dublin City Council
Nichole N. Martin
To: Vince A. Papsidero
Subject: RE: Historic Core II draft -- feedback
From: Vince A. Papsidero
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 12:41 PM
To: srudylCcDearthlink.net
Cc: Amy Salay <ASalayC@dublin.oh.us>; Chris Amorose Groomes <cagroomesC@dublin.oh.us>; dlhahm83C@yahoo.com;
David & Donna Hahm <dehahm83@yahoo.com>; denisefranzkingC@yahoo.com; kmarita@gmail.com;
delars@earthlink.net; sterling@sterlingcommunications.net ; lulesdublin@aol.com: Ibrudy@earthlink. net:
mark@soultheater.com: iudyC@iudycontos.com; brion.ionesC@yahoo.com; kschmittC@Iincolnconstruction.com;
miszuter@gmail.com; ericpickering@sbcglobal.net; kathleenbryanlC@gmail.com; WEaster843@aol.com;
maks4885@aol.com; Jennifer Rauch (irauchC@dublin.oh.us) <irauchC@dublin.oh.us>; Lori Burchett
(lburchettC@dublin.oh.us) <IburchettC@dublin.oh.us>; dgossC@dublin.oh.us; Dana L. McDaniel
<dmcdanielC@dublin.oh.us>; Terry D. Foegler <TFoeglerC@dublin.oh.us>
Subject: RE: Historic Core II draft -- feedback
Steve: Thank you for the email. We appreciate the ongoing interest by the community in the project to update the
zoning code for the Historic District, south of Bridge Street. Staff and the consultant have been working together to draft
a proposal, building upon the comments received at our public meetings. We're more than happy to take this additional
input into account. It is our expectation that a draft proposal will be presented to the ARB in June at a special meeting.
Public notice will be provided and the recommendations will be posted on the web. Also, if the community holds
additional meetings in the future to discuss this project, our staff is more than happy to attend as a resource. Take care.
Vince
Vince Papsidero, FAICP
Planning Director, City of Dublin
From: srudylC@earthlink.net [mailto:srudy1C@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 11:04 AM
To: Vince A. Papsidero <VPapsidero@dublin.oh.us>
Cc: Amy Salay <ASalayC@dublin.oh.us>; Chris Amorose Groomes <cagroomesC@dublin.oh.us>; dlhahm83C@yahoo.com;
David & Donna Hahm <dehahm83@yahoo.com>; denisefranzkingC@yahoo.com; kmarita@gmail.com;
delars@earthlink.net; sterling@sterlingcommunications.net ; lulesdublin@aol.com: Ibrudy@earthlink. net:
mark@soultheater.com: iudyC@iudycontos.com; brion.ionesC@yahoo.com; kschmittC@Iincolnconstruction.com;
miszuterC@gmail.com; ericpickeringC@sbcglobal.net; kathleenbryanlC@gmail.com; WEaster843@aol.com;
maks4885@aol.com
Subject: Historic Core II draft -- feedback
Vince (and Council) -
After meeting with residents about 6 weeks ago, I have collated the suggestions on how to guide or limit infill
development within the historic district in a way that minimizes the impact on the historic district scale and character (if
I missed something, I will leave it to those copied here to amend this list). We submit these ideas knowing that some
City staff do not care to place any serious limits on such infill development, but hoping that greed and envy do not
prevail in our successful and unique neighborhood.
• Retain the laws that empanel and empower the ARB, and do not alter the "Old Dublin Design
Guidelines". Though being ignored by the City and ARB of late (e.g., Biddies infill, CML 2, etc.), the letter and
spirit of those remain the best defense against destruction of the historic district.
• No other philosophy, including that of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, should replace that of the
ARB/Guidelines. Doing so would essentially liquidate the historic district, to the benefit of outside developers
and the permanent loss of the district.
On the Core II draft that we reviewed, the following were suggested by participants on the roundtable:
• Boundaries—
The code should be applied anywhere adjacent to residential property, including all areas south of
Bridge St. No resident should have to suffer structures like the approved "Biddies" extension looming
over their yards and houses.
• Buildingelevation—
o Building story limits should be in terms of occupiable levels, and be limited to two, in keeping with the
"Guidelines".
o Floor -to -floor height should be limited to no more than the characteristic structures; i.e., no higher than
characteristic structure (Biddies; 109 S High; 37 S Riverview; 83 S High; Donatos; Hahm residence; 109 S
Riverview).
o Relative height— Buildings should be compared with adjacent historic structures, not with recent infill,
especially as that infill was not in conformance with existing directives for the ARB.
• Building location —
o Setback -- All parking or green space should be behind (not beside) infill (i.e., on rear lane) -- at least 1/3
of lot. This will allow some separation between the over -large infill (esp. East of High St.). (This rule
alone would point to the second Biddies infill proposal the best of those presented to the ARB.) Rear of
lot is parking or green space, since height not likely to be controlled, given excessive height of "Bri-Hi",
"Biddies" and "CML2" projects, and proposals for floor -to -floor and overall height.
• Building separation —
• Buildings should not be linked. Sight lines (space) is an important part of the historic district.
o Should be part of "descriptive dialog". Start with HD "Guidelines".
Percentage of lot coverage: limit to 50% in Historic Core II (for instance, "Biddies" proposal #2 to ARB
left a large buffer to the rear towards residential property). This enforces spacing between commercial
and residential uses and/or between adjacent buildings.
We hope that the City begins to take seriously its responsibility to defend neighborhoods rather than to strip them of
protection and facilitate their takeover by outsiders. We hope the City stands on existing law that protects its small
historic district and stands against radical change.
Sincerely,
-Steve
p.s.- All, please pardon the timing of these comments. I have had business travel for 10 straight weeks.
Steve Rudy
129 S. Riverview St.
Dublin, OH 43017
srudylC@earthlink.net