Ordinance 04-21
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager
Date: February 16, 2021
Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II
Re: Ord. 04-21
A rezoning of 16 parcels from Bridge Street District – Public (BSD-P) to Historic
Public (HP), 5 parcels from Bridge Street District – Historic Transition
Neighborhood (BSD-HTN) to Historic Public (HP), 51 parcels from Bridge Street
District – Historic Core (BSD-HC) to Historic Core (HC), 24 parcels from Bridge
Street District – Historic South (BSD-HS) to Historic South (HS), 57 parcels
from Bridge Street District – Historic Residential (BSD-HR) to Historic Residential
(HR), and 6 parcels from Bridge Street District – Historic Core (BSD-HC) to
Historic Residential (HR). (Case# 20-188Z)
Summary
Ordinance 04-21 is a request for review and approval of a rezoning of properties within the
Historic District to align with the updated Zoning Districts within the proposed amendments to
the City of Dublin Zoning Code requirements addressing the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
Updates
No modifications to Ordinance 04-21 were requested by City Council at the first reading. The
proposal remains consistent with the February 8, 2021 City Council review.
Background
On June 20, 2018, City Council held a work session to discuss updates to the Bridge Street
Code and the Historic District. As part of this, City Council directed Planning to remove the
Historic District from the Bridge Street District, make modifications to the existing zoning
districts and the Architectural Review District (ARB) boundary, and ensure this work coincides
with the update to the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines (HDDG). The proposing amendments
implement this direction and include the following overall changes:
HD Rezoning
• Properties remaining within the Historic District boundary and previously zoned as a Bridge
Street District (BSD) zoning will be removed from the BSD and rezoned into new Historic
Zoning Districts: HR, Historic Residential, HC, Historic Core, HS, Historic South, and HP,
Historic Public.
• The parcels that contain the development of Bridge Park West Buildings Z1 and Z2, West
Plaza, CML Dublin Branch and Downtown Dublin Parking were proposed to be rezoned from
Bridge Street District - Historic Transition Neighborhood (BSD-HTN) to Bridge Street District
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo
Memo re. Ord. 04-21 – Historic District Rezoning
February 16, 2021
Page 2 of 3
- Scioto River Neighborhood (BSD-SRN). During the ARB review, the members
recommended these properties retain the Historic Transition Neighborhood District zoning
classification, but any future modifications be under the purview of the Planning and Zoning
Commission (PZC). The Commission supported the modification made by the ARB.
• The six residential parcels, along N. Riverview Street, were proposed to be rezoned from
Bridge Street District - Historic Core (BSD-HC) to Historic Core (HC). During the ARB review,
the members recommended these properties be rezoned to Historic Residential (HR) to
retain the neighborhood character. The Commission supported the modification made by
the ARB.
• The Dublin City Schools property, Dublin Cemetery, Indian Run greenway, Indian Run
Cemetery, Riverside Crossing Park West, Dublin Spring Park, and the Karrer Barn property
are proposed to be included in a new HD-Public district.
• An updated zoning map has been created for review and an area rezoning of the properties
is included with the Zoning Code amendment, which align with the new zoning districts.
Case History
The draft Code, Rezoning, and Guideline documents are the result of a multi-year stakeholder
committee, public engagement, and Board and Commission review process. In 2018, the
Historic Dublin Stakeholder Committee met four times (June 14, July 12, August 2, and August
30, 2018) to identify opportunities for revisions to the Historic District Zoning Code and
Guidelines. Upon completion of the stakeholder’s work, drafts of the Code and Guidelines were
reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on July 10, July 24, November 20, 2019, and June
17, July 29, and November 18, 2020. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the
documents and provided comments on July 11, 2019 and September 5, 2019, and January 7,
2021.
In addition to these reviews by the ARB and PZC, staff held two public meeting at the Dublin
Community Church on October 9, 2018 and August 15, 2019, as well as, office hours for two
hours each Wednesday in August 2019 (August 7, 14, 21 and 28) to provide an additional
method of communication and input for the public.
Recommendation of the Architectural Review Board
At their November 18, 2020 meeting, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed and
recommended approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) for the proposed Historic
District Rezoning. The proposed rezoning reflects the final recommendation of the Board at that
meeting.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
At the January 7, 2021 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and
recommended approval to City Council of the proposed amendments. Planning and Zoning
Commission supported the modification made by the Architectural Review Board including
modifying the western boundary, the retention of the Historic Transition Neighborhood zoning,
and the change to the proposed zoning of the N. Riverview properties to residential.
Memo re. Ord. 04-21 – Historic District Rezoning
February 16, 2021
Page 3 of 3
City Council Recommendation
Recommendation of approval of Ordinance 04-21 at the second reading/public hearing on
February 22, 2021.
Longshore StIndian Run Dr
UV33
UV257
UV745
UV257
0 250125Feet F
Proposed Historic Dublin Zoning Map
Zoning Districts
HD-HR
HD-HS
HD-HC
HD-P
R-2
W B r i d g e S t r e e tN High StreetS High Street
Proposed Rezoning Parcel List
ARB and PZC: Recommendation of approval with conditions to City Council
Bridge Street District – Public (BSD-P) to Historic Public (HP)
273000001, 273010936, 273000057, 273000044, 273000025, 273000122, 273000113,
273000096, 273000124, 273000137, 273011235, 273000170, 273000077, 273005566,
273003513, 273000143
Bridge Street District – Historic Transition Neighborhood (BSD-HTN) to Historic Public (HP)
273005564, 273005565, 273012538, 273012539, 273000049
Bridge Street District – Historic Core (BSD-HC) to Historic Core (HC)
273000027, 273000028, 273004081, 273004080, 273012537, 273000003, 273000100,
273000099, 273000071, 273000016, 273000053, 273000069, 273000177, 273000138,
273000029, 273000050, 273000054, 273000112, 273000002, 273012261, 273012260,
273000023, 273000036, 273000084, 273003680, 273000310, 273000018, 273012160,
HOA380061, HOA379897, 273000088, 273012432, 273012158, 273012431, 273000022,
273009979, 273000037, 273000062, 273012387, 273012386, HOA380161, 273012388,
273012389, 273000111, 273000072, 273000089, 273000008, 273000056, 273000102,
273000040, 273000051
Bridge Street District – Historic South (BSD-HS) to Historic South (HS)
273000094, 273000093, 273000092, 273000087, 273000097, 273000259, 273000014,
273000074, 273000061, 273000086, 273000052, 273000035, 273000007, 273000005,
273000104, 273000070, 273000034, 273000075, 273002075, 273000043, 273000063,
273000085, 273000066, 273001978
Bridge Street District – Historic Residential (BSD-HR) to Historic Residential (HR)
273000047, 273000079, 273000080, 273000048, 273000045, 273000039, 273003410,
273000315, 273000262, 273001684, 273000033, 273000286, 273000060, 273000059,
273000091, 273000090, 273012745, 273012746, 273000139, 273000118, 273000078,
273000067, 273000141, 273009732, 273000144, 273009733, 273000081, 273009734,
273012300, 273012301, 273011175, 273000324, 273000101, 273000031, 273000415,
273000013, 273000256, 273000019, 273000083, 273000046, 273000106, 273000015,
273000135, 273000135, 273000131, 273000129, 273000127, 273000125, 273000136,
273000134, 273000132, 273000130, 273000128, 273000126, 273000123, 273000121,
273000109
Bridge Street District – Historic Core (BSD-HC) to Historic Residential (HR)
273000032, 273000042, 273000068, 273000073, 273000098, 273000107
Bridge Street District – Historic Transition Neighborhood (BSD-HTN) to remain Bridge Street
District – Historic Transition Neighborhood (BSD-HTN)
273013000, 273012999, 273012984, 273012983, 273012725, 273013025, 273012725,
273012724, 273012982
T u l l e r R i d g e D r
N o r t h S t B a n k e r D rP in n e y h il l L nFra
nkl
i
n StMi
l
l
LnJ o h n W r i g h t L n S Blacksmith LnDarby StN Riv
ervie
w St
Karrer Pl
S h o r t S t
Waterford Dr
R o c k C r e s s P k w y
C l o v e r C t Longshore StOld Spring Ln St
onefence LnS Ri
vervi
ew StMonterey DrRivervie
w St
Indian Run Dr
H i g h S c h o o l R d
Dublin RdW B r i d g e S t
S High StN High StE B r i d g e S t UV33 UV161
UV33
UV257
UV33
UV745
UV257
UV33
UV257
0 250125Feet F
Existing Historic Dublin Zoning Map
Zoning Districts
BSD-HTN
BSD-P
R-2
BSD-HR
BSD-HC
BSD-HS
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
BOARD ORDER
Architectural Review Board
Wednesday, January 7, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting:
8. Historic District Rezoning
20-188Z Zoning Review
Proposal: Area rezoning from the Bridge Street District (BSD) to Historic District (HD)
designations in conjunction with the Architectural Review Board Zoning Code
Updates.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for Zoning under the
provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.172 and 153.234.
Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Planning Contacts: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II
Contact Information: 614.410.4690, jrauch@dublin.oh.us
614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/arb/20-188
MOTION: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Fishman seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the
Administrative Request for area rezoning designation from the Bridge Street District (BSD) to
the Historic District (HD), as clarified.
VOTE: 7 – 0
RESULT: The area Rezoning designation from the Bridge Street District to the Historic District was
recommended for approval and forwarded to City Council.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Kristina Kennedy Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2020
Page 12 of 16
[Motion carried 7-0.]
Ms. Kennedy moved, Mr. Grimes seconded approval of the Master Sign Plan with the following conditions:
1) The applicant update the plans to provide the dimensions of the monument structure (ground sign),
subject to Planning approval, prior to submitting for permanent sign permits through Building
Standards.
2) The applicant ensure that any additional directional or ATM signs meet Code.
3) The applicant utilize a metal or similarly durable and high-quality material for fabrication and
construction of the ground sign, subject to Planning staff approval.
Vote: Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes;
Mr. Fishman, yes.
[Motion carried 7-0.]
Ms. Call clarified that the applicant has requested that a large-scale mockup not be a condition for approval.
Mr. Grimes moved, Ms. Kennedy seconded approval of the Final Development Plan with no conditions.
Vote: Ms. Fox, no; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Call, no; Mr. Fishman, no; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Supelak, no; Mr.
Grimes, yes.
[Motion failed 3-4.]
7. Architectural Review Board Zoning Code Update, 19-007ADMC, Administrative Request –
Code Amendment
A request for an amendment to the Zoning Code sections including definitions, architectural review, Bridge
Street District districts, and appendixes F & G to address the Historic Dublin Boundary and Architectural Review
Board development standards and procedures.
8. Historic District Rezoning, 20-188Z, Zoning Review
A request for area rezoning from the Bridge Street District (BSD) to Historic District (HD) designations in
conjunction with the Architectural Review Board Zoning Code amendments.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Rauch stated that Greg Dale, consultant, McBride Dale Clarion, and Kathleen Bryan, Architectural Review
Board chair, are present to assist in the presentation and answer questions. In 2018, Council directed staff to
look at the Historic District and remove it from the Bridge Street District. The intent was to also draft
development standards, parameters and guidelines that would preserve the character of the Historic District.
It was believed that having the Historic District included in the greater Bridge Street District was eroding the
Historic District, and development was not consistent with the desired character and context. That effort
included amending the boundaries to remove the Library, Parking Garage and the Bridge Park West Z1 and
Z2 Buildings and the plaza between them from the Historic District. The development within those areas is
not consistent with the character and context of the Historic District. Changing the Districts also required
amending the Zoning Code to ensure the Code requirements were consistent. The supplemental Guideline
documents are nearing completion, and those will be provided for the Commission’s consideration at an
upcoming meeting. The draft Code, Rezoning, and Guideline documents are the result of a multi-year
stakeholder committee, public engagement, and Board and Commission review process. The Architectural
Review Board (ARB) reviewed and recommended approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) for
the proposed Historic District Zoning Code amendments and the rezoning at their November 18, 2020 meeting.
The rezoning component is primarily administrative, essentially changing the nomenclature of the Districts.
Ms. Rauch summarized the rezoning and boundary changes, as follow:
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2020
Page 13 of 16
Historic District Rezoning
• Properties remaining within the Historic District boundary and previously zoned as a Bridge Street District
zoning will be rezoned into new Historic Zoning Districts: HR, Historic Residential, HC, Historic Core, HS,
Historic South, and HP, Historic Public.
• The parcels that contain the development of Bridge Park West Buildings Z1 and Z2, West Plaza, CML
Dublin Branch and Downtown Dublin Parking were proposed to be rezoned from Bridge Street District -
Historic Transition Neighborhood (BSD-HTN) to Bridge Street District - Scioto River Neighborhood (BSD-
SRN). The ARB members recommended these properties retain the Historic Transition Neighborhood
District zoning classification, and any future modifications be under the purview of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
• The six residential parcels, along N. Riverview Street, were proposed to be rezoned from Bridge Street
District - Historic Core (BSD-HC) to Historic District – Historic Core (HD-HC). The ARB recommended these
properties be rezoned to Historic District – Historic Residential (HD-HR) to retain the neighborhood
character.
• The Dublin City Schools property, Dublin Cemetery, Indian Run greenway, Indian Run Cemetery, Riverside
Crossing Park West, Dublin Spring Park, and the Karrer Barn property are proposed to be included in a
new HD-Public District.
• An updated zoning map has been created for review, and an area rezoning of the properties is included
with the Zoning Code amendment, which aligns with the new zoning districts.
Historic District Boundary Changes & Outlying Properties Updates
• The parcels that contain the development of Bridge Park West Buildings Z1 and Z2, West Plaza, CML
Dublin Branch and the Downtown Dublin Parking Garage have been removed from the Historic District,
but remain within the Bridge Street District. As part of their review, some members of the Architectural
Review Board expressed concern about the boundary change and the removal of these properties from
the Historic District. Based on Council’s direction the proposed boundary changes remain in the draft
map.
• The eastern boundary of the Historic District has been moved to the west side of the Scioto River, with
the exception of the Scioto River Bridge, which remains under the Architectural Review Board’s purview.
• Appendix F in the proposed Code has been updated to reflect the proposed boundary changes.
• City-owned historic properties have been added to Appendix G, the list of outlying historic properties.
Architectural Review Board Zoning Code Update
Greg Dale, Consultant, McBride Dale Clarion, 5721 Dragon Way #300, Cincinnati, OH 45227, stated that Ms.
Bryan, ARB Chair, is also present for this discussion. The ARB review process included six meetings and a
page-by-page review of the proposed amendments, which resulted in a number of proposed changes. ARB
has been equally involved in a thorough review of the Historic District Design Guidelines, which are being
finalized for an anticipated recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Essentially, the
Guidelines provide policy guidance for the ARB in applying the Code. The proposed HD Zoning Code changes
address: Permitted Uses; Use Specific Standards; Site Standards (calibrating the standards to address
residential compatibility); Development Standards (most of which were carried over from the current
regulations; Design Standards; Procedures; Demolition regulations; and Definitions. The draft Code
documents reflect the ARB’s final recommendations.
Ms. Bryan, ARB Chair, stated that the ARB invested a significant amount of time in their review, and they
have presented a clean final draft for the Commission’s consideration and recommendation.
Public Comments
Kathleen Bryan, 84 S. Riverview Street, Dublin Ohio 43017:
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2020
Page 14 of 16
“Thank you for taking the time to consider the changes recommended by the Architectural Review Board to
the Code for Dublin. Great time and care has been given to the changes before you tonight. The ARB held
several meetings throughout the past year, inviting and encouraging public input. We feel the changes
recommended will help preserve and protect Historic Dublin while providing opportunities for home owners
to upgrade and enhance their properties. Sincerely, Kathleen Bryan, Chair “
Commission Questions/Discussion
Ms. Call stated that the Commission appreciates the time and effort spent in this process. The public
comment was demonstrative of the amount of attention to detail and public engagement that went into this
effort.
Mr. Grimes requested clarification of the dividing line that separates the school property.
Ms. Rauch responded that the line through the middle of the property reflects the current boundary, which
aligns with the historic 1919 school building. Staff has discussed with Dublin Schools the possibility of moving
the boundary further west. The School’s desire was to keep it in the same location; therefore, the proposal
adheres to the School’s request to keep it as it currently exists, maintaining the 1919 Building under ARB’s
purview.
Mr. Grimes stated that previously, the Commission discussed the issue of overbuilding on an existing lot. Has
that issue been addressed in this draft?
Ms. Rauch responded that there was a significant amount of study and in-depth discussion among staff on
this topic. This draft looks at overall lot coverage, appropriate setbacks, and maximum building coverage. The
intent is that a proposed building may not cover a lot end-to-end. Their review considered and attempted to
balance the needs of the historic properties and the need to permit development.
Mr. Dale noted that topic probably received more discussion than any others.
Ms. Bryan noted that staff members actually went out and measured houses on different streets to define the
peak height. The desire is to preserve the historic quality in the District. For those who want to build bigger,
there are many other places in which to do this; Historic Dublin may not be one of those.
Ms. Fox stated that one of the issues was that the Code did not address the authority of the ARB in the event
of a conflict with BZA. When such conflict occurs, ARB should have the authority to make the final decision
within the Historic District. Does this amendment provide the Board with that authority?
Mr. Dale responded that he believes it does. There is now a balance between the Code, the Design Guidelines
and discretion by the Board.
Ms. Rauch stated that this concern was discussed and was addressed in a clear manner.
Ms. Fox stated that the intent is not to make the process more difficult but more clear. In regard to the
boundaries, she does not believe the Library, Buildings Z1 and Z2, and the Downtown Parking Garage should
be under the Commission’s review. They should be under the ARB’s review as a Transition District. If we want
ARB to control the Historic District, ARB should be able to control the heart of it. In addition, she believes the
entire School site should be included in the Historic District. The Indian Run Ravine runs along the entire
perimeter of the School site. It is a cultural amenity that should be protected. She believes the entire ravine
should be included in the Historic District. In regard to the properties on N. Riverview, which the City recently
purchased, its intent was to preserve those properties as residential to the extent possible. However, it may
not be possible with every property. One or two at the end may need to be developed commercially.
Ms. Bryan stated that ARB would like to see those preserved as residential. We are quickly losing our Historic
footprint. We need to keep that in mind with the decisions that are being made.
Ms. Fox stated that perhaps the live-work option could be applicable here.
Ms. Bryan responded that would be historically accurate; so the ARB would have no objection.
Ms. Call requested clarification regarding the maximum building footprint within the Historic South District.
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2020
Page 15 of 16
Ms. Rauch stated that under Historic Residential, live-work is not a Permitted Use. However, that issue can be
discussed and a recommendation could be considered. In regard to the maximum building footprint in the HS
District, that limitation was taken from the current Bridge Street District Building Type requirements. At the
southern end of the District, Historic South transitions to Residential. It is beneficial to limit the size of the
buildings there, and discourage large commercial buildings.
Ms. Call stated that she was attempting to understand the differential between 1,800 square feet in any one
building but a total of 3,000 square feet. That would permit a secondary building that was nearly the size of
the primary building.
Ms. Rauch stated that is not in the Historic Residential District. The Historic South District would permit a live-
work unit.
Ms. Fox requested clarification about the bed and breakfast use. The text states that the property owner shall
reside on the property or manage the facility. There is a small historical, bed and breakfast property in the
Historic-Commercial Core District. The owner lives in California, but he has the property managed by local
professional management. It is a nice tourist amenity, offering visitors an opportunity to stay in a historic
structure. Would that facility be compliant or not?
Ms. Rauch stated that it was not the intent for there to be a conflict with short-term rentals.
Mr. Boggs stated that before this case comes before Council, he and Ms. Rauch would clarify that situation.
There is a need to ensure there is no conflict between these regulations and the short-term rental regulations,
which are new.
Ms. Fox referred to the language regarding General Retail Uses in the Historic Core, which states they should
be limited to no more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. The largest building she is aware of in the
Historic South District is 5,000 square feet. Where would there be 10,000 square feet for Retail – General
use?
Ms. Rauch stated that there was a previous discussion on this topic, and the intent was to revise that.
Ms. Call inquired what it was changed to.
Ms. Rauch stated that she does not recall at this time.
Ms. Fox stated that the language indicates that food trucks may not operate more than six hours per calendar
month. Would food trucks, such as that behind Magnolia’s, be permitted to remain permanently?
Ms. Rauch responded that they would not. Regulations were added to address that issue more clearly.
Ms. Fox stated that the Intent (page 12) is important. The language reads, “The standards promote design
of a comparable size, scale and mass to the existing development character.” She would like the word
“promote” to be replaced with a stronger word.
Ms. Fox requested clarification of a cultural assessment.
Ms. Rauch responded that it is required with a request for Demolition of contributing structures. It is an
inventory of items that could be impacted by the demolition.
Ms. Fox stated that with a Demolition, there appears to be no requirement to document the interior. If an
applicant provides a reason of economic burden, what proof is required.
Mr. Dale stated that review criteria is provided on pp. 76-77. The primary criteria for buildings that are
contributing is a demonstration that there is no economically viable use of the property. Tools were added to
assist the Board in making that determination.
[Discussion continued regarding proposed amendments.]
Public Comments
Denise King, 170 S. Riverview Street, Dublin Ohio 43017:
“As a resident of the Historic District and active member of the community, I want the P & Z Commission
members to know that the process for considering, negotiating and finalizing the Code updates and zoning
for the HD has been fulsome. From 2018 to now there have been about 18 meetings, some large, some small,
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2020
Page 16 of 16
on these issues and the HD Guidelines. Anyone from anywhere in Dublin, residents and business owners have
had ample opportunities for input. The issues most important to the HD and Franklin residents are maintaining
the character, scale, height, lot coverage, setbacks and sightlines that make the HD what it is. There was a
lot of give and take and a lot of buy-in to bring the code and zoning to what is presented to you today. Please
build on this comprehensive effort by adding your blessing and forwarding them to City Council for adoption.
We've talked and talked. It’s time to act. Thank you.”
The Commission provided direction to staff to make the minor changes to the language of the proposed
Amendment as was noted in the discussion.
Ms. Fox moved, Mr. Grimes seconded a recommendation of approval to City Council of the Historic District
Code Amendment and Appendixes F & G.
Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes,
yes; Ms. Fox, yes.
[Motion carried 7-0.]
Ms. Call clarified that the Commission is not in favor of dividing the school site, and the recommendation is
that the entire School site would be included in the Historic District and under the ARB’s purview.
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Fishman seconded a recommendation of approval to City Council of the area rezoning
from the Bridge Street District to the Historic District designations, as clarified.
Vote: Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes;
Mr. Grimes, yes.
[Motion carried 7-0.]
COMMUNICATIONS
Planning Director Rauch reported that Senior Planner Claudia Husak had accepted the Planning
Director position in Powell, Ohio. Her last day with the City will be Tuesday, January 6.
Ms. Call recommended to staff that prompts be provided in the staff reports, alerting the
Commission of any Code associated with the application on which future revisions are anticipated.
The next regular meeting will be on Thursday, January 21, 2021.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m.
Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission
Assistant Clerk of Council
To: Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II
Date: January 7, 2021
Re: Historic District – Zoning Code Updates (19-007ADMC) and Rezoning (20-188Z)
Summary
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed and recommended approval to the Planning and
Zoning Commission (PZC) for the proposed Historic District Zoning Code amendments and Rezoning
at their November 18, 2020 meeting. The draft Code and Rezoning documents reflect the final
recommendation of the Board at that meeting, and are included in this packet as a clean version.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission review the proposed Zoning Code
amendments, and proposed Zoning Map and make a recommendation of approval to City Council.
The ARB also reviewed the proposed updates to the Historic Design Guidelines, and requested
additional modifications prior to a recommendation of approval. The modified version will be
reviewed by the ARB at their January meeting, and following their recommendation the modifications
would be reviewed by the Commission in February.
Case History
The draft Code, Rezoning, and Guideline documents are the result of a multi-year stakeholder
committee, public engagement, and Board and Commission review process. In 2018, the Historic
Dublin Stakeholder Committee met four times (June 14, July 12, August 2, and August 30, 2018) to
identify opportunities for revisions to the Historic District Zoning Code and Guidelines. In detail, the
ARB has conducted six reviews of the documents on July 10, July 24, November 20, 2019, and June
17, July 29, and November 18, 2020. In addition, staff held two public meeting at the Dublin
Community Church on October 9, 2018 and August 15, 2019, as well as, office hours for two hours
each Wednesday in August 2019 (August 7, 14, 21 and 28) to provide an additional method of
communication and input for the public. The PZC reviewed the documents and provided comments
on September 5, 2019, which had initially been introduced to the Commission on July 11, 2019.
Background
The proposing amendments include the following overall changes:
Historic District Boundary Changes & Outlying Properties Updates
The parcels that contain the development of Bridge Park West Buildings Z1 and Z2, West Plaza,
CML Dublin Branch and Downtown Dublin Parking Garage have been removed from the Historic
District, but remain within the Bridge Street District. As part of their review, some members of
Architectural Review Board expressed concern about the boundary change and the removal of
these properties from the Historic District. Based on Council’s direction the proposed boundary
Planning Division
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017
Phone: 614.410.4600 • Fax: 614.410.4747 Memo
Memo re. Historic District – Zoning Code Updates (19-007ADMC) and Rezoning (20-188Z)
January 7, 2021
Page 2 of 2
changes remain in the draft map.
The eastern boundary of the Historic District has been moved to the west side of the Scioto
River, with the exception of the Scioto River Bridge, which remains under the Architectural
Review Board’s purview.
Appendix F in the proposed Code has been updated to reflect the proposed boundary changes.
City-owned historic properties have been added to Appendix G, the list of outlying historic
properties.
HD Rezoning
Properties remaining within the Historic District boundary and previously zoned as a Bridge
Street District zoning will be rezoned into new Historic Zoning Districts: HR, Historic Residential,
HC, Historic Core, HS, Historic South, and HP, Historic Public.
The parcels that contain the development of Bridge Park West Buildings Z1 and Z2, West Plaza,
CML Dublin Branch and Downtown Dublin Parking were proposed to be rezoned from Bridge
Street District - Historic Transition Neighborhood (BSD-HTN) to Bridge Street District - Scioto
River Neighborhood (BSD-SRN). During the Architectural Review Board review, the members
recommended these properties retain the Historic Transition Neighborhood District zoning
classification, but any future modifications be under the purview of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
The six residential parcels, along N. Riverview Street, were proposed to be rezoned from Bridge
Street District - Historic Core (BSD-HC) to Historic District – Historic Core (HD-HC). During the
Architectural Review Board review, the members recommended these properties be rezoned to
Historic District – Historic Residential (HD-HR) to retain the neighborhood character.
The Dublin City Schools property, Dublin Cemetery, Indian Run greenway, Indian Run
Cemetery, Riverside Crossing Park West, Dublin Spring Park, and the Karrer Barn property are
proposed to be included in a new HD-Public District.
An updated zoning map has been created for review and an area rezoning of the properties is
included with the Zoning Code amendment, which align with the new zoning districts.
HD Zoning Code
The existing Architectural Review Board section of the Zoning Code has been updated to reflect the
proposed zoning districts. The requirements within the proposed zoning districts build upon the
existing BSD districts, which had previously incorporated zoning standards from the pre-BSD
historic zoning districts. This approach was intended to protect existing property owners by
retaining a majority of the existing use and general development standards. However, these new
districts contain additional use and site development restrictions that balance historic preservation,
while also allowing for appropriate infill or redevelopment. The proposed Code will also rely heavily
on the revised Historic Design Guidelines to ensure compatibility with the surrounding character
and design standards within the Historic District. The proposal changes also include updated
approval process and demolition sections.
Recommendation
Staff requests the Planning and Zoning Commission review the proposed final documents for
Zoning Code Updates (19-007ADMC) and Rezoning (20-188Z) and make a recommendation of
approval of these applications to City Council.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone: 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
BOARD ORDER
Architectural Review Board
Wednesday, November 18, 2020 | 6:30 pm
The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting:
4. Architectural Review Board Zoning Code Amendment
19-007ADMC Administrative Request – Code Amendment
Proposal: An amendment to Zoning Code Sections 153.002, 153.058, 153.059,
153.062, 153.063, 153.065, 153.170 through 153.180, and Appendix F & G
to address the Historic Dublin Boundary and Architectural Review Board
development standards and procedures.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning
Commission under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and
153.234, and the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines.
Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Planning Contacts: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II
Contact Information: 614.410.4690, jrauch@dublin.oh.us
614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/arb/19-007
MOTION: Ms. Kramb moved, Mr. Cotter seconded, to recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for the amendment to Zoning Code Sections 153.002, 153.058, 153.059,
153.062, 153.063, 153.065, 153.170 through 153.180, and Appendix F & G to address the
Historic Dublin Boundary and Architectural Review Board development standards and
procedures.
VOTE: 4 – 0
RESULT: The Administrative Request was recommended for approval and forwarded to the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
RECORDED VOTES:
Gary Alexander Yes
Kathleen Bryan Yes
Amy Kramb Yes
Sean Cotter Yes
Frank Kownacki Absent
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_______________________________________
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone: 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
BOARD ORDER
Architectural Review Board
Wednesday, November 18, 2020 | 6:30 pm
The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting:
5. Historic District Rezoning
20-188Z Zoning Review
Proposal: Area rezoning from the Bridge Street District (BSD) to Historic District (HD)
designations in conjunction with the Architectural Review Board Zoning
Code Updates.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning
Commission under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232.
Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Planning Contacts: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II
Contact Information: 614.410.4690, jrauch@dublin.oh.us
614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/arb/20-188
MOTION: Ms. Kramb moved, Mr. Alexander seconded, to recommend approval with two conditions to
the Planning and Zoning Commission for the area rezoning from the Bridge Street District
(BSD) to Historic District (HD) designations in conjunction with the Architectural Review
Board Zoning Code Updates:
1) The properties proposed to be rezoned to BSD-Scioto River Neighborhood District remain BSD-
Historic Transition District; and,
2) The six (6) residential North Riverview Street properties be rezoned to HD-Residential District.
VOTE: 4 – 0
RESULT: The area Rezoning from the Bridge Street District to Historic District was recommended for
approval with two conditions and forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
RECORDED VOTES:
Gary Alexander Yes
Kathleen Bryan Yes
Amy Kramb Yes
Sean Cotter Yes
Frank Kownacki Absent
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_______________________________________
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes of November 18, 2020
Page 9 of 13
Mr. Cotter stated that the Board’s concern with the previous design is that it presented a trip hazard.
Do the proposed walls have a greater height next to the sidewalk?
Mr. Krawetzki stated that the concept remains the same, but there is less wall engaging with the
sidewalk. Per ADA standards, an edge is necessary to prevent wheelchairs, etc. from rolling off the
sidewalk. The height must be a minimum of four inches but not so high as to require guardrails. The
wall will not reduce the width of the sidewalk, but will engage with its edge.
Ms. Kramb stated that this design does provide opportunities now, however, where a person could
step off the sidewalk and into the grassy area. With a solid wall, there would be no opportunity to
move out of the way of oncoming pedestrian or bicycle traffic.
Mr. Cotter inquired if there are streetlight poles all the way from the Bridge Street intersection to
John Wright Lane.
Mr. Krawetzcki responded that they extend to John Wright Lane and perhaps a short distance past
it.
Ms. Bryan inquired if staff has the Board input necessary to proceed.
Mr. Krawetzki responded affirmatively.
Ms. Martin explained that the Board is not requested to make a determination, because, typically,
improvements within the right-of-way are not under the Board’s purview. However, members of
Council thought it would be important for the ARB to provide input within the Historic District. She
requested clarification of the Board’s support for the project.
Ms. Bryan responded that, in general, the Board is supportive of the revised design. Members vary
in their preference for elliptical or angular wall formation, and would prefer a mix of large and small
tree wells.
4.Architectural Review Board Zoning Code Update, 19-007ADMC, Administrative
Request – Code Amendment
Ms. Bryan stated that this is a request for a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission
for an amendment to Zoning Code Sections 153.002, 153.058, 153.059, 153.062, 153.063, 153.065,
153.170 through 153.180, and Appendices F & G to address the Historic Dublin Boundary and
Architectural Review Board development standards and procedures.
Board Discussion
Ms. Bryan inquired if members had any other changes to request in the draft Code amendment.
Ms. Kramb requested minor wording changes in the Definitions, including in the Definitions for
Contributing and Non-contributing, delete the wording, “It was present during the period of
significance and...”
Board members indicated that they had no changes in the text or in Appendices F and G.
Ms. Kramb moved, Mrs. Cotter seconded to request Planning and Zoning Commission review of the
proposed Code Amendment and recommendation of approval to City Council
Vote on the motion: Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Bryan, yes; Mr. Cotter, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes.
[Motion carried 4-0]
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes of November 18, 2020
Page 10 of 13
5.Historic District Rezoning, 20-188Z, Zoning Review
Ms. Bryan stated that this is a request for a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission
for area rezoning from the Bridge Street District (BSD) to Historic District (HD) designations in
conjunction with the Architectural Review Board Zoning Code Updates.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Rauch stated this rezoning is ultimately moving/renaming Historic District properties that had
previously been included in the Bridge Street District back to Historic District designations. A list of
those parcels with their previous designations and their new designations has been provided in the
meeting packet, as well as a map of the related districts and boundaries. The proposed changes are
as follow:
HD Rezoning Changes:
The parcels that contain the development of Bridge Park West Buildings Z1 and Z2, West Plaza,
CML Dublin Branch and Downtown Dublin Parking are proposed to b e rezoned from Bridge Street
District - Historic Transition (BSD-HT) to Bridge Street Distri ct - Scioto River Neighborhood (BSD-
SRN).
Properties remaining within the Historic District boundary and previously zoned as a Bridge Street
District zoning will be rezoned into new Historic Zoning Districts: HR, Historic Residential, HC,
Historic Core, HS, Historic South, and HP, Historic Public. These proposed zoning districts build
upon the existing BSD districts (which had previously incorporated zoning standards from the
pre-BSD historic zoning districts). This will protect existing property owners by retaining a
majority of the existing use and general development standards. However, these new districts
will contain certain site development restrictions and will rely heavily on the revised Historic
Design Guidelines to ensure compatibility with the surrounding character and design standards
within the Historic District.
The Dublin City Schools property, Dublin Cemetery, Indian Run greenway, Indian Run Cemetery,
Riverside Crossing Park West, Dublin Spring Park, and the Karrer Barn property are proposed to
be included in a new HD-Public District.
An updated zoning map has been created for review and an area rezoning of the properties is
included with the Zoning Code amendment, which align with the new zoning districts.
The existing Architectural Review Board section of the Zoning Code has been updated to reflect
these changes, as well as approval process changes and updates to the demolition section.
Historic District Boundary Changes & Outlying Properties Updates
The parcels that contain the development of Bridge Park West Buildings Z1 and Z2, West Plaza,
CML Dublin Branch and Downtown Dublin Parking Garage have been removed from the Historic
District, and remain within the Bridge Street District and have Bridge Street District zoning. The
proposed Historic District boundary has been modified to reflect this proposed change.
The eastern boundary of the Historic District has been moved to the west side of the Scioto
River, with the exception of the Scioto River Bridge, which remains under the Architectural
Review Board’s purview.
Appendix F in the proposed Code has been updated to reflect the proposed boundary changes.
City-owned historic properties have been added to Appendix G, the list of outlying historic
properties.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes of November 18, 2020
Page 11 of 13
Board Discussion
Mr. Alexander inquired if any consideration had been given to zoning N. Riverview Street the same
as the residential district across Bridge Street. As we change the zoning to provide protection for
those residential properties, the fabric of the neighborhood is the same on the other side of the
bridge. It does not seem appropriate that those homes are not afforded the same protection as the
rezoning will provide to the other residential properties.
Ms. Rauch stated that staff has discussed this and agrees, but the Board’s discussion and
recommendation is necessary.
Ms. Bryan stated that she agrees and would be supportive of rezoning that portion of N. Riverview
Street to Historic District Residential, as well.
Ms. Rauch stated that it would involve the six properties that are currently proposed as Historic
Core.
Ms. Bryan stated that the zoning would allow commercial development; however, there are some
historic homes there. Currently, they have no protection.
Mr. Cotter and Ms. Kramb expressed agreement that there is a need to address the situation for
those properties.
Ms. Kramb stated that she disagrees with rezoning Bridge Park West, the Library and the Garage
from the BSD Historic Transition District. She prefers those structures remain in a Transition District
than be in the Scioto River Neighborhood. If several years in the future the existing buildings were
to be torn down, it would be preferable that buildings that are appropriate in a transition
neighborhood replace them, not big box retail, as the Scioto River Neighborhood zoning would
permit. The type of structures on the east side of the river are not what we desire to have abutting
the Historic District.
Consensus of all Board members was that the designated parcels should remain as they are, within
the BSD Historic Transition District. No rezoning of those properties should occur.
Ms. Rauch indicated that staff has no objection. That change will be included in the proposed
rezoning that will be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Public Comment
Garrick Daft, 21 Indian Run Drive, Dublin, OH, stated:
“What is the difference between the Scioto River Neighborhood zoning and the previous Historic
Transition zoning?”
Ms. Rauch stated that as has been noted, it would allow for additional Building Types and potentially
additional Building Height and Uses different than permitted within the Historic Transition zoning.
Retaining the Historic Transition District zoning would be more compatible with a transition into the
Historic District.
Ms. Kramb moved, Mr. Alexander seconded to request Planning and Zoning Commission review of
the proposed rezoning with the following amendments:
Newer development areas (Garage, Library, Bridge Park West) remain BSD-Historic
Transition (not be rezoned to BSD-Scioto River Neighborhood).
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes of November 18, 2020
Page 12 of 13
The six (6) North Riverview Street parcels zoned BSD-Historic Core be rezoned to
Historic District - Historic Residential.
and recommendation of approval of City Council.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Cotter, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Bryan, yes.
[Motion carried 4-0]
6.Historic Design Guidelines, 18-037ADM, Administrative Request
Ms. Bryan stated that this is a request for a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission
for new Historic Design Guidelines applicable to properties located within the Architectural Review
District and its outlying historic properties.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Martin stated that Planning staff, along with the consultant team have finalized a draft of the
updated Historic Design Guidelines based on input from meetings with the Historic District
stakeholder committee in 2018 and extensive input from the public and the Architectural Review
Board. The public input includes four stakeholder meetings, six public meetings, and 11 public
hearings. The Guidelines contain clearer standards that complement the proposed Zoning Code
update, as well as incorporate updated graphics. Prior to the July 29, 2020 Board meeting, the ARB
conducted four reviews of these initial draft documents on July 10, July 24 and November 20, 2019,
and on June 17, 2020. The following is a summary of the revisions made to the Historic Design
Guidelines following the July 29, 2020 meeting. Minor clerical changes were also made at the
direction of the Board. Tonight’s review will focus on the Architectural Styles section. In the
Guidelines, there was a discrepancy between Architectural Styles and Building Types. In staff’s
interpretation, an Architectural Style is based on the elements of a building that make it identifiable
to a particular period of time. These elements may include design details and ornamentation. A
Building Type is based on the form, floorplan, configuration and number of stories. A Building Type
does not determine the Architectural Style. Building Types of a similar form can occur under various
Architectural Styles. In July, ARB reviewed the Architectural Styles and Types. She would like to
point out the Folk Style, including the gabled front, gabled front wing and side gable. In July, those
were identified as Architectural Styles. They are very dissimilar from other Architectural Styles, such
as Greek Revival, Gothic Revival, and Queen Anne. The gabled front, gabled wing and side gable
are actually a reference to the building form. With the revision to the Architectural Styles section,
updates have been made to ensure consistency with the Paint Colors document and provide clarity.
[reviewed changes made in Style categories.]
Following discussion, Board members were not supportive of the proposed changes from the July
29 version and recommended that staff return to that version and make a few changes as noted
tonight. The Board did not believe there were many issues with that version. Mr. Alexander and Ms.
Kramb are available to provide input on the process before the next hearing.
Ms. Kramb moved, Ms. Bryan seconded that the case be tabled.
Vote: Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Bryan, yes; Mr. Cotter, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes.
[Motion approved 4-0]
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
BOARD DISCUSSION
Architectural Review Board
Wednesday, July 29, 2020 | 6:30 pm
The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting:
1. Historic Dublin Zoning Code Amendments
Administrative Request – Code
Proposal: Review (no vote) of revisions based on June 2020 feedback regarding
proposed Zoning District modifications, Historic Dublin boundary changes,
amendments to the Zoning Code, and revisions to Appendix G .
Request: Informal review, feedback, and recommendations for a future application
under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234.
Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II
Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/special-projects/arb-code-amendments/
RESULT: The Board reviewed and provided feedback on updates to the proposed Zoning Code
Amendments for the Historic Dublin area and outlying historic properties. The Board appreciated research
regarding Bed and Breakfasts and the threshold for a Minor Project. Additional direction was provided on
Conference Centers, building coverage, loading zones, stonewalls/fences, and demolition.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary Alexander Yes
Kathleen Bryan Yes
Amy Kramb Yes
Sean Cotter Yes
Frank Kownacki Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_______________________________________
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II
DocuSign Envelope ID: ADA1A9A4-BFB8-4066-A685-39C14E010E01
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Special Meeting Minutes of July 29, 2020
Page 2 of 5
CASES:
1. Historic Dublin Zoning Code Amendments, – Historic Dublin, 19-007ADMC,
Administrative Request – Code
Ms. Bryan stated that this application is a request for review (no vote) of revisions based on the Board’s
previous feedback regarding proposed Zoning District modifications, Historic Dublin boundary changes,
amendments to the Zoning Code, and revisions to Appendix G under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections
153.232 and 153.234.
2. Historic Dublin Design Guidelines, 18-037ADMC, Administrative Request
Ms. Bryan stated that this application is a request for review (no vote) of revisions based on the Board’s
previous feedback regarding comprehensive updates to the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines to revise design
recommendations and address discrepancies with Zoning Code requirements under the provisions of Zoning
Code Sections 153.066 and 153.171.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT REVIEW
Mr. Dale stated that the changes the Board requested at the Jun e 17, 2020 Special Meeting have been made,
and a revised draft is provided for the Board’s review and consideration this evening. There are three items
in particular on which the Board’s input is requested: conference centers, loading space requirements and
lot coverage.
Some of the major changes made include:
Zoning Map Boundary Changes
City Council previously directed staff to change the Historic District boundary. However, at the June 17
meeting, some ARB members indicated that they have concerns and do not support those changes. Based
on City Council’s direction, the proposed boundary changes remain in the draft map, but staff will
communicate the Board’s concerns when this document is referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission
and City Council for their consideration.
Appendix G
The list identifying outlying historic properties has been updated to incorporate the Brown-Harris Cemetery
and Ferris Cemetery, as requested.
Uses
Changes were made to the Use Table (Table 153.172A), including removing High Schools as a Permitted Use
from the Historic Core (HC) and Historic South (HS) Districts; removing Hotels from the HC District; and
adding Accessory Dwellings to the Historic Residential (HR) District.
Conference Centers
Per the Board’s request, Conference Centers as a permitted use in the HC District has been added to Table
153.172A. However, staff is seeking additional guidance regarding the use specific standards that should
accompany this use. The Zoning Code defines Conference Centers as: “A facility designed to accommodate
and support meetings or conferences. The facility may be either freestanding or incorporated into a hotel or
office facility, and may include eating and drinking facilities but exclude overnight lodging if not part of a
hotel.” “Eating and drinking facilities” include food preparation on-site. Staff requests guidance from the
Board on how best to regulate Conference Centers that are appropriately scaled for the Historic Core. As a
comparison, The Exchange at Bridge Park is an approximately 18,000-square-foot building on a .59-acre site
and accommodates up to 500 guests. The recommended standards for Conference Centers in the HC District
would be for a slightly smaller facility than The Exchange at Bridge Park. The proposed standards are:
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Special Meeting Minutes of July 29, 2020
Page 3 of 5
1/2-acre maximum site size; 15,000 square foot maximum building size;
Parking must be provided on site pursuant to a parking plan approved by ARB;
An access management plan must be approved by ARB demonstrating the site’s ability to
accommodate vehicular traffic during peak periods;
Windows must be included on all elevations facing a public right-of-way per the Historic
Design Guidelines.
Board members expressed concern with the proposed square footage and lot size. Consensus of the Board
was a Conference Center either could be defined as a permitted Accessory Use, size not to exceed 1,800
square feet (consistent with the existing CoHatch facility), or it could remain as a stand-alone facility but
with a reduced lot size. Staff will consider those options and revise the language for the next draft.
Bed and Breakfast
The Board had requested that staff survey other communities to determine whether the 8-guest unit limit in
the use specific standards for Bed and Breakfast use was reasonable. Other communities in Ohio and the
nation were reviewed for reference, and staff determined that the unit limitation varies from 3-9 units.
Because the 8-unit limit was found to be common, no changes were made.
Development Standards
The Board requested that a Maximum Building Footprint for Historic Residential properties be included in the
Development Standards. Staff conducted a random sampling of residential building footprints throughout
the District. Table 153.173A has been revised to include a Maximum Building Footprint in the Historic South
(HS) District of 1,800 square feet not to exceed 3,000 square feet and in the Historic Residential (HR) District
not to exceed 25%.
Mr. Alexander inquired if “Maximum Building Footprint” is defined in another part of the Code, as it is not
included here. He clarified that all the numbers he had provided to Mr. Dale earlier included all other buildings
on the site in the calculation.
Ms. Rauch responded that, currently, there is no definition; however, one would be added.
Ms. Martin stated that their calculation included only the house.
Ms. Kramb stated that in her earlier review, she included everything.
Loading Standards
The Board had requested staff to consider revising the loading space requirements in Table 153.173F to be
tied to uses, instead of square footage. After study, staff recommends applicants be required to submit a
loading space plan as part of the application approval process. The Board requested that clarification be
provided that this requirement applies only to new construction.
Minor Project Thresholds
Staff noted that per the direction of the Board, the square footage thresholds for Minor Projects in Section
153.176(I) were reduced. The Board made no further modifications.
Addition of New Section – Food Trucks
Ms. Rauch inquired if the Board would have any objection to including in the next revision a definition and
standards for permitting food trucks on a commercial property on a permanent basis. Board members had
no objection to that addition.
Ground Mounted Renewable Energy
Mr. Cotter inquired, in regard to Item J (c) on p. 12, if “Ground Mounted Renewable Energy” equipment
would count as lot coverage.
Ms. Martin responded that if it is on the ground and does not allow water to percolate through it, or has a
hard surface, it would count as lot coverage. In the case of a condenser unit for an air conditioning unit,
the dimensions of the concrete pad on which the equipment sits are counted toward lot coverage.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Special Meeting Minutes of July 29, 2020
Page 4 of 5
Archaeological/Cultural Assessment
Mr. Alexander inquired if the “architectural assessment,” referred to in Item I (4) on page 75 and as a
“cultural assessment” on page 77, is the same assessment currently prepared by the City’s Architectural
Consultant, or is it a report to be provided by the applicant?
Ms. Rauch responded that it is a new, additional report, which the applicant would be responsible for
providing.
Ms. Kramb requested that “cultural assessment” in this context be provided, perhaps by stating that, “a
professional assessment of the cultural resources is required.”
Simplification of Review Process
Mr. Alexander inquired if this process has moved from a focus on making the review process less difficult.
With additional, new requirements, will the process be made more difficult?
Ms. Rauch responded that the intent of the amendment is to make the expectations more clear. The Board’s
review is very detailed, and members have frequently expressed the need for more information and detail
to be provided. The new requirements may be more onerous, but the goal is to make the process more
straightforward.
Mr. Dale stated that the intent with the amended regulations and guidelines is to provide more predictability.
Ms. Rauch stated that a palette of recommended paint colors in the Historic District also is being developed
for the Board’s consideration. Staff approval of paint projects within the District utilizing a Board-approved
palette should simplify the review process. Staff also is working on simplifying/clarifying the sign approval
process for small businesses.
The Board requested that, consistent with the intent in the Historic District, under I (4) Stone Wall Standards,
in Item (c), clarification be provided that the stacked stones should be dry laid. In this section, also provide
language that clarifies that existing stone walls are a site element, and the ARB has purview over alterations
or changes to architectural features of existing sites and structures. Stone walls are also addressed in the
Guidelines, under Fences and Walls.
DRAFT HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES REVIEW
The Board reviewed the revisions that had been made to the draft Historic Design Guidelines following
direction given at the June 17, 2020 meeting, including:
Neighborhood Character Description, 2.3, to emphasize preservation in lieu of development.
Architectural Styles, 2.9, to better address context and vernacular issues.
Building Additions, 4.12, to incorporate the concept of subordinate and secondary as a key
requirement; a definition for subordinate was included.
Graphic Illustrations - Language was added to clarify they are merely examples of approaches that
could be taken that comply with the Guidelines. Limiting architectural and site design creativity should
be avoided.
The Board requested minor clarifications and corrections to the Guidelines and updated names and titles
under Acknowledgements.
Next Steps
Ms. Rauch stated that a final draft would be prepared for the ARB’s final review and recommendation to the
Planning and Zoning Commission for their subsequent review and recommendation to City Council.
Ms. Bryan noted that it would be advisable for one or two ARB members to be present for the PZC and
Council reviews to answer any questions that might be raised.
The next meetings of the ARB will be a Special Meeting on August 12, 2020 and a regular meeting on August
26, 2020.
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Architectural Review Board
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
CALL TO ORDER
Ms. Bryan, Chair, called the June 17, 2020 meeting of the Architectural Review Board to order at 6:30 p.m.
and provided the following opening comments: “Welcome to a virtual meeting of the City of Dublin
Architectural Review Board. The Ohio Legislature passed several emergency laws to address the pandemic,
including the ability for public entities to have virtual meetings. We appreciate this ability to maintain our
continuity of government. For the present time, we are holding our meetings online and live streaming those
meetings on YouTube. You can access the live-stream on the City’s website. The meeting procedure for
each case this evening will begin with staff presentation followed by an opportunity for the applicant to
make a presentation. The Board will then have the opportunity to ask clarifying questions prior to hearing
public comment. Finally, the Board will deliberate on each case based on the information introduced. To
submit any questions or comments during the meeting, please use the form under the streaming video on
the City’s website. These questions and comments will be relayed to the Board by the meeting moderator.
We want to accommodate public participation and comment to the greatest extent possible. We welcome
your comments on cases. Please use a valid name and address when submitting your comments and refrain
from making any inappropriate comments.”
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Ms. Bryan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Board Members present: Mr. Alexander, Mr. Cotter, Ms. Bryan, Mr. Kownacki and Ms. Kramb
Staff present: Ms. Rauch, Ms. Martin
Consultant: Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion
ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Kownacki moved, Ms. Kramb seconded, to accept the documents into the record.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Alexander, yes; Mr. Cotter, yes; Ms. Bryan, yes; Mr. Kownacki, yes; Ms. Kramb,
yes.
(Approved 5 – 0)
Ms. Bryan briefly explained the rules and procedures of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and swore in
any staff or member of the public who planned to address the Board during the meeting. The Board has the
responsibility to review and make recommendations on the following two Administrative Requests.
1. ARB Code Amendments – Historic Dublin, 19-007ADMC, Administrative Review - Code
Ms. Bryan stated that this is a request for feedback and recommendations (no vote) regarding revisions to
the proposed Zoning District modifications, Historic Dublin boundary changes, amendments to the Zoning
Code, and revisions to Appendix G under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Special Minutes of June 17, 2020
Page 2 of 5
2. Historic Dublin Design Guidelines, 18-037ADMC, Administrative Review
Ms. Bryan stated that this is a request for feedback and recommendations (no vote) of comprehensive
updates to the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines regarding design recommendations and discrepancies with
Zoning Code requirements.
Background
Greg Dale, Consultant, McBride Dale Clarion, stated that he and Ms. Rauch would be leading the review of
the draft ARB Code Amendments and Historic District Guidelines, which propose changes to the Zoning Code
Land Use regulations that apply to the Historic District and the Historic District Guidelines. The Code and
the Design Guidelines are separate but related documents. The Zoning Code provides the “shalls;” the
Design Guidelines provides the “shoulds.” This two-year process began with the creation of a stakeholder
committee with interests in the Historic District. Four stakeholder meetings were held in 2018, and six public
events were held, including open houses and office hours. Much time was spent working with the citizens
and stakeholders to understand the underlying goals to be achieved. The results represent the consensus
of the community. This is ARB’s eighth review of the documents. It has been reviewed by the Planning and
Zoning Commission (PZC), Community Development Committee (CDC) and City Council, and that input has
been incorporated. Mr. Dale summarized the changes that have been made to date.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT REVIEW
The Board reviewed the draft and recommended the following revisions.
Zoning Map Boundary Changes
Some members expressed concerns about the proposed zoning map boundary changes. Based on City
Council’s direction, the proposed boundary changes will remain in the draft map, but staff will communicate
the members’ concerns in future transmittals to the PZC and City Council.
Uses
Revise Permitted Use Table 153.172A as follows:
1. Remove Highs Schools as a permitted use from the Historic Core (HC) and Historic South (HS)
Districts;
2. Remove Hotels from the HC District;
3. Investigate whether the 8-guest unit limit for Bed and Breakfasts is reasonable;
4. Add Accessory Dwellings to the Historic Residential (HR) District;
5. Investigate permitting Residential in HC;
6. Add Conference Centers as a permitted use in the HC District;
7. Provide Definition for Artisan Production (HC and HS).
Accessory and Temporary Uses
Under (h) Outdoor seating, revise counts toward lot coverage.
Development Standards
Review and inclusion of a maximum building footprint in Table 153.173A: for Historic South -1,800 square
feet, not to exceed 3,000 square feet per building, and Historic Residential – 25%. Add cross reference in
Definitions to clarify measurement of Building Height.
Setbacks
Provide guidance in Table 153.173B re. designation of Front Yard setback and front property line on a lot
as being where the front door or postal address is located.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Special Minutes of June 17, 2020
Page 3 of 5
Loading Standards
Revise the loading space requirements in Table 153.173F to be tied to uses, rather than square footage.
Tree Preservation
In addition to Commercial Development, add the Tree Preservation requirements to New Residential
Development, 153.173(H).
Fences, Walls and Screening
Revise “street” walls in Section 153.173(I-4) to “stone” walls.
Minor Project Thresholds
Reduce the square footage thresholds for Minor Projects in Section 153.176(I).
Public Comment
Alan and Mary Szuter, 80 Franklin Street, Dublin, OH, provided the following comments:
Comment #1:
Please permit (P) Residential in the Historic Core.
Comment #2:
- Please no hotels in any of the Historic Districts.
- You define "Bed & Breakfast" under the Permitted Uses chart, does that include Air BnB type uses?
- Accessory Dwelling should be permitted in Historic Residential.
- Why are food trucks allowed in the HR?
- Use of speakers within 500 feet of residential should be required to be cut off at 9:00 PM (4-6h).
- Do not change lot coverage from 50% to 45% for HR. The HR is more dense than the rest of the City.
Comment #3:
Continuation of comments from previous note-
- Rear yard setbacks at 20% would make ours 35 feet; it is currently 25 feet.
Comment #4:
Continuation of comments-
- Outdoor waste container storage should be required to adhere to the guidelines whenever the principal
use of the building changes.
[Review of Draft Code continued.]
Outdoor Waste Container Storage Containers
Require Commercial uses to comply to the same regulations as Residential uses.
Signs
Regarding the requirement that signs can contain three colors, provide clarification that black and white are
considered colors and a corporate logo counts as one color, regardless of the number of colors incorporated
in that logo.
Cultural Assessment
Recommended replacing the term archeological assessment with cultural assessment (or use both terms
where needed), in Section 153.175A5, and Section 153.176J5; add definitions for Cultural and for
Preservation Districts in Definitions.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Special Minutes of June 17, 2020
Page 4 of 5
Review Criteria
Clarify that the applicant “or the applicant’s representative” must demonstrate that they have technical
expertise and experience with appropriate construction methods consistent with sound historic preservation
practices.
Minor Project Thresholds
Reduce the square footage thresholds for Minor Projects in Section 153.176(I).
Appendix G
Include the Brown-Harris Cemetery and Ferris Cemetery in the list identifying outlying historic properties.
DRAFT HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES REVIEW
The Board reviewed the Draft Historic Design Guidelines and recommended the following revisions:
Neighborhood Character Description
Revise description in Section 2.3 to emphasize preservation rather than development, in particular the term
“selective redevelopment” in the 4th item under Street Character.
Structure
Due to the Historic Preservation nature of this document, revise the nomenclature from “structure” to
“building.”
Architectural Styles
Revise description in Section 2.9 to better address context and vernacular issues. Delete third sentence of
paragraph 1, first sentence of paragraph 2, and in paragraph 3, revise second sentence from “Each
building…demonstrates….” to “Each building….may demonstrate…”
Contributing vs. Non-Contributing Buildings
In Section 3.3, remove second bullet item re. Non-contributing buildings; use the definition from the
Consultant’s report, if desired.
Maintenance and Construction
In Section 4.2, before Item A, add statement, “Following are common considerations regarding property
maintenance and construction. The recommendations are not comprehensive in nature. Property owners
should refer to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards with regard to appropriate maintenance and
construction standards.”
Building Additions
Revise guidelines for new additions in Section 4.12A to incorporate the concept of “subordinate and
secondary” as a key requirement. Provide Secretary of Interior’s definition for “subordinate.” Remove
requirement in 4.12H that windows be smaller than the original building’s windows, and eliminate 4.12I re.
stone watertables.
Graphic Illustrations
Provide language with the graphic illustrations to clarify they are simply examples of approaches to
complying with the guidelines, to avoid limiting architectural and site design creativity.
[Review completed.]
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Special Minutes of June 17, 2020
Page 5 of 5
NEXT STEPS
Ms. Rauch stated that the draft ARB Code Amendments Historic Dublin Design Guidelines would be revised
with redlining per the Board’s recommendations and provided for the Board’s consideration at a Special
Meeting on July 29. The revised documents and additional requested documents will be provided to
members on July 10 to provide ample time for their review preceding the July 29 discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Kathleen Bryan
Chair, Architectural Review Board
Judith K. Beal
Deputy Clerk of Council
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes of November 20, 2019
Page 15 of 20
2) That the applicant revise the landscape design to reflect staff’s suggestions, and to
decrease the square feet of gravel limestone used;
3) That the applicant work to refine and revise the window layout prior to submission of the
Final Development Plan.
Vote: Mr. Bailey, yes; Ms. Bryan, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Stenberg, no.
(Motion passed 4-1)
5. Property at 25 North Street, 19-103ARB, Architectural Review Board
Ms. Stenberg stated that this is an application for the demolition of an existing 2-story commercial
building zoned Bridge Street District Historic Core.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Martin stated that this is a request for demolition of the existing 1.5 story structure at 25 North
Street, regarding which the Board just reviewed a Preliminary Development Plan. The 4,500 sq. ft.
commercial building is located to the rear of a historic structure on a 0.27-acre parcel within Historic
Dublin. The site is located at the intersections of N. High Street and North Street, and N. Blacksmith
Lane and North Street. The condition of the structure has deteriorated since its construction in the
1960s. It was last renovated in 1993. The applicant has provided interior photos to document the
condition and extensive renovations that would be required, should the building be retained. The
Historic and Cultural Assessment conducted by the City in 2017 identified the building as non-
contributing. Two of the four demolition criteria must be met. Staff has found that two of the four
have been met, and staff recommends approval of the demolition with one condition.
There was no public comment.
Board Discussion
There was no Board discussion.
Ms. Bryan moved, Mr. Keeler seconded to approve the demolition request with the following
condition:
1) That the order to allow demolition not be issued by the City until the ARB has approved
a Final Development Plan for a new structure.
Vote: Mr. Alexander, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Bryan, yes; Mr. Bailey, yes; Ms. Stenberg, yes.
(Motion passed 5-0)
6. Historic Dublin – ARB Code Amendments, 19-007ADMN, Administrative Request
- Code
Ms. Stenberg stated that this is a request for the review of development standards in the Zoning
Code Amendments addressing the Historic Dublin Zoning Districts.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes of November 20, 2019
Page 16 of 20
Staff Presentation
Greg Dale, Consultant, McBride Dale Clarion, stated that this is ARB’s third review of the draft ARB
Code amendments and Historic Dublin Guidelines. The amendments are being made per Council’s
direction to remove the Historic District from the Bridge Street District. Since ARB’s last review, a
public meeting and designated office hours were held to receive public input. The Planning and
Zoning Commission conducted a review on September 5, 2019. There are a few remaining issues
on which ARB input is desired.
1. Uses - Hotel and Multi-Family
Based on the Board’s previous direction, staff is recommending that “hotel” be eliminated as a
permitted use in the HS, Historic South District, but remain permitted in the HC, Historic Core
District, with the addition of Use Specific Standards that target small scale, boutique hotels.
Staff also recommends that “multi-family” be revised to “two-family” as a permitted use in the HS,
Historic South District, and in the HC, Historic Core District. The provision would allow for attached
row homes while eliminating the opportunity for large-scale condominium projects.
Mr. Alexander inquired if they had looked at how economics are changing in the area and what
uses would be compatible with the structures for the purpose of reuse. How does the economic
return and value impact what could be located here?
Mr. Keeler stated that it needs to be economically feasible for a prospective buyer to acquire a
property here and renovate it to an appropriate use.
Mr. Alexander stated that if the variance process provides sufficient flexibility for a hybrid of uses,
it might be fine.
Mr. Keeler stated that it is a prospective buyer’s responsibility to do their homework to ensure they
do not overpay for the property and understand the requirements and limitations for renovating it
to an appropriate use.
Mr. Dale inquired if the concern is if there is sufficient flexibility of uses in these buildings.
Mr. Alexander responded affirmatively. There should be a hybrid of uses for buildings that are
not single-use. There is a problem because these small buildings are expensive to renovate and
there are limitations on what the uses can be. If the variance process can address this question,
however, perhaps it is not an issue.
Ms. Bryan stated that this difficulty is reflected in the recent cases of demolition by neglect.
Ms. Martin stated that in regard to the mixing of uses, there is not a better zoning mechanism
than a form-based code, which permits a mix. The exception would be the Residential District,
which has a narrow range of uses. An example of a different use renovation would be Co-Hatch.
Mr. Dale agreed that the previous case is a good example of a new, mixed use.
2. Development Standards – Historic Residential District
The Board discussed tailoring the proposed development standards (See Tables 153.173A and
153.173B) for the HR, Historic Residential District to align with the prevailing conditions. The
Board’s input is requested on the following three issues: building height, lot coverage, and
setbacks.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes of November 20, 2019
Page 17 of 20
Setbacks
In regard to setbacks, there is an opportunity to consolidate some of the setback requirements
in Table 153.173B. Suggested is a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet; a minimum sideyard
setback of 3 feet; a minimum total side yard of 12 feet; and a rear yard setback of 15 feet.
Ms. Stenberg stated that she would have no objection to doing so.
Mr. Keeler inquired how those numbers would have impacted some of the recent cases on South
High Street, specifically the Dyas properties.
Ms. Martin stated that the applications would have met these requirements.
Mr. Alexander stated that the Board is interested in preventing long houses on deep lots. In many
communities, the rear setback is one-quarter of the lot depth or there is a minimum setback of
40 feet.
Mr. Keeler stated that recently, residents have spoken about the need to preserve the back yards.
If we allow a smaller setback, we would not be addressing their concerns. At the same time,
there are recent cases that would have been able to take advantage of more lot coverage than
they did. Residents have stated that they purchased their homes under one set of rules, and now
the City is changing its rules. In general, would the proposed numbers make the rules more
liberal, not more restrictive?
Ms. Martin stated that the only area where the rear yard setback would be more liberal is on
Franklin Street.
Mr. Dale stated that the new Code amendment also will provide the Board ability to impose
conditions, based upon context, beyond the standards.
Mr. Alexander stated that, looking at the Franklin Street setback, he is concerned the change
could create some problems.
Ms. Martin noted that the building setback would also apply to detached garages.
Mr. Alexander noted that in some cities, there is a separate line item for detached garages.
[Discussion continued regarding setbacks.]
Mr. Dale stated that Ms. Martin has suggested a possible requirement that would tie setbacks
proportionally to depth. They will work on drafting that language.
Lot Coverage
Mr. Dale stated that, currently, the lot coverage is 50%. In comparison, the lot coverage of other
residential districts in the City is 45%. Staff’s recommendation is to leave it as is, however,
because the Historic District typically has more intense uses.
Ms. Bryan responded that she would prefer that it be reduced, due to recent issues with large
homes being approved on these small lots. They are changing the scale and texture of this
neighborhood.
Ms. Stenberg stated that perhaps the requirement should be closer to 40% in the residential
district.
Mr. Keeler noted that recent buyers of properties would object to the rules changing after their
purchase of a property.
Ms. Bryan responded that there is always the ability to request a waiver.
Mr. Keeler stated that there should be a mandate that realtors disclose that properties within the
Historic District may have stricter guidelines.
Ms. Bryan agreed that there is a need to disclose this information. New buyers to the District
should be made aware of the restrictions.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes of November 20, 2019
Page 18 of 20
Ms. Martin noted that in January 2019, the City sent postcards to every property owner in the
Historic District making them aware that their property was located in the Architectural Review
District and any exterior, site or paint alterations must be reviewed and approved. ARB meeting
dates were provided, as well.
Mr. Bailey stated that versus mandating, educating the realtors would be the best possibility.
Mr. Keeler noted that if realtors know a rule exists, ethically, they are obligated to disclose it.
Therefore, if the City provides the information to them, the City is doing its job. They are then
relying on the realtors to do their job.
Mr. Alexander stated that in looking at the list of lot coverage variations, a 10% reduction is
significant. Many communities base the percentage on lot size, i.e. the percentage increases with
a smaller lot size. Reducing the percentage to 40% in this District would be a concern.
Mr. Dale stated that is the reason staff recommended not changing the percent from 50%. It is
a baseline standard, which can be adjusted through the process.
Ms. Bryan stated that she would be in favor of setting the baseline lower and allowing the
applicant to request more.
Mr. Dale noted that Ms. Martin has suggested a proportional lot coverage. Developing the right
formula, however, could be difficult.
Mr. Alexander stated that there are some communities that do this, rather than treating small lots
the same as large lots. Setting the percent at 40% may result in more variance requests. In
addition, granting a number of variances results in Code changes.
Mr. Bailey stated that he would prefer to make it 45% universal throughout the City, or at a
minimum, utilize a sliding scale.
Mr. Keeler stated that he would prefer not to have a more subjective process, relying upon
variances. He would prefer to leave the percentage as it is, or to have the lot percentage based
upon the lot size. That process would result in fewer waivers being needed.
Ms. Bryan stated that in the draft documents, only two of the 48 residential properties exceeded
50%; the remainder were less.
Mr. Dale noted that the lower percentages correspond with larger lots.
Ms. Bryan stated that the City is beginning to lose the diversity characteristics of the neighborhood
because of the larger homes. The smaller homes are looking dwarfed and out of place.
Mr. Dale stated that lot coverage is only one tool for addressing this issue.
[Discussion continued regarding lot coverage.]
Mr. Keeler inquired what other tools could address the issue.
Mr. Dale stated that a sliding scale could be used. They could look at a potential sliding scale for
small, medium and large lots with different percentages. Dealing more comprehensively than that
with the issue is probably an issue for a future discussion.
Ms. Martin stated that staff would provide a recommendation for lot coverage for ARB’s
consideration prior to their making a formal recommendation to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes of November 20, 2019
Page 19 of 20
Building Height
Mr. Dale stated that the current requirement is 35 feet. Staff’s analysis indicates that is too tall,
given the area context. He noted that in the Historic South District, the maximum height is 24
feet. Perhaps that height would be appropriate for the residential district.
Ms. Martin noted that accumulating accurate data on the existing building heights was difficult,
particularly for truly historical buildings. Many of the buildings in the information provided were
measured to the peak of the roof. The 24-foot height in the Historical South District is measured
to the midpoint of the eaves -- historically, they have measured to the midpoint of the eaves.
Ms. Bryan stated that the method of measuring needs to be specified.
Mr. Keeler stated that, presently, there is not a sufficiently broad sampling on which to make a
decision.
Mr. Alexander stated that a 24-foot height requirement would not be particularly onerous.
Ms. Bryan inquired if the current 35-foot requirement was to the midpoint of the eaves.
Mr. Dale responded affirmatively.
Mr. Alexander stated that in most residential communities, the 35-foot measurement is to the
peak.
Ms. Stenberg stated that the Board has always interpreted that as being to the peak, although
it may have been measured differently for commercial properties.
Ms. Bryan stated that it will be important to be very clear with these new documents.
Mr. Dale stated that when Zoning Codes, in gene ral, establish how to measure height, they refer
to measuring it at the midpoint of the gable. Historically, staff has used that definition for
calculating height, which is the reason 35 feet has been considered too high.
Board consensus was to change the number to 24 feet.
Ms. Bryan inquired about the possibility of addressing maximum square footage of homes.
Mr. Dale stated that would be one of the other tools to which he referred. It would involve some
research and analysis to come up with a good number. Perhaps that possibility could be studied
and the Code modified accordingly in the future.
Ms. Bryan requested that staff make a note to consider that possibility for addressing concerns
in the Historic Residential area.
Mr. Dale stated that they have received the guidance needed from the ARB and would formulate
a final draft for the Board’s consideration and recommendation.
Communications
Ms. Bryan inquired if the potential development of the property at 156 and 158 S. High Street
was no longer under consideration.
Ms. Martin stated that accordingly to her knowledge, the property owner is in search of other
potential buyers interested in custom-built homes.
There were no further communications.
MEETING MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, September 5, 2019
CALL TO ORDER
Ms. Newell, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Ms. Newell led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Commission members present: Victoria Newell, William Wilson, Mark Supelak, Rebecca Call,
and Warren Fishman
Commission members absent: Jane Fox and Kristina Kennedy
Staff members present: Jennifer Rauch, Chase Ridge, Phil Hartmann
Consultant: Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion
ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Fishman moved, Mr. Wilson seconded to accept the documents into the record.
Vote: Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Wilson
(Motion passed 5-0)
Ms. Newell stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory board to City Council when
rezoning and platting of property is under consideration. For those cases, City Council will receive
recommendations from the Commission. For other cases, the Commission has the decision-
making responsibility, and anyone who wishes to address the Commission on any of the
administrative cases must be sworn in.
Ms. Newell stated that the agenda order is typically determined at the beginning of the meeting
by the Chair. All of the cases tonight are Administrative Review and will be heard in the order in
which they were published.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
Ms. Rauch requested that the two cases be considered together.
1. Historic Dublin – ARB Code Amendments, 19-007ADMN
Ms. Newell stated that this case is an introduction of amendments to Zoning Code Sections
153.170 through 153.180, and Appendices F and G that include the creation of Historic Zoning
Districts, associated requirements, and revisions to the procedures of the Architectural Review
Board.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019
Page 2 of 14
2. Historic Dublin Design Guidelines
18-037ADMN
Ms. Newell stated that this case introduces proposed amendments to the Historic Dublin Design
Guidelines that govern Historic Dublin properties and properties identified on Appendix G.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Rauch stated that the amendments to the Code and the Design Guidelines that govern the
Historic District are in response to Council’s direction to staff last year. A stakeholders committee
was established to help work through the Design Guidelines. Council’s direction also was to
remove the Historic District from the Bridge Street Code, ensuring that it aligns with the vision of
Council and the community for the District. Council was concerned about the development
pressures in that area not aligning with the scale and character that Council and the community
wanted to be preserved there. In the Commission’s packet, drafts of the proposed amendments
to the Code and Guidelines were provided, including potential boundary changes. The goal is to
rezone these properties back to a Historic Zoning District, and attempt to retain the uses and
development standards similar to what was in Bridge Street District, but remove building type
tables that promoted a high-density feel and return the historic districts to traditional zoning code
standards, which are more user friendly. The drafts for both documents and the Historic District
boundaries are the same as were provided to the ARB, which that Board reviewed in June and
July. A public review meeting was held in August and four “office hour” opportunities in the District
on Wednesdays during the month of August. Following’s PZC’s review today, all feedback received
will be incorporated into revised drafts for the ARB and PZC’s formal reviews and recommendation
to City Council.
Boundary Map
Ms. Rauch described the current boundary and zoning for the Historic District. Staff is in
discussions with Dublin Schools to determine if the boundary that bisects the school site should
be extended further to the west or further to the east and place the 1919 Building and the Indian
Run Cemetery in Appendix G and under ARB’s purview. The overall intent is to keep the
boundaries close to the same. The eastern boundary was moved from the east side to the west
side of the river, retaining the bridge within the boundary. Council also has directed that the
library, the parking garage, the Bridge Park West Z1 and Z2 buildings, and the plaza be removed
from the Historic District. The proposed boundary map shows all proposed changes except any
related to the school site, while those discussions continue. With the amendments, it will be
essential to rezone these properties to a Historic District zoning classification. The area that is
currently Bridge Street Historic Core will become Historic District Core, Historic District South and
Historic Residential. The properties that Council wanted to be removed from the Historic District
would be zoned Scioto River Neighborhood, which is consistent with what is across the street.
The Code amendment will establish the zoning changes.
Historic Dublin – ARB Code Amendments, 19-007ADMN
Mr. Dale stated that he would highlight the recommended changes in each section. To clarify, the
Commission will be reviewing proposed amendments to the Historic District Code, which are part
of the overall zoning regulations. The amendments will be adopted by ordinance. The Commission
will also review the proposed Historic District Design Guidelines, which reside outside of the Code
at the policy level, but are linked to the Code. The Design Guidelines provide guidance on how to
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019
Page 3 of 14
apply the Code. An 85-page draft of the proposed Code amendments has been provided to the
Commission for their review, approximately half of which are site development standards that
were carried over from the previous districts. Those pages received very little comment from the
ARB or the public. [Review per section ensued.]
§153.170 Historic Districts Applicability.
§153.171 Historic Zoning Districts Purpose and Intent.
No additional changes were recommended in the above two sections.
§153.172 – Uses.
Mr. Dale noted that the Use Table 153.172A, on pp. 4-5, was also pulled forward from the
previous version.
Hotels – p. 5
ARB recommended that hotels be removed as a Permitted Use in the Historic South District.
Hotels in the Historic Core would remain; however, use-specific standards will be added.
Schools – p.4
ARB also requested that Elementary and Middle Schools be removed as Permitted Uses in the
Historic Core, Historic South and Historic Residential Districts, and permitted in the Historic Public
District only (subject to School boundary determination).
Ms. Call requested definition of a Hotel. Does it also include the Airbnb use?
Mr. Dale responded that the City has been looking at short-term rentals as a zoning question. His
assumption is that Hotels would not be defined to include that use; it will be a separate category.
Ms. Call stated that most of her concern revolves around the use type and ancillary implications,
such as parking structures and hours. If it is being handled as a separate item, she has no further
questions on that matter.
Mr. Dale responded that this is an item that use specific standards could address.
Ms. Newell requested clarification as to where hotels would be permitted.
Mr. Dale responded that it would only be in the Historic Core.
Ms. Newell stated that she does not believe a hotel in the Historic Core is appropriate.
Ms. Rauch stated that concern was also raised in a public meeting. It could be removed from that
district, as well.
Ms. Newell stated that a hotel is out of scale with the character of the Historic District. A hotel
would dwarf most of the structures in the Historic Core or anywhere in the Historic District.
Ms. Call inquired if the Code provides the Commission the ability to limit hotel structure types.
She can envision a quaint, two-story bed and breakfast with an architectural historic character in
the Historic District, but if a hotel could be more than that, it would not be appropriate. If the
definition required a hotel to be fitting for the Historic District, she would have no objection to it
there.
Mr. Dale stated that it would be within the realm of the Commission’s perspective to do so. Some
of the issue could be addressed by setback, building height and building scale compliance.
However, if the Commission is not satisfied that type of safety net is sufficiently tight to cat ch
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019
Page 4 of 14
potential issues, a definition of a hotel with the type of character fitting to the District could be
created. For instance, the use could be called an inn or a bed and breakfast establishment. It
would be a separate category with a separate definition that would prohibit a structure of the
scale of a national chain product.
Ms. Newell stated that bed and breakfast is listed, which is the type of business that can be run
in a residential home. While the first floor of a home would be eight to nine feet in height, the
scale of a typical hotel is a concern. A commercial building, such as a hotel, would have a taller
plate height – 12-14 feet up to the second floor level. That expands the scale of the structure
and results in a height that is double that of a typical 2.0 or 1.5-story building in the Historic
District.
Mr. Supelak stated that if a bed and breakfast or a boutique hotel was done in a way to fit the
District, it could be good. The ancillaries that go with it – porte cochere, parking spaces, etc.,
impact the District, as well.
Ms. Newell stated that she likes the description as “boutique.” There are cases of historic
structures, such as an old jail, that have been turned into exclusive places to stay while also
preserving a very historic facility. She would prefer not to preclude that type of creativity.
Mr. Dale stated that they could draft a provision that would permit a boutique-type hotel and
include definition, height, setback and scale requirements.
Ms. Call inquired if that would be handled within the zoning, or could there be separate design
standards relative to that zoning to address it.
Mr. Dale responded that it could be listed as a Permitted Use, and then the Design Guidelines
would apply. With those, the ARB will be able to consider scale, massing, relationship with
surrounding buildings, materials and compatibility issues.
Ms. Call inquired if the Design Guidelines would apply based upon the zoning. Is it possible to be
specific regarding in which historic districts the hotel design guidelines would apply?
Mr. Dale responded that would be addressed in a use specific standards category. It would be
possible to define the circumstances under which a boutique hotel would be acceptable in certain
districts and not in other districts.
Mr. Fishman stated that he has been in boutique hotels that are four stories high. Nothing that
resembles a hotel would be appropriate in the Historic District. The composition of the ARB will
be different in the future, so this definition would need to be very specific.
Mr. Supelak stated that Commissioners are very concerned about possible issues with this use,
but he is willing to withhold judgment until he has seen the consultant’s draft of this standard.
Ms. Call stated that it would be necessary to have use-specific standards.
Mr. Dale responded that if the Commission continues to see some risk after reviewing the
standard, they could make the decision not to include it. There is also the option of making it a
Conditional Use, which would subject it to an additional level of review.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019
Page 5 of 14
§153.172 – Site Development Standards
(A) Intent
(B) Applicability
(C) General Development Standards
Table 153.173A provides regulations for land and structures within the historic zoning districts.
Generally speaking, all of the measurements in this table already are in place and have been
incorporated into the amendment.
Three points of concern:
1. Maximum building height – 35 feet in Historic Residential District. While that is a standard
residential building height standard, there is concern that it is not appropriate in this
particular district. The consensus seems to be that is too tall compared to what currently
exists. 29-30 feet may be more compatible with existing buildings.
2. Maximum lot coverage – An impervious surface (buildings, driveways, etc.) of 65% in the
Historic South District and 50% in the Historic Residential District. There is concern that
percentage is too high in those districts. The direction they have been hearing is to reduce
both the height and the maximum lot coverage.
Ms. Call stated that there is a minimum lot size of 8,700 feet in the Historic District. What is the
standard for the rest of the City?
Ms. Rauch stated that it depends on the zoning.
Mr. Dale inquired if 8,700 feet would be on the low end.
Ms. Call stated that there are no huge yards in historic districts. The 50% maximum lot coverage
allows for a livable structure on a smaller lot.
Ms. Rauch noted that the City has many lots that are very narrow but long. There are concerns
about new development in the Historic District. Fitting long houses with large footprints on these
lots is out of character in the District. Although it is important to have zoning that allows people
to redevelop or make appropriate additions, there is a need to ensure that it is appropriate within
the district.
Mr. Dale clarified the relationship between the zoning standards and the Design Guidelines. When
a proposal does not meet zoning standards, a waiver can be requested. Design Guidelines address
respect for context and compatibility. If in applying the Guidelines, ARB believes certain
modifications should be made, they will be able to condition their approval on that modification
being made.
3. Side Yard and Rear Yard Setbacks – Residents expressed concerns. What happens to the
rear of their homes is a very important part of the character of that neighborhood,
although the public may not see rear yards from the public right-of-way. They are
continuing to work on those numbers.
Mr. Wilson inquired if the maximum lot coverage numbers in the Historic South District are near
the coverage that exists today.
Ms. Rauch responded that staff currently is conducting an audit of the numbers.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019
Page 6 of 14
Mr. Fishman stated that in the Historic Residential District the lot coverage is 50%; however, with
some of those new houses, there is actually 90% lot coverage. He observed an addition being
made to a garage that impacts the neighbor’s ability to use that portion of his yard.
Ms. Rauch stated that most of those large homes do meet lot coverage requirements without
need for a waiver. The lots are small. If the Commission is not satisfied with the standards, they
can revisit them.
Mr. Fishman inquired how the requirement for 50% lot coverage would be controlled.
Mr. Dale stated that they need to calibrate the numbers as closely as possible to an overall
prevailing condition in the area. From block to block, they will vary. The approach is to allow the
ARB the flexibility to grant waivers where the amount is exceeded or to make it more restrictive
based upon surrounding context. This provides a standard for District-wide conditions.
Mr. Fishman stated that suggestion would appear to exasperate the problem. He would prefer to
make restrictions differently. It would seem if lots are close in proximity, the next applicant within
that area should be permitted only 50% coverage. Otherwise, the greenspace will disappear in
the District.
Mr. Dale stated that greenspace is one of the factors that the ARB would be asked to consider.
Ultimately, there need to be guidelines. ARB exists to exercise discretion, to look at the conditions
and make certain choices.
Ms. Call stated that he has mentioned two options, either more restrictive, not permitting waivers
or to grant waivers. Is there opportunity for a hybrid, whereby a waiver could be granted up to
a certain percent? For example, if they meet certain standards, ARB has the ability to flex from
50% -- perhaps even 40%, maximum lot coverage up to 60%, given those standards.
Mr. Dale responded that it could be written in that manner. It could be specific to lot coverage,
lot width, or by creating a limitation on the increment up to which the Board could grant waivers.
Ms. Call responded that she would prefer the requirements be more restricted and grant them
more flexibility up to a certain number with which we all have a comfort level.
Ms. Newell stated that she likes the waiver process. There was a time when residents in the
Historic District were required to come before the BZA due to simple issues, such as the fact that
their homes were a couple of feet off the property line, and that was preventing them from being
able to add simple decks, etc. She likes having the waiver process in the hands of the ARB, as
opposed to requiring residents to go to multiple boards.
Mr. Dale stated that the waiver could be limited to a certain ceiling, and granting of the waiver
could be tied to context-based decisions.
Mr. Fishman stated that on page one, number 3 under Historic Zoning Districts Purpose and
Intent, item B-3 states that the Historical Residential District applies to the residential area of
Historic Dublin and encourages 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. On page 3, item 5-3 under “Similar Use
Determination” requires that the use will not materially impair the present or potential use of
other properties within the same district or bordering districts. Certainly, we would not be abiding
by the latter provision.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019
Page 7 of 14
Mr. Dale stated that the Similar Use Determination is different. It is intended to allow for the
possibility of uses that did not previously exist, i.e. record stores versus CD stores. In regard to
mass and scale, the core standard for the Design Guidelines is that things need to be similar in
size, scale and massing. If waivers are limited to a certain percentage, and it is clear that they
need to be context sensitive, the Guidelines should achieve the desired result.
Ms. Newell stated that in the Historic District, each property has an individual character with
buildings reflective of different architectural periods. It is important to have the flexibility to judge
each property individually within context with surrounding properties. A waiver gives the ARB
ability to do so. The Code for the District must not be so rigid that it prevents that opportunity.
Mr. Dale stated that there are Waiver Standards and Criteria in the draft document. He is hearing
that the Commission wants some limited flexibility.
Ms. Call stated that there might be new architectural ideas that violate Code. If the Code is so
strict that it does not allow for those type of variances, there is no other mechanism by which to
consider such opportunities.
Mr. Fishman inquired if it is possible to add a condition for how the proposal would affect the
surrounding properties.
Mr. Dale responded affirmatively. He noted that in the remainder of the section up to page 50,
General Standards are addressed, such as landscaping, lighting and parking. Those regulations
already exist and were carried forward into this draft. Neither the public nor ARB offered
comments on those items.
Ms. Call stated that new parking garages recently were added in the area immediately adjacent
to these Districts. Since their addition, have there been any suggestions from ARB or the public
to revisit the topic of parking?
Mr. Dale responded that there has been no such suggestion. However, communities should
continue to monitor their parking situation. Due to shared and autonomous vehicles, etc., parking
needs will be changing substantially in the next few years.
Mr. Supelak inquired if she is concerned that these are relaxed or reduced standards.
Ms. Call responded that the minimum parking requirement for a historic residential property was
two spaces per home. Now, many of the homes are larger. As the occupant profile per home
changes, the parking profile per home changes, as well.
Ms. Rauch responded that this is the parking standard for Bridge Street; it is not specific to historic
structures. It is in line with the rest of the community.
Mr. Wilson stated that this is the Historic District. Do we want to preserve it to continue to be
historic? When waivers are issued, modernization occurs. The historic character may be lost. Most
of us have visited cities in Europe where buildings have existed 200 – 300 years. Those cities
have strict rules prohibiting changes to their historic buildings. Although interior changes are
permitted, nothing on the façade or the foundation can be changed. They also want to preserve
the existing greenspace. Dublin has other areas that can accommodate modern and larger homes.
The Historic District is a very important portion of this city. Do we want to keep it the same for
many years, or do we want to permit it to transform over time and lose the specific attractiveness
that it has had?
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019
Page 8 of 14
Mr. Dale responded that, based on the feedback received during the committee, public and ARB
review process, this is a historic preservation effort. However, it will also accommodate property
owners making exterior changes to their buildings subject to tight standards that will require
preservation of the historic character of the buildings. There may be instances where new
structures are desired, as well. Based on their understanding of the values of this community,
there is no intent that the district will be transitioning out of its historic character.
§ 153.174 Design Standards
Mr. Dale stated that the intent was to have consistency between the Code standards and the
Design Guidelines. The Code standards are the “shalls”; the Design Guidelines are the “shoulds.”
ARB requested that any “shalls” be removed from the Guidelines. Essentially, numbers and other
details in this section have been cleaned up. For instance, ARB requested clarification that shutters
must be operable.
Ms. Call inquired if there is a list of the “shall” items that were removed from the Guidelines.
Mr. Dale responded that there were only two:
1. On page 53, Entrance Design – pedestrian entrances on all buildings shall be pedestrian
scale.
2. Balconies, Stoops and Canopies. These items should be more character-driven than have
specific numbers.
Ms. Rauch stated that, currently, making any change to the color of a building in the Historic
District requires ARB review. ARB has suggested compiling a color palette that the Board will
approve, which would enable administrative reviews of color by staff.
Mr. Fishman noted that some communities have had those in place, such as Muirfield. Over time,
colors evolve and color palettes may need to change.
Mr. Dale responded that, periodically, ARB could modify that color palette, if desired.
Ms. Newell stated that the stakeholders committee discussed this topic at length. While on a
Victorian home, five colors could be appropriate, on a vernacular building, perhaps only one color
would be appropriate. It is difficult to incorporate that into guidelines.
Ms. Rauch stated that the existing Guidelines do address the need for consistency with the
appropriate time frame.
Mr. Supelak inquired if, potentially, the approved color palettes could be incorporated into the
Design Guidelines.
Ms. Rauch responded that there is opportunity to include it or provide as a separate document.
Mr. Dale stated that although staff would administer the color palette, an application could be
referred to ARB, if the request warranted their review.
J. Demolition
Mr. Dale stated that the Code revision provides a set of criteria for contributing versus non-
contributing buildings. The City has conducted an extensive survey of the District. They are
attempting to reduce that to a simple inventory list of contributing versus non-contributing
buildings. Contributing buildings must provide proof of economic hardship for their demolition
request. If the building is non-contributing, the standards are less rigid.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019
Page 9 of 14
Ms. Newell inquired about the ability to address properties where the owner has intentionally
permitted their historic property to decline, because they have other plans for that property.
Mr. Dale responded that the term for that practice is demolition by neglect. The Zoning Code is
not a maintenance document. Many communities have tried to supplement their zoning
regulations with maintenance requirements. Some communities have required owners to license
any empty buildings and maintain them. Additional guidelines or standards would be included to
attempt to minimize that possibility; however, it is difficult to enforce.
Mr. Supelak stated that under Review Criteria, item 4-d refers to, “Any evidence of self-created
hardship through deliberate neglect or inadequate maintenance of the property.”
Mr. Dale stated that is the pertinent section. It may be difficult to use as the basis for denial, if it
is the only reason.
Ms. Rauch stated that this issue also is being reviewed from a City-wide perspective. That effort
will dovetail with this.
Mr. Fishman stated that there are incidences where an aging homeowner passes. That individual’s
home, which has declined from lack of maintenance, is purchased, and the new owner wants to
tear it down with the argument that the deterioration was not due to their neglect.
Mr. Dale stated that is sometimes a legitimate argument. This has been the Achilles Heel of
preservation efforts. Aging historic buildings are expensive to maintain. The best direction is to
supplement City standards with strong maintenance requirements.
Ms. Newell stated that she likes the suggestion to provide notification when a building is vacated.
Empty buildings need to have a minimum temperature inside, or mold and other issues will
develop. Even a new building will deteriorate in such conditions.
Mr. Fishman stated that the City of Columbus has a process to address empty buildings following
a fire. Thirty days after a fire event, an inspector checks the building to see if any re-construction
of the damaged building has begun or if said construction has proceeded without a license. In
either case, the building owner is cited. He would assume there could be a similar inspection
process for maintenance, not fire inspections.
Mr. Dale stated that this would be an appropriate policy issue for the Commission to raise. There
are other policy areas related to enforcement and maintenance that are important for a holistic
approach.
Public Comment
Denise Franz King, 170 S. Riverview Street, Dublin stated that she appreciates the Commission’s
emphasis on preserving the character of the open space in the Historic District. The residents
appreciate that the Commission has listened to their concerns. Their primary concern is with the
new, long homes being placed on the small lots in the district. There is a structure on S. Riverview
that is so close to the house next door that she would have assumed the Fire Department would
have considered that proximity unacceptable. She appreciates the authority being given to ARB
to take context with the neighborhood into account, so that a 35-ft. house is not permitted on
the south end of the street where the diminutive ranch homes are located. The scale, lot coverage
and height are very important. They would request that no additional over-sized buildings be
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019
Page 10 of 14
added to their neighborhood, cutting off the sunlight and air to the adjacent properties. She
invited Commission members to join her on a walk through the neighborhood.
Historic Dublin Design Guidelines, 18-037ADMN
Mr. Dale stated that one of the main objectives of this revision was to take the City’s existing
Guidelines and turn them into a more user-friendly document. Currently, substantial language in
the Guidelines is essentially background information, and within that information, there may be
only two guidelines. In addition, the operative words are not consistent. They have attempted to
clean up that language for clarification purposes. They also cleaned up some internal
inconsistencies, eliminated duplications, etc. They did not attempt to change the Guidelines. They
are sufficiently strong, but will now be more effective. The document has seven chapters.
The first three chapters consist of the Introduction, History and Intent, and Context and
Character. The actual Guidelines are in chapters four through seven and provide guidelines for
Rehabilitation, New Construction, Site Considerations and Signs.
3.2 Using the Guidelines
This item states that, “the underlying premise of the Guidelines is preservation and rehabilitation.”
It is not to transition away from Historic. There has been some discussion about the relationship
of these Guidelines to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties. That document provides 8-9 standards for the treatment of historic properties.
Although the standards are broad, guiding principles, that Office has published guidance that is
more specific to each.
Ms. Newell noted that there are actually a total of 10 standards.
Mr. Dale stated that they are quite familiar with those standards and believe these Guidelines are
consistent with those. As a local government, Dublin has the opportunity to customize its
Guidelines, although they are based on the national standards. Beginning with the Overview
section on page 37, additional guidance was provided in regard to the discretionary nature of the
Architectural Review Board’s (ARB) decisions. The operative words used in these Guidelines are
“should,” “should not” and “avoid”.
4.1 General
In item 1.C, alternative materials are addressed. This item states that, “If it is not practical to
retain the original materials or features due to the condition, availability, safety or energy
efficiency of original materials, then quality contemporary substitute materials, when approved
by the Board, should replicate the material being replaced. Those materials may be selected from
a pre-approved list of alternative materials if it is demonstrated that they have the same
characteristics of pre-approved materials.” New and often better materials continue to be
developed.
4.11 Building Additions
Items C and D address additions to an original building. The ARB requested that both items be
converted to Code standards, where they would have more force.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019
Page 11 of 14
New Construction
With this item, effort was extended to obtain the consensus of the community. At an earlier public
meeting, residents were asked, using visual examples, to indicate their preference for new
construction in the Historic District, i.e. historical replications, modern, but in scale with the area,
or historically representative – similar to. The majority opinion centered between historical
replication and historically representative. Residents indicated that there were other places in the
City appropriate for bold architectural construction; Historical Dublin was not the place. The intent
of historical representation is to be very respectful of the historical fabric, similar to, yet
discernable as a new construction.
In summary, the revised Design Guidelines are a cleaned-up checklist of what previously existed,
which should be more user-friendly for staff and the public.
Commission Discussion
Ms. Call stated that she believes Signs are difficult to get right, and he has done a remarkable
job on this section of the Guidelines. She appreciates the emphasis placed on respect for the
historical community.
Mr. Dale thanked her for the comment.
Ms. Newell stated that she has a great love for historical properties. She is curious as to the
reason he would not want to incorporate a reference to the Secretary of Interior’s Guidelines for
Historic Preservation. They are very good standards.
Mr. Dale responded that these standards are consistent with the national guidelines, but they are
based upon those previously written specifically for Dublin. Although the Secretary of the Interior’s
guidelines are broad, they do provide other documents with more details, which offer models for
community use. Those documents are much more detailed than what is proposed tonight. What
they learned from all the input received is the general opinion that, for the most part, the current
process works. It is not broken but simply needs to be improved. To discard what the City has
and begin over with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards was not necessary.
Ms. Newell stated that she was not suggesting the current standards be discarded, but there are
helpful details in the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines – masonry, for example. Historic
structures have historic masonry and mortar, which are very high in lime content. Historic bricks
were fired at different temperatures than bricks are fired today. If contemporary mortar is used
on historic and aged brick, it deteriorates the brick. The mortar will not expand and contract in
the same way the original mortar did. In addition, it is possible to over tuck-point a building.
There are styles of grout lines consistent with historic structures. There were grapevine-type
mortar joints, and mortar joints were intentionally recessed from the face of the brick, which
contribute to the character of the building. The inclination is to “butter” those joints, thinking they
are inadequate, when in fact, there may be nothing wrong with masonry. This is one of the details
provided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines that are not reflected in these proposed
documents.
Mr. Dale responded that in any community, the level of review followed is a matter of local culture
and acceptance. Some communities would consider the details to which she referred too onerous
to follow. They attempted to listen to the community’s input, and residents expressed satisfaction
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019
Page 12 of 14
with the level of detail in the current review system. That is a policy question, however, for the
Commission to determine.
Mr. Supelak stated that those details would appear to reflect technical expertise in the review.
Ms. Newell responded that it relates somewhat to the maintenance of the structures. The purpose
of the Secretary of Interior’s Guidelines was to provide ways to protect historic property. When
federal funds are involved, the federal government can control what occurs on projects that are
deemed historic properties. Some neighborhoods can fall into that classification and become
protected properties. Their intent was to prevent projects that would destroy the original historic
character of buildings. It does not prevent renovation of the building or accommodating new uses
for the building. The goal was to preserve, not restore, to recognize and preserve the significant
architectural characters that distinguish the buildings as historic. For instance, masonry sealants
should never be applied to historic masonry buildings. It will seal the moisture in and the brick
will deteriorate. Often, it is not appropriate to use contemporary materials on historic material,
as it can be devastating to the original material.
Mr. Supelak stated that reflects a need for a technical knowledge base, which has its place. It
may be a different document, separate from the Design Guidelines, but made available for the
ARB’s review considerations. However, including it in the Guidelines would make that information
available to the public. The typical bricklayer would not be aware of such information.
Mr. Fishman stated that, previously, the German Village ARB standards provided this level of
specificity, i.e. the type of mortar to use, not sealing or painting the brick. Could the ARB have a
set of those standards to consider when renovations are proposed? Those types of specifics are
important. He has seen brick crumble because it had been sealed, painted or mortared incorrectly.
Mr. Dale stated that these are maintenance standards for historic buildings.
Ms. Newell stated that some of those actions could destroy the historic character of a building. If
the Board cannot recognize those features in a building and know how to protect them, then
those structures will be placed at risk.
Mr. Dale responded that it would require the ARB and staff to administer and enforce those
standards, if they were made part of the approval process. Some communities provide a historic
properties maintenance guide.
Ms. Newell stated that could be appropriate, if staff would incorporate it in their review.
Mr. Fishman stated that while it is appropriate to provide it as maintenance information, applicants
for new projects should be told that it is essential for their approval. If not, a few years hence,
the brick will have deteriorated and be falling off.
Ms. Rauch stated that the Guidelines originally provided maintenance standards; however, those
were removed from the proposed document, as there are other guidance and reference resources
available. The City can provide those resources online for users and homeowners.
Ms. Newell stated that some communities will incorporate examples into their Guidelines.
Mr. Fishman suggested that staff look at German Village’s Guidelines. They have done a good job
in addressing the preservation of their historical brick buildings.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019
Page 13 of 14
Mr. Dale responded that German Village’s Guidelines are very similar to what has been proposed.
Years ago, the City of Cincinnati published “The Old House Handbook,” which provides the type
of guidance to which Mr. Fishman is referring. Perhaps that reference could be provided as a
companion to the Design Guidelines.
Mr. Fishman responded that the City might not be able to control the maintenance, or how a
homeowner tuck-points his home. However, when applications for new projects are submitted,
the Board could require it for approval of those projects.
Ms. Call stated that the Zoning and Design Guidelines should have those specific areas covered,
but guidance for the maintenance of historical buildings is lacking.
Mr. Fishman responded that an application for restoration of a building is the opportunity to
require that the brick material on the building exterior be handled in a particular way. Guidelines
can be provided to the applicant on the type of mortar necessary, avoidance of sealant, etc.
Ms. Rauch responded that level of guidance previously existed in the Guidelines but was removed.
Ms. Newell suggested that people view the masonry on the 1919 Building, which has been very
poorly tuck-pointed over the years. It is possible to remove that tuck-pointing, and the building
could be restored to what it should be. Looking at the rear of that building, in particular, will
provide adequate proof of the importance of providing this type of guidance.
Mr. Dale stated that he would try to summarize and add that information in the Rehabilitation
section. He would add a section that would essentially require the applicant or allow the ARB to
review the technical nature of the rehabilitation. The applicant can be required to demonstrate
that they will be using acceptable historically sensitive rehabilitation techniques. Although this
discussion is focusing on masonry, the same situation can be present with a wood, shingles or
foundation block. The applicant can be provided information on available guidance resources.
Mr. Supelak inquired if there would be value in adding that reference in the Guidelines or in the
Building Permit process, so that there is technical expertise available to the user.
Mr. Fishman stated that ARB would need to be aware of the standards to require adherence to
them.
Mr. Dale responded that it would begin at the staff level.
Mr. Wilson stated that this item could be referred to as appropriate construction methods. He
participated in the Bridge Street District Code amendment. This is following a similar process. He
is happy that both the Historic District Code and the Design Guidelines will be in accord.
Mr. Dale responded that “Appropriate Construction Methods” would be a good title for the
additional section.
Ms. Newell expressed appreciation on behalf of the Commission for Mr. Dale and staff’s work on
the revisions.
Mr. Dale responded that the ARB has provided valuable input in their two previous reviews, and
the Commission’s guidance will further improve the amendments to these documents.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2019
Page 14 of 14
Next Steps
Ms. Rauch stated that the Site Development Standards would be provided to the ARB for their
review. Following that discussion, all of the input will be incorporated into final amended
documents. Those documents will be reviewed by ARB, and they will make a recommendation
for approval to the Commission. At that point, the Commission will conduct a final review and
make a recommendation for approval to City Council. The goal is to complete this by year end.
Ms. Newell requested that staff provide an opportunity for absent Commissioners, Ms. Fox and
Ms. Kennedy, to offer comments. When developing a new Code for the City, it is important to
have all Commissioners’ input.
Ms. Rauch stated that she met with Ms. Fox last week. She provided some questions that were
touched upon in this discussion, but they may need clarification. Staff could offer opportunity to
Ms. Fox and Ms. Kennedy for additional comments.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m.
_________________________________
Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission
__________________________________
Deputy Clerk of Council
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes of July 24, 2019
Page 10 of 13
Ms. Martin responded affirmatively. An Administrative Appeal could be made to the Board of Zoning
Appeals. She does not foresee that being necessary. The City’s Engineering Department will work
with the property owner.
Mr. Bailey moved, Ms. Bryan seconded approval of the Architectural Review Board application with
one condition:
1) That the design be revised to use an asphalt/gravel hybrid to be reviewed by
Engineering at the Building Permit stage.
Vote: Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Stenberg, yes; Ms. Bryan, yes; Mr. Bailey, yes.
(Approved 4-0 with one abstention)
Mr. Keeler returned to the meeting.
Ms. Stenberg stated that the following two agenda cases would be discussed together.
5. Historic Dublin – ARB Code Amendments, 19-007ADMN, Administrative Code
Ms. Stenberg stated that this is an introduction of amendments to Zoning Code Sections 153.170
through 153.180, and Appendices F and G that include the creation of Historic Zoning Districts,
associated requirements, and revisions to the procedures of the Architectural Review Board.
6. Historic Design Guidelines, 18-037ADMN, Administrative Code
Ms. Stenberg stated that this is an introduction of modifications to the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines
that apply to Historic Dublin properties and properties identified on Appendix G.
Ms. Martin stated that at a July 10 Special Meeting, ARB reviewed the proposed amendments to
the ARB Code and Historic Design Guidelines. That discussion continues tonight. Throughout
August, staff will be engaging the residents, commercial property owners and business owners in
the District. Postcards will be mailed to residents in the District inviting them to sign up to provide
a 30-minute public input on the proposed amendments. Every Wednesday, either she or Ms. Rauch
will hold office hours at the Dublin Chamber of Commerce to meet with the residents. The Board’s
recommendations will be incorporated into the proposed amendments, and on August 15, 6:00-
8:00 p.m., there will be a public open house at the Dublin Community Church for discussion of
this topic.
Ms. Bryan inquired if the Board would receive a copy of that update to review.
Ms. Martin responded affirmatively. The next steps are Board and Commission reviews. After ARB
completes its reviews, PZC will also review the documents and make a recommendation to City
Council.
Greg Dale, Consultant, McBride Dale Clarion led the continuing review of the proposed
amendments. The previous review on July 10 identified some needs for editorial corrections,
which staff has made. It also identified needed refinements to some metrics within the Code
development standards. Those include the height requirements in the Historic Residential District;
the 50% minimum lot coverage; and varied setbacks (reflected in Table 153.17) in different
locations. The team is working on proposed amendments to those requirements. Members of the
public expressed concerns at the previous meeting regarding the Historic South District. It is his
understanding that within the last couple of years, the City completed an extensive process to
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes of July 24, 2019
Page 11 of 13
engage the public and calibrate the standards for the Historic South area. Although that area can
be revisited, it is their view the focus should be on the Historic Residential District. He requested
the Board’s preference on re-studying the Historic South District.
Ms. Stenberg responded that an extensive review of the Historic South District occurred in 2017,
involving public meetings. There are records of those meeting discussions, which reflect the
positions considered and how the decisions were made that reflected the best options. The Vine
and Tap building mentioned at the June 10 Special Meeting was a topic of the Historic South
District discussion in 2017. She is satisfied with the decisions made at that time.
Mr. Alexander inquired if in the Historic South District, a differentiation in lot coverage is made
for commercial uses versus residential uses.
Ms. Martin responded that, currently, in the Historic South District, there is no differentiation in
lot coverage standards for commercial versus residential uses. Most of the properties in that
district are commercial properties adjacent to South High Street.
Ms. Bryan stated that issue was discussed because there will be several potential new builds in
that District. She would like to see a distinction between lot coverage for commercial and
residential properties.
Mr. Dale inquired if she is referring to the Historic South District in particular. Ms. Bryan responded
affirmatively.
Ms. Bryan stated another concern is that in Table 153.17-2a, page 5, it is stated that hotels are
permitted. If hotels are permitted, there need to be standards; currently, there are none.
Ms. Martin inquired if the Board would prefer that permission for hotels in the Historic South
District be eliminated, but the bed and breakfast option be retained.
Board members concurred with the suggestion.
Mr. Dale offered a proposal related to the relationship between the Code and the Guidelines. At
the previous meeting, language was suggested that where there was a conflict between the two,
that the Zoning Standards would control. He would suggest language be added in the Code that
would provide ARB the ability to place conditions on approvals that might deviate from the zoning
standards. The ARB already has a mechanism for exceeding the Code, which is a waiver. Likewise,
ARB should have the ability through conditions to reduce or trim the approval to make it comply
with Guidelines. That would provide ARB the flexibility to make the Guidelines and the Code
conform.
Board members expressed agreement with that suggestion.
Mr. Dale stated that they are working on recommendations that will be responsive to the other
concerns raised at the July 10 meeting.
Mr. Alexander stated that there were public comments about renovations of homes in the Historic
Residential District evolving into long homes. Will a recommended solution be offered that would
limit the lengths of the structures?
Mr. Dale inquired if the concern is with length or with the width, as well.
Ms. Alexander stated that there are some homes that now extend a great length from the front
property line to the rear of the lot.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes of July 24, 2019
Page 12 of 13
Ms. Martin stated that in other residential zoning districts in the City, there is the option of
addressing the issue through the maximum lot coverage percentage and the maximum structure
percentage.
Mr. Dale responded that there are other options for addressing it, as well, such as the Guideline
that additions not dominate the original building. However, there is also the accumulative effect
of additions, either the width or the depth.
Ms. Bryan stated that there is also a concern that on some lots, demolished structures have been
replaced with new, long homes. She noted that the residents on S. Riverview Street are
conducting a house-by-house assessment, documenting the lot coverages and heights so that
the City can have a profile of the homes in the neighborhood. Context is critical, in view of the
new building requests that will be submitted.
Mr. Dale agreed that it is largely about context, so documenting that information is valuable.
Public Comment
Steve Rudy, 129 S. Riverview Street, Dublin, OH stated that he has begun to conduct a survey of
the homes on S. Riverview Street, and has provided a preliminary draft to Ms. Rauch. The
information indicates definite build lanes, which is common in subdivisions. He lives in a backyard
neighborhood. He would be willing to let the Board view that vista from his backyard. He is
hopeful that the revised Code language will preserve the existing backyard vista. He has seen
recommendations about preserving characteristics, but those characteristics have not been
defined. He believes a section in the Code should provide for consideration of shared open space
and directly inquire what a proposed development would do to the surrounding properties.
Unquestionably, a couple of the recent projects have had a negative impact on the neighboring
properties. A number of $1 million homes in the District have been negatively impacted by recent
approvals that have not reigned in the development footprint. New homes have been permitted
to be wedged onto the small lots, overpowering the surrounding homes. When he purchased his
home 25 years ago, the ARB requirements were provided in his closing documents for signature.
Evidently, some people were not required to make a similar commitment when purchasing historic
inventory. As a side note, he was late in understanding that Pat Grabill’s architectural ideas were
on the architectural arc of a small, rural German town. He was trying to build small town America.
He is concerned that the recent long homes being built have lower level, rear entry garages. The
backyard greenspace is being replaced with views of long, tall buildings with parked cars at the
rear. He would prefer side-entry garages. When he added an addition to his home, he resisted
the City’s recommendation for a garage in his backyard and added a side garage, thereby
preserving the shared greenspace.
Ms. Stenberg stated that she appreciates Mr. Rudy’s suggestion of providing the Board access to
his backyard to view that greenspace. In her visits to the District, she has had street access only.
She inquired if there would be a way to provide opportunity to the residents to submit photos of
their greenspace, which would make the Board aware of that greenspace character.
Ms. Martin responded that perhaps Mr. Rudy could facilitate that with his neighborhood.
Ms. Bryan stated that the ARB walking tour of the Historic District is due to be rescheduled. This
might be the right time for that.
ARB MEETING
HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE UPDATE
AND DESIGN GUIDELINE S
Meeting Notes
July 10, 2019
ARB Members: Shannon Stenberg, Gary Alexander, Kathleen Bryan, Rob Bailey
Staff: Jenny Rauch, Nicki Martin
Consultant: Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion
Key Topics Discussed
Introduced the purpose and goal of the amendments; specifically, Council’s direction regarding
the proposed amendments.
Reviewed the background of the proposed amendments, including the request for removal of
the Historic District from the Bridge Street District, concerns and issues raised over time, and
the reason for the update.
Reviewed the difference between the zoning code (shalls) and the design guidelines (shoulds).
Provided an overview of the memo that highlighted the general organizational changes and
significant content changes to the Zoning Code and Historic Design Guidelines (HDG)
Identified the intent of the discussion was focused on ARB’s initial review comments. Public
comment was permitted. Staff shared next steps would include public input sessions prior to
formal public review and approval process.
ARB General Comments
Supportive of proposed documents.
Supportive of retaining the level of detail found in the Code.
Minor edits to language.
Consistency in numbers spelled out v. using the number.
Public Comments
Request to provide additional language is several sections to address lot coverage regarding
residential development to ensure it is compatible with surrounding properties.
Similar request related to building setbacks.
Concerns raised about lot coverage for Historic South properties.
Boundary Changes
Supportive of the proposed general boundary changes, removal from the BSD, and rezoning of
the properties from Bridge Street District Zoning Districts to the Historic Zoning Districts.
Concerns about removing Buildings Z1 and Z2, etc. as it limits the ability to regulate the design
of the sites/buildings as it transitions into the Historic District.
Discuss with schools about their plans for the site and desire to remain under ARB’s purview.
ARB prefers to retain school within the boundary to ensure sensitive transition into the District.
Zoning Code
153.170 - Applicability
Add ‘demolition’ to applicability section.
Add language to clarify the applicability of the Code and Historic Design Guidelines.
153.072 - Uses
Removal of Elementary or Middle School use from Historic Residential uses.
153.173 – Site Development Standards
Significant discussion about Table 153.173A, specifically related to Historic Residential and
Historic South standards.
Increased side yard and rear yard setbacks, particularly if the house is larger and takes up more
space on the lot in Historic Residential.
Decrease the permitted building height in Historic Residential.
Decrease the permitted building footprint in Historic Residential to ensure compatibility with
existing/historic residential properties.
Review lot coverage requirements for Historic Residential and Historic South.
Staff to bring back information about existing conditions in Historic Dublin and additional
standards for the ARB to review that address public comment and ARB’s concerns.
153.174 – Design Standards
Under Pitched Roof clarify the intent of numbers 2 & 3 and potentially change it to read
‘completed gable end required’.
Gambrel and mansard roof materials should include dimensional shingles.
Remove the language ‘of at least three steps and a minimum depth of five feet and width of
five feet’ from entrance designs.
Shutter section should be clarified to state operable shutters are required.
Review and clarify the section regarding canopies, as new construction and rehab guidelines do
not clearly align. Consider adding language to the new construction section.
Review balcony requirements allowing 40% of a façade to be made of balcony. Consider
eliminating and adding clarifying language in the HDG.
Stoop dimensions are too specific. Dimensions should be eliminated from the Code and a
section should be to the Guidelines to address the design intent and usability of a stoop.
Under chimneys and vents are permitted to be clad in ‘masonry’, which needs to be more
clearly defined. This could occur in the exterior materials section below.
Board was supportive of approving a palette of building colors for staff to administer.
153.176 – Review Procedures
Clearly define structures identified as non-contributing and contributing to ensure it is clear to
the Board and the applicant, as it relates to the demolition criteria.
Board was supportive of the more stringent demolition review criteria that is based on
contributing and non-contributing.
Clarify that the text ‘property owner’ under the review criteria for the demolition should also
include applicant or representative.
153.178 – Maintenance
Include additional language about how to deal with/address the topic of demolition by neglect.
Potentially include language to address more stringent property maintenance standards.
Guidelines
General
Provide references to applicable Code Sections throughout the Guidelines.
Ensure Historic Dublin’s boundary matches on all maps throughout.
Natural Features
Consider revising sections related to the uniqueness of limestone only to Dublin.
Neighborhood Character
Add language to Historic Residential Neighborhood about compatibility of lot coverage with
surrounding residential properties.
User’s Guide
Clarify the language related to the applicability of the zoning regulations and the guidelines.
Want to ensure the potential conflicting regulations and guidelines are minimized.
Rehabilitation
4.5 D – Spelling of palate
4.6 B – End the sentence after “exterior.”
4.7 G – Retain only the first sentence. Delete the subsequent sentence, as is not a feasible
construction method.
4.10 C and D – Add these sections to the Code.
4.11 H – Clarify that materials need to be compatible with the District, but not match the
original historic structure. Cross reference with 4.1C should be provided.
4.11 K- Concerns about materials appropriate for an addition differ from materials
appropriate for rehabilitation (i.e. where does fiber cement siding fit). Discussion about
whether additions should be addressed under new construction in the Guidelines versus in
the rehabilitation section.
4.13 D – Clarify that treated wood needs to be painted on exposed sections only.
New Construction
5.1 C – Add language about compatible massing and lot coverage.
5.3 A – Add language about lot coverage compatibility and ensure the section references
neighboring properties. The districtwide reference is too broad.
5.3 B - Ensure the section references neighboring properties. The districtwide reference is too
broad.
Include language addressing setbacks to ensure they match adjacent properties.
Add section on canopies.
Next Steps
Make revisions to Code and Guidelines based on the ARB’s comments and public comments.
Provide additional information regarding the general development standards, particularly lot
coverage, residential building height, and residential setbacks.
Outline schedule and public input opportunities.
Committee Development Committee Minutes – May 8, 2019 Page 7 of 9
Ms. Woodworth stated that a strong downtown is an entertainment destination for people.
Retail is specialty infill. Hotel market numbers show room nights increased and revenue per
available room has been maintained.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the DCVB just provided a report showing a decrease
in room rate.
Ms. Woodworth stated that there is a perceived need for meeting space. While not part of her
study, it did come up often in interviews with businesses.
In response to Ms. De Rosa, Ms. Woodworth stated that the smaller organizations did mention
it as well.
Hotel market prospects show about 550-870 rooms over the next 10 years. She is aware that
two hotels are planned.
Mr. Reiner stated that people will be drawn to Dublin for restaurants and the new bridge.
Ms. Woodworth stated that the recreation market has not yet been tapped and there are many
opportunities.
Ms. De Rosa asked the presenters to share what other communities are doing, what Dublin
should be doing and what are the cautions.
Ms. Volk stated that she feels strongly that Dublin can’t stop now. There is a great foundation
for a great expanded downtown. It does not impinge upon neighborhoods but enhances the
neighborhoods and the rest of the City. It is providing alternatives in residential, retail offerings
and the kind of office space available. Even in cities that are overall losing populations like
Detroit and Baltimore, they are expanding in their core because more people are choosing to
live in walkable neighborhoods. She does not see that changing significantly with the next
generation – the “I-Gen.” They may be more disruptive than the millennials in terms of the
changes they have made in way of life. Keeping flexibility in mind for the future is essential.
In response to Ms. De Rosa’s request for a cautionary note, Ms. Woodworth stated that she
would caution not to over-park. Mobility is changing and we will be in a world of automated
shuttles, and transit will become cheaper. She also advised to maintain a mix of uses.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes shared hearing the CEO of Honda talk about the future of cars
and transportation. The capacity of existing roadways could quadruple. He stated that the
biggest losers in vehicle automation will be the major metro cities who have major investments
in mass transit.
Ms. Volk stated that Greenville, NC, started with commercial uses and now have a lot of
residential. She often cites Dublin as an example because of Bridge Park.
Ms. Woodworth stated that residential is there for the office. The different product types are
important to both executives and to new talent.
Historic District Code Update and Design Guidelines
Ms. Rauch provided a quick overview of the Historic District projects. The boundary changes are
in order. The bigger questions for staff are regarding the code updates. Council’s direction was
to pull the Historic District out of Bridge Street Code and go back to the previous districts. Staff
felt there are details still included from Bridge Street that are necessary to retain in the Historic
District, for example, landscaping and signs. However, these details do make it more complex in
the Historic District. Staff would like the feedback of the committee regarding the code update
Committee Development Committee Minutes – May 8, 2019 Page 8 of 9
In response to a question from Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, Ms. Rauch stated that the Z1,
the Plaza, Z2, the library and the parking garage would all be placed in the Scioto
neighborhood.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she did not see any work reflected that ARB has done
on this. Ms. Rauch stated that ARB has not reviewed it yet; staff wanted to check-in with
Council first. ARB is aware of the work underway.
Mr. Dale stated that they did meet with ARB in the process to gather their input. Ms. Rauch
stated that this is the first draft.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that they had talked about renaming the Architectural
Review Board. Perhaps that should be done first so the document does not have to be adjusted
later.
Ms. Rauch stated there are two parts of this:
Zoning regulations and new districts; and
Consolidation of the ARB section of the code (name, membership, responsibilities, etc.).
Ms. Rauch stated that the name would be the Historic Preservation Commission based upon
their responsibilities.
In response to Ms. De Rosa, the name was brought up from staff conversation. Mr. Papsidero
stated that the emphasis has been on preservation and ARB’s jurisdiction has been growing.
Ms. De Rosa stated that naming can be a sensitive topic and suggesting that ARB could have
suggestions for a name change.
Mr. Reiner agreed that changing the name makes sense.
Ms. De Rosa agreed, but wants to be sensitive to its membership.
Mr. Papsidero stated that the constituency nationally is the Association of Preservation
Commissions. Mr. Dale added that preservation is their charge.
In response to Ms. De Rosa’s question regarding the historic boundaries around the school, Ms.
Rauch stated that the map looks the way it does because they were trying to capture the 1919
building. She suggested that the 1919 building could be covered under Appendix G as a historic
building outside of the district that still falls under ARB review.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that a transition area is needed and that is what this
section is. It is important to keep as much as possible in the Historic District that isn’t
redeveloped.
In response to Ms. De Rosa’s question regarding why not put it all in, Vice Mayor Amorose
Groomes stated that it is a downzoning for the balance of that property.
Ms. Rauch stated that it is not historic. The map looks this way because of trying to capture
the 1919 building and follows the parcel lines.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that it could be bigger, but the key items are the cemetery
and the 1919 building. Discussion followed regarding what the Schools could do.
Mr. Papsidero stated that the east side of Sells Middle School would have to go to ARB, but the
west side would go to ART for review. They would have to rezone for other uses as currently,
only public use is allowed. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she wanted to redraw the
lines so that the school building will all be reviewed by the same body.
Ms. De Rosa stated it might be a worthwhile conversation with the schools.
Ms. Rauch stated that the Code attempts to consolidate the ARB current section of code with
the new zoning districts being removed from the BSD. It includes boundaries of the district, the
uses permitted within those districts, site development standards, setbacks, parking, etc.
Dublin City Council Work Session
Monday, September 17, 2018
Page 15 of 18
Mr. Papsidero stated that Council has expressed interest in updating the Bridge Street District
Traffic Study, and Engineering is requesting funding in the 2019 CIP to complete that update.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes asked about the cost of this update, but that information was not
readily available.
Historic District Code and Guidelines
Ms. Rauch stated that there were three tasks from the June work session, which were:
Historic District boundaries;
Historic District regulations; and
Historic District Design Guidelines.
In terms of the boundary discussion, Ms. Rauch stated that staff reviewed the potential
modifications to the boundary of the Historic District. She provided a map to illustrate the
proposed changes, which are:
Removal of the northern area – Z1, Z2, the Plaza, and Library /Garage – and giving it a
Bridge Street District designation.
Ms. Rauch stated that when Z1 and Z2 were reviewed by Council as part of the basic plan,
the required reviewing body designation was given to the ARB, so there will be a little
clean up required with that. It would no longer be under ARB. Mr. Papsidero stated some
of those items would go through ART.
Addition of a West Bridge Street area; and
Relocation of the eastern boundary.
Mr. McDaniel asked for clarification on Council’s direction regarding the reviewing bodies for these
areas.
Mr. Papsidero stated that the way the Code is written is if 20% of a façade or frontage is affected
with a change that falls under the purview of ART as a minor project.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that with the Code re-write, Council is removing the ART
from being a reviewing body and being an advising body.
Mr. Papsidero stated that ART is being removed as a recommending body, meaning they will not
be providing recommendations to anyone, but retaining the minor project. They are reducing the
number of eligible project that could go to ART.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that there are a number of properties throughout the City
that are reviewed by ARB that aren’t in the Historic District -- they are designated by address. She
suggested designating these properties by address and having them reviewed by ARB but out of
the Historic District.
Mr. Papsidero stated the properties she is referring to are historic structures and that is why they
are designated in that way.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes clarified that they wouldn’t have to be historic structures to be
designated to ARB.
Ms. Rauch sought clarification on which reviewing body would be designated.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes suggested these properties be reviewed by ARB and added to the
list of properties that are reviewed by ARB but outside the Historic District. She asked that staff
provide a memo to Council about whether or not that is possible.
Ms. Fox stated that not adjusting the boundaries around these buildings would leave the reviewing
body as ARB simply because they are within the Historic District.
Ms. Rauch stated that was true and there could be regulations about how these properties are
Dublin City Council Work Session
Monday, September 17, 2018
Page 16 of 18
dealt with differently.
Ms. Fox stated that, going forward, there would be the protection of ARB looking at this area
under their purview.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes clarified that the intent is to remove these properties from the
Historic District so that other properties in the District cannot use them as examples of permissive
developments throughout the Historic District. She wants to know if they can be placed on the list
of ARB reviewed properties outside the District and then see what can be done from there.
Mr. Reiner asked for clarification of the intent. When the area around Oscar’s is re-developed in
the future, for example, that does not prevent them from building condos along the river, correct?
Or is the suggestion that there are such limitations in place so that would not be allowed?
Ms. Rauch stated that the Historic Core permits a variety of uses including multi-family --, it is
really about the context and the height.
Mr. Reiner agreed that he would like the Historic District to continue looking historic, but if
someone wanted to propose a historic façade with something different behind it, that would be
allowed.
Ms. Rauch stated that the regulations and guidelines could be written to allow that.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes gave the example of town center one and town center two.
Mr. Reiner stated he doesn’t want to be exclusionary.
Ms. Rauch stated that the second bullet point relates to expanding the west boundary of the
Historic District to include Shawan Falls/Corbins Mill Drive.
Ms. Fox stated that she thought that the boundary was proposed to be moved to Frantz Road.
She is concerned about the difference in appearance with the Kroger and the strip mall in place. Is
there a way to make it feel more cohesive as you enter the City and have all of this complement
each other? She wants to avoid a diverse look.
Ms. Rauch stated that could be done with the larger Code update in terms of the scale and
character of this area of the District in that zoning designation.
Ms. De Rosa asked if would simply be included in the Historic District.
Mr. Papsidero stated that the Dublin Plaza ownership has some strong objections to being subject
to a historical advisory board. The same outcome can be reached through the Code because they
would be reducing the height along West Bridge Street.
Ms. Fox stated that ARB needs to be involved in the Dublin Plaza, but it is important that all four
corners of Shawan Falls and Corbins Mill are developed with the same perspective.
Ms. De Rosa asked why ARB would be the reviewing body versus Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Mr. Papsidero stated that it could be, however the suggestion from Council at the last work session
was to have it all under ARB.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the Historic Transition zoning was to extend all the way
to Frantz Road. She didn’t believe that had anything to do with the reviewing body.
Mayor Peterson asked for more information about the resistance from the owners of Dublin Plaza
to being under the historical advisory board jurisdiction.
Mr. Papsidero explained that there is a different level of review with ARB versus Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the area should be a Historical Transition zoning under
the purview of Planning and Zoning Commission and extend to Frantz Road.
Ms. De Rosa agreed.
Ms. Fox stated that there are other historic transitions, so are we changing the way historic
Dublin City Council Work Session
Monday, September 17, 2018
Page 17 of 18
transition is reviewed for all the areas or for just this one?
Mr. Papsidero stated that this can be easily addressed to match Council’s intent.
Ms. Rauch moved to the third bullet point -- for clean-up purposes, staff is recommending moving
the eastern boundary of the Historic District. The boundary doesn’t fully align with Riverside
Crossing Park. Therefore, Planning recommends the eastern boundary of the Architectural Review
District move from the east side of the Scioto River to the western side, with the exception of the
Scioto River Bridge, which would remain under ARB’s purview.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes asked how many buildable lots exist in this area.
Ms. Rauch stated there are none -- sometimes cases would go to ARB, sometimes to Planning and
Zoning Commission. Staff is suggesting that the parkland specifically and the bridge would remain
under ARB purview.
The consensus of Council was agreement with this recommendation.
Ms. Rauch stated they are moving away from the form-based Code and moving toward the form
and scale in the guidelines. She asked if Council agreed with this direction.
The consensus among Council members was agreement.
Ms. Rauch moved on to the final item on the agenda, the guidelines. Earlier this summer there
were a series of stakeholder committee meetings to talk through the direction given by Council.
There were great discussions and great feedback came out of these meetings. The consultant did
an analysis to make sure that the guidelines did indeed include guidelines. The next steps will be
to hold a public meeting and obtain some feedback -- largely related to new construction. Then a
document will be drafted with the goal of completing the public review process before the end of
the year.
Ms. Fox sought clarifications on what is meant by a minor modification.
Mr. Papsidero stated that minor modifications are specific to minor projects and ART.
Ms. Fox stated she would like to review the minor modification language.
Mr. Papsidero commented regarding the role of ART in the Bridge Street District. ART still plays a
role in approving minor projects, but for a very narrow category. He asked Council members if
they concurred with ART having limited legal authority to approve projects.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that things that come up during construction where the
elevation or dimensions were off by a small margin are okay for ART, but the problem occurs when
a 20% of a 200,000 square foot building ends up being a very big portion of the building. The
actual numbers triggering the reviewing body may be preferable than a percentage in these cases.
Mr. Papsidero stated most of what is in that category are storefronts and patios. He gave an
example of the new restaurant that before ART and the waiver was under PZC purview. After the
issue was resolved, it did not go back to PZC. Because of the size, it remained with ART.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes suggested that perhaps it would have to come back to PZC only if it
were in conflict with the Code.
Mr. Papsidero stated that waivers are never before ART, those always go to the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Ms. Fox stated this entire process is very complex. Her desire is that the process be clear and not
complicated so that PZC can make things the best they can be.
PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov
MEETING MINUTES
Architectural Review Board
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
AGENDA
1. Historic Dublin Design Guidelines - Update
18-037ADM Administrative Request – Other (Discussion Only)
The Chair, David Rinaldi, called the meeting to orde r at 6:32 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Other
Board Members present were: Jeffrey Leonhard, Gary Alexander, and Andrew Keeler. Shannon Stenberg
was absent. City representatives were: Jennifer Rauch, Lori Burchett, and Laurie Wright.
Administrative Business
Motion and Vote
Mr. Alexander moved, Mr. Leonhard seconded, to accept the documents into the record. The vote was as
follows: Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Rinaldi, yes; Mr. Leonhard, yes; and Mr. Alexander, yes. (Approved 4 – 0)
Motion and Vote
Mr. Keeler moved, Mr. Alexander seconded, to approve the meeting minutes from June 27, 2018, as
presented. The vote was as follows: Mr. Leonhard, yes; Mr. Rinaldi, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; and Mr.
Keeler, yes. (Approved 4 – 0)
1. Historic Dublin Design Guidelines - Update
18-037ADM Administrative Request – Other
The Chair, David Rinaldi, said the following proposal is a request to update the Historic Dublin Design
Guidelines applicable to properties located within the Architectural Review Di strict and its outlying sites.
This is a request for an introduction and discussion for proposed amendments to the Historic District
Design Guidelines under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.172 and 153.174.
Jennifer Rauch said she did not have a formal presentation but wanted to inform the Board of the work
that has been done with the Guidelines and also provide updates about the latest work session with City
Council and their direction for Staff. She said Greg Dale is the consultant and is here this evening. He will
open the discussion about the Historic District Design Guidelines (HDDG) and other amendments under
consideration. Staff would like to obtain the Board’s feedback before moving forward.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
August 22, 2018 – Minutes
Page 2 of 9
Ms. Rauch reported that Council was updated on the HDDG and on the changes to the Bridge Street
District Code (BSD) as a whole at the Work Session on June 20, 2018, and Council provided Staff with a
direction to remove the Historic District from the Bridge Street District Code. She explained Council finds
the character of the Historic District will be better maintained outside of the Bridge Street District. She
said the Code would need to be updated to align with that objective. She reported Council also reviewed
the boundaries of the Historic District.
Ms. Rauch reported Council also reviewed the boundaries of the Historic District. She indicated Council
was particularly concerned about the Z1 and Z2 Buildings in Bridge Park West, the new library, and
parking garage. She reported Council did not believe those projects were in character with the Historic
District and therefore should be removed from the district. That way, she explained, developers or people
redeveloping properties in the Historic District do not point to those projects as precedent-setting
development. She said no formal action has been taken, as of yet. She indicated when Staff meets with
Council next week, they will state how far west the boundary should extend to help with the streetscape
as more areas are redeveloped. As a result, the ARB may have more design control over current
development in that area, which could be a significant change. She indicated there would then be a need
for new requirements on the west side.
Ms. Rauch said if an area is being removed from the BSD Code requirements, there is still Historic
Residential, Historic Core, and Historic South Districts. She said those areas are under a form-based code
so Staff and the ARB will have to create new standards or go back to some type of pre -Bridge Street
Code standard and update the HDDG to ensure the character is defined. She noted Staff determined all
of this is intertwined so these changes should be made simultaneously.
Ms. Rauch said Staff is in the very early stages of developing the Code, using the pre -Bridge Street Code
standards as a base, and the changes to the HDDG are underway but to be discussed this evening. She
stated the goal is to get the pieces to fit together in a cohesive manner. She asked if the Board had any
questions.
David Rinaldi asked if there was a draft Code the ARB could review. Ms. Rauch said there was not one to
share at this point. She said the pre-Bridge Street Code standards were like a lot of our standard districts
and covered uses, setbacks, maximum building height and were very similar to the Historic Residential
District. She emphasized that is the direction Council wanted. She explained that the form -based code
would not be used with the very specific design requirements, and having concerns with height, density
levels, and the intensity of development and redevelopment that the Bridge Street District Code allows.
She said Council’s requests align with the feedback received from the public so Staff agree d it is a good
direction to go.
Ms. Rauch said the Zoning Code for the Historic Residential, Historic Core, Historic South, and Historic
Transition Districts will need to be simplified in a way that makes sense to a user, to Staff, and the Board
for reviews and the HDDG will also need to align with the new Code.
Mr. Rinaldi agreed that working on the Zoning Code and the HDDG simultaneously makes sense.
Ms. Rauch said since Staff started the changes for the HDDG, those changes are helping to frame the
basis for the Code in terms of form, character, and scale for new and infill development because the
current HDDG were lacking those elements.
Gary Alexander noted that buildings Z1 and Z2 were approved before he was on the Board. He said the
only hesitation he might have to that suggestion is – being in the district impacted the look of those
buildings. He indicated that even though the scale may be off, the back side of those buildings should be
considered and what the front could have looked like compared to the back ; the front is clearly more
appropriate for the district than what the back side would have been. He said being in the district, had a
positive impact on the shape of those buildings.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
August 22, 2018 – Minutes
Page 3 of 9
Mr. Rinaldi recalled the front of buildings Z1 and Z2 looked a lot like the back when the applicant first
came forward with a proposal at seven stories high. Mr. Alexander said Mr. Rinaldi reinforced his point.
He suggested the City could point to the library and state it was not approved by the ARB and it was an
institutional and political issue that could not be overcome. He restated to be careful with buildings Z1
and Z2; if the Board made an attempt to work within the HDDG, what is proposed on the front of those
buildings should also continue within the HDDG. Ms. Rauch reported that Staff had a similar concern and
outlined that very point in a memo to Council. She cited that the boundaries have not been officially
determined at this point. She added the streetscape character and street level design features will have
some impact. She said she would definitely make sure Mr. Alexander’s point gets relayed to Council.
Ms. Rauch said, in terms of the HDDG, Council had directed Staff in the spring of 2018 to kick off the
revamping and updating of the HDDG. She reported, the stakeholder group to start reviewing the HDDG
and provide feedback on what they liked or did not like about the HDDG. She said the committee has
been formed comprised of an ARB representative, David Rinaldi; the Planning and Zoning Commission
(PZC) Chair, Victoria Newell; a Historic Society Representative, two residents; two business owners, and a
business tenant. She reported the Committee has met three times with another meeting scheduled next
week to talk about the HDDG. She indicated they have discussed what should be included, added, what is
challenging with the existing guidelines, and graphics, etc. She said they completed an exercise to
determine strengths and weaknesses of development versus preservation and a mapping exercise to
determine what the committee thought was a good representation of the hi storic district and which sites
or developments were challenging.
Andrew Keeler referred to the map that had red and green notations that represented positive and
negative comments the committee had about different properties within the Historic District. He asked if
there was a consensus amongst the committee members. Ms. Rauch answered the committee did not go
into a lot of discussion about the map but in the end, based on a lot of the conversations after the fact, it
seemed there were similar concerns with the scale. For the most part, she reported, the committee was
fairly aligned overall for achieving preservation with the development of the district, which is such a small
area, while understanding there are development pressures, as well.
Mr. Keeler said being new to the Board, he viewed the HDDG as purely helpful guidelines and the Zong
Code as the Code. He asked if other cities like Boston, Philadelphia, and Alexandria for examples, offered
guidelines or if they simply had a Code to work from or a combination of both. Greg Dale, McBride Dale
Clarion, said he is the consultant working with the group, whereas he is really just getting started on this.
To answer Mr. Keeler’s question, he said in terms of a “Code is a Code”, that is the law, that is t he
regulation and the HDDG live outside the Code that references the HDDG. He said that is pretty common.
He stated he could not answer specifically to those cities but he has worked with a lot of boards like the
ARB, including those that focus on historic preservation. He said there are other communities that use a
similar arrangement that is not necessarily tied to historic preservation but tied simply to architectural
review.
Mr. Dale noted one of the things to be discussed is the idea that inside the Code the standards are as
clear and objective as they can be including typical standards found in a zoning code – uses, dimensional
standards, heights, and setbacks, and the like. Adversely, he said, the standards that are the more
discretionary and require more judgement would remain in the HDDG. He said the current basic
arrangement this city uses is pretty common.
Mr. Dale shared some high level observations he had perceived so far:
Staff, Boards, and the Commission have all done a good job at dealing with historic buildings
Problems are with infill and new construction while there is pressure for new development
The Zoning Code has not provided a lot of guidance for new construction
Dublin Architectural Review Board
August 22, 2018 – Minutes
Page 4 of 9
Historic District Design Guidelines need to be simplified – “recommendations” are made and
editorials need to be removed as they blur the standards
HDDG provided advice for maintenance very well but that should be separate from the standards
The standards should be isolated so they are easy to apply (a checklist was suggested)
Mr. Alexander said the recommendations I the HDDG are dated – windows for example have not kept up
with the new materials available and it calls for true divided lites, which is extremely difficult to get an
insulated glass so manufacturers make an alternative to that but the current guidelines may not allow it.
He said HardiePlank has been recognized but now there are all kinds of resin -based sidings available that
are not vinyl. He suggested that under Doors, we could list what has been approved an d what has not
been approved but again, they have to be updated.
Mr. Dale agreed. He indicated a lot of communities with historic districts have wrestled with the
alternative use of new materials that did not exist in the past. He suggested flexibility b e built in to the
guidelines because new materials probably come out now often enough. He stated the issue of the extent
to which the Board wants to consider and allow alternative materials and how guidelines are applied to
those needs to be considered.
Mr. Keeler recommended the durability of a product should be determined by Building Standards or
someone in the Administrative Review Team (ART) because he believes this is out of the ARB’s purview
and the others understand the properties of HardiePlank vs Cedar vs Redwood, for example as well as
lites for windows.
Mr. Keeler said he struggles with how genuine a project should be. He indicated there is a difference of
opinion on the Board, which is good. He reported his house has true divided lites, original glass of which
he pulled every pane and replaced old glass with old glass, and put glazing in and painted it. He said
there are arguments that the windows not durable but they are genuine. If this Board is trying to
preserve history, he said, did they want to get in the weeds about the details for historically appropriate
materials.
Mr. Rinaldi said probably two-thirds of the information in the HDDG is about maintenance and not design
guidelines. He said when you drill down to the true guidelines, there is not much content.
Mr. Alexander said the HDDG is very clear about restoration when restoration is possible, addressing
windows specifically and is consistent with other community standards. He noted that what Mr. Keeler did
on his house was restoration because it was possible. He said the HDDG also notes when restoration is
not possible. He said we also have to address new construction. He indicated everyone on this Board
should be updated on materials but an employee in the building department can b ring that expertise that
the Board can rely on. He suggested that person could provide a list of what is approved and the reasons
why.
Mr. Keeler indicated new construction is an area that needs to be addressed as well as design instead of
just restoration and repair. He asked if the Board would be able to hold a property to a different standard
than a new build. Mr. Dale answered affirmatively. He explained the justification with a historic building is
there is demonstrable public interest and being concerned about how authentic and genuine restoration
is handled versus a structure or development that is new.
Mr. Dale referred to the standards from the Secretary of the Interior that is addressed philosophically.
“Two part rehabilitation philosophy, retention of original and historic building
materials to the greatest extent possible, and avoiding the creating of a false
historic appearance. “
Dublin Architectural Review Board
August 22, 2018 – Minutes
Page 5 of 9
Mr. Dale questioned how both is accomplished. He said the new construction standards in the back of
HDDG state:
“Be creative, it can look new, but conform, size, material, setbacks.”
Mr. Dale stated that was the central philosophical struggle in historic preservation. He asked how the
Board recognizes a non-historic building but rather a new building that appears new but it should also fit
in the district. With existing, contributing historic buildings, he suggested, the Board be more concerned
about authenticity. With new buildings, he said, the Board has the ability to build a new building.
Mr. Alexander said he compared the Code to the HDDG and the Code states buildings should represent
the spirit of time in which they are built but the approved materials do not. He referenced the HDDG for
the siding and certain types of masonry that is permitted. He said that is the conflict – using the Code
applying it to new buildings. He agreed buildings should look like the current spirit of time so a few years
from now someone would recognize a building that was built in 2018 but the material list needs to be
updated to allow for that.
Mr. Dale said he is probably pointing out the obvious but this Historic District is not a homogenous
district; there is a lot of diversity, building style, ages, and architectural style. He suggested a very
modern and contemporary building would be jarring in the Historic District but at some point, some of
the buildings that were built there 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, might have looked jarring or ahead of
their time.
Mr. Dale noted between the Zoning Code content and the content in the HDDG, there seems to be a
disconnect at times so those differences should be explored and aligned . For example, he said both
documents address demolitions. He said the Code language addresses demolitions in terms of very
specific kinds of finding that need to be made but then demolition gets discussed in the HDDG. He said
the information needs to be in one place or the other or the information needs to be consistent in both.
He said earlier a member stated the Code is what applies and the HDDG is a g uide, an amplification in
applying the Code.
Mr. Keeler referred to the Zoning Code that speaks to architectural character. – The architectural style
general design and general arrangement of the exterior of a building and other structure including the
type of light fixtures, signs, and other associated fixtures. He stated he did not view light fixtures, signs,
or other fixtures as part of the architectural character. He said he is not an architect but sees the
character defined by the elements of the building, 3-dimensional hard pieces of the building. He stated
the door bell, door knocker, and light fixtures should not be included in determining character and
therefore, would be less restrictive to someone coming before the Board. He believes it is not the Board’s
business to tell an applicant what kind of light fixtures should be used.
Ms. Rauch said all those details, historically, help make up the architectural character. She explained
there is a vast difference between light fixtures that were used 100 years ago vs current light fixtures.
Jeff Leonard said the Board has discussed porch furniture for certain projects including materials and
whether chairs should be black or brown. He said there is nothing in the HDDG about furniture to which
Ms. Rauch agreed. She said that is part of this discussion – what content/information the Board would
like to see in the HDDG.
Mr. Rinaldi said the HDDG provides guidance for those elements because they are very prominent by the
building.
Mr. Keeler said there is specific guidance on signs. Mr. Rinaldi said the guidelines for signs is very
restrictive in the HDDG and when the BSD Sign Guidelines were adopted the HDDG went a different
Dublin Architectural Review Board
August 22, 2018 – Minutes
Page 6 of 9
direction. He asked the Board if they have any sense as to where they want the g uidelines for the
Historic District to land.
Mr. Dale said these districts are being extracted from the BSD Code so certain guidelines in the BSD Code
that this Board would like to remain for the Historic Districts, need to be made known. He pointed out
that right now signs are a good example. He emphasized the Historic Districts should be free-standing.
He said that is what he and the Board will be going through. He said ultimately, the decision is up to City
Council. To address the question of what is in the Code and what is in the HDDG are the key issues, he
emphasized.
Mr. Keeler reported that he Googled architectural character because he is not an architect but he was not
able to find anything that defines character beyond structural type elements li ke brackets and windows,
etc.
Mr. Rinaldi said he disagreed with Mr. Keeler because he believed the exterior elements were important.
He said if there was an application for a historic commercial building on High Street and they want to put
a Chihuly glass structure on the front, that would not be appropriate, and he would not approve it. He
explained that sort of modern element would distract from the historic character. He indicated he would
like to have some guidance/standards that state if the guidelin es are met, the applicant would not need
to come before the Board. He said he does not know how to define that .
Mr. Dale asked if there are certain additional applications that Staff could sign off on. Ms. Rauch
answered the applications would be more that dealt with maintenance. She said if an applicant is
replacing something with like-for-like materials (color, material, design) then they are not required to go
before the ARB. She said if an applicant has a yellow building and want to paint it green, the applicant
needs to come before this Board or if the applicant would like to replace a door with something that looks
different, they would also need the Board’s approval.
Mr. Leonhard asked if there were pre-approved paint colors to choose from. Ms. Rauch answered there
were not but the guidelines and standards can be changed now. She said for a historic structure there
are appropriate colors, tones, and color combinations. Mr. Rinaldi interjected that what colors might have
been appropriate for one period of time might not have been appropriate for another.
Mr. Alexander added some communities allow Staff to determine if a paint color is appropriate and can
approve it without addressing the Board. Mr. Dale asked the Board to consider additional
standards/requirement that could be delegated for Staff/Administrative Approval. Mr. Rinaldi said it might
be helpful to state at each meeting the actions that were taken by Staff. Lori Burchett asked if there
would be a difference between residential and commercial requirements. Mr. Dale answered those are
possibilities.
Ms. Rauch indicated that some people do not want to come before the Board because the process is
cumbersome and if someone is in the Historic District, there is a higher level of scrutiny but they should
expect that. She said balancing that might be challenging. She agreed and reported Staff works hard to
minimize the inertia before it comes before the Board because they want to uphold the standards but at
the same time, trying to be somewhat practical when possible.
Mr. Alexander said if there were clear cut requirements someone could follow to make decisions early to
meet the application deadline, the applicant gets on the agenda and can get it done. He thought that
would definitely help.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
August 22, 2018 – Minutes
Page 7 of 9
Mr. Leonhard said he joined the Board to understand the process of making changes on his own home.
He reported his house was remodeled in 2008 – the person that owned it at that time was on the ARB
and there is not a single divided lite pane window in his entire house.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if the Board should consider residential off of High Street because it is such an
important core that needs the same level of scrutiny that other buildings have on High Street that may be
the ones behind and particularly those that are deemed historic and maybe there should be a different
approach. He gave the example of a 1968 ranch home versus an 1800 commercial building on High
Street. Ms. Rauch said we need to account for properties that are actually historic but are newer. She
said they all should be held to the same scrutiny.
Mr. Dale asked if guidelines should be distinguished geographically. He admitted the process of updating
these documents should not be too complicated but properties off of High Street versus those that are on
High Street might need to be treated differently.
Mr. Leonhard said what is visible from High Street is one thing but what is on the back could be another
story. He cited the property the Tackett’s just proposed to renovate as an example. He asked what
boundaries would be changed. Ms. Rauch said that still needed to be determined.
Mr. Dale said there needs to be guidelines for new construction so it is designed to fit within the fabric of
the Historic District. He said clues will need to be taken from the historic fabric that exists.
Mr. Keeler referred to Zoning Code Section 153.176A(1) Demolition – a structure contains no features of
architectural or historical significance in the character of the area in which it is located. He asked if t he
City can exempt certain properties so you already know going in that one is taken care of.
Ms. Rauch said a Historic and Cultural Assessment was completed and determined what structures and
properties were contributing and what is not contributing so there is a better baseline for that now.
Before the assessment of all the properties, she explained it was challenging to understand what should
be considered historic. She stipulated the historic nature was determined only from the outside. She said
that is one of the four criteria an applicant would have to meet. She said the burden i s on the property
owner to demonstrate that.
Mr. Keeler asked if the assessment just applied to properties within the Historic District. Ms. Rauch
answered this is part of the discussion because the assessment also applied to properties on Appendix G,
which are outside the district. Mr. Keeler asked how someone would prove that and demonstrate criteria
#1. Mr. Dale clarified that two of the four criteria have to be met. Ms. Burchett said Staff will run through
the criteria with the applicant to identify areas that staff feels the applicant will need to make a case, etc.
Ms. Rauch said the role of the ARB is largely the preservation of the district, so the goal is not to make it
simpler for people to demolish their structures.
Mr. Keeler surmised there is probably a 1960s or 70s house with a bad roof, cinder block construction, in
very poor condition but since it is in the Historic District that applicant would have to spend a half hour
explaining to the Board why the structure needs to be demolished. Ms. Burchett indicated that typically
what is typically seen with the demolition requests are like a garage that was on the rear of the property
built with a block foundation, elements had been removed from it, there were no historical features
based on potential age and that is where the applicant demonstrate d there were no historic architectural
features. She said if Staff has evidence that there were historic architectural features to be preserved,
Staff could then provide that information.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
August 22, 2018 – Minutes
Page 8 of 9
Ms. Burchett said the Board has the discretion to form their own opinion to approve a demolition even if
Staff may have determined the applicant did not meet any of the criteria; the Board may have a different
opinion.
Mr. Keeler inquired about the condition of imposing a waiting period on an applicant and what situation
would cause such a provision. Ms. Burchett said Staff may not want to see something demolished ; they
may ask the applicant to take more time to see what can be done to save the structure. Staff also does
not want something demolished without something going into its place so typically Staff would see a
demolition request paired with a new development request.
Mr. Dale said where he has seen that come into play is when someone comes in making the economic
argument – they state they have run the numbers, cannot afford the cost of renovation, will not be able
to get a reasonable economic return or it is so deteriorating they cannot renovate. He said he has seen
instances where Boards conclude – the applicant was making a good case but it was a borderline call and
the Board would determine to give the owner more time to see if there are other alternatives. He said he
has witnessed preservation organizations that try and purchase property or someone coming in and
saying they could help the applicant with their economic analysis. He explained the waiting period is
basically a cooling off period in the hopes someone will come up wit h something to save the building,
coming in with an idea or provide assistance.
Mr. Dale gave an example of an applicant that claimed their building was unsafe, it had deteriorated
through no fault of his own, it was not demolition by neglect, and the applicant can demonstrate they
meet all the criteria but he has no idea what he wants to do with the property as he is not ready, and not
in a financial position to have a reuse plan but he needs to remove the building. Mr. Alexander asked if
that would be a building Code issue if the chief building official had determined it was a public hazard.
Mr. Dale said issues of health, safety, and welfare usually override all preservation issues so t hat would
be something to check into.
Mr. Rinaldi said the Board needs to see the structure inside and out in a demolition request. Mr. Dale said
typically with these types of demolition requirements like the City has, where someone is literally trying to
claim the economically viable use part that gets into a very techni cal kind of set of issues. He said a
structural engineer study can be requested so the applicant can really demonstrate to the Board that not
just exterior but the mechanical systems and the structural integrity of the building. He said it is a high
level of proof to come in and say that the building cannot be reused in an economically feasible manner.
Mr. Rinaldi recalled a case where the Board was not permitted inside the house and had to make a
judgement call from what was visible from the outside and there was an engineer’s report but the
applicant hired the engineer and he would like to be able to see for himself what the engineer is talking
about versus just relying on the written document from someone the applicant hired.
Mr. Dale emphasized the Board is entitled to request adequate information before a decision is made. Ms.
Burchett said, specifically for contributing structures. Ms. Rauch recalled after that happened, the City
decided to hire a third-party consultant to help with future cases. She said as a Board, they have
discussed what level of detail they would like to see, what the burden of proof was, and what the
applicant had to provide to make the Board feel comfortable reviewing a demolition request.
Mr. Rinaldi stated this Board needs to understand they serve all of Dublin, not just the Historic District.
Mr. Dale asked the Board to focus in on Zoning Code Section 174, the actual standards of a review. He
said those standards need to tie to these guidelines a little more clearly.
Ms. Rauch said Staff will continue to work with the committee on guidelines while simultaneously working
on the other elements that City Council had directed them to do. She noted there is a Work Session
Dublin Architectural Review Board
August 22, 2018 – Minutes
Page 9 of 9
planned with City Council to talk about each of these pieces and where we are with that and get further
direction from them, particularly as it relates to the boundary because that then impacts our zoning and
the map, etc. She said they will review some draft guideline pieces with the committee and digest those
into the three sections, which will eventually evolve into a draft guideline but that will also need to align
with the Zoning Code.
The Board and Mr. Dale discussed the best way to approach revisions for the HDDG and the Zoning
Code. Mr. Dale suggested the Board determine what the categories are, what they are trying to achieve,
and then determine what really goes in the Code and what really needs to go in the HDDG. He
recommended any editorial comments should be eliminated.
The Chair asked the Board if they had any further comments. [There were none.]
Communications
The Chair requested communications. [There were none.]
Adjournment
With no communications to share, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 7:52 pm.
As approved by the Architectural Review Board on September 26, 2018.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
1
§ 153.170 HISTORIC DISTRICTS APPLICABILITY.
The regulations contained within this chapter apply to all properties within the boundaries of
Historic Dublin, as identified on Appendix F, as well as designated outlying historic properties as
specified in Appendix G of the City of Dublin’s Zoning Code, and amendments or additions as
approved by City Council. All properties located within these designated areas require approval
by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for certain activities related to renovation,
rehabilitation, new construction, or demolition as provided in this chapter. The purpose and
duties of the ARB are contained in Section 153.175.
The designated properties are subject to the regulations of the zoning district in which they are
located. Historic Dublin contains the city’s four Historic Zoning Districts but may also contain
properties that have other zoning designations. The regulations for the Historic Zoning Districts
are contained within this chapter.
The Historic Design Guidelines also apply to all properties within Historic Dublin and properties
identified on Appendix G. The Guidelines supplement the review standards contained within
the City of Dublin’s Zoning Code and will guide the ARB in determining requests for approvals.
While the Guidelines are not zoning regulations, they are critical to interpreting the intent of
these regulations and should be used in unison with them. The Guidelines provide additional
detail and explanation of the regulations and provide important guidance in applying the
regulations. The Guidelines are critically important in ARB’s consideration of conditions of
approval as authorized in Section 153.176.
§ 153.171 HISTORIC ZONING DISTRICTS PURPOSE AND INTENT.
(A) Purpose
The following Historic Zoning Districts are hereby created to promote the preservation and
maintenance of the City’s historic sites and landmarks and to ensure compatibility and
consistency of new development proposals with applicable Zoning Code provisions, the
Historic Design Guidelines, and the historic context of the districts.
(B) Intent
The titles of each zoning district are intended to describe the predominant land use
character and/or special geographic locations rather than a single type of use within
Historic Dublin. The following further describes the intent of each of the Historic Zoning
Districts.
(1) Historic Core. This district applies to the historic center of Dublin. The district focuses
on ensuring sensitive infill development and providing an improved environment for
walking while accommodating vehicles.
(2) Historic South. This district applies to the smaller, cottage-scale buildings on the
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
2
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.
(3) Historic Residential. The district applies to the residential area of Historic Dublin and
encourages 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.
(4) Historic Public. This district applies to a variety of public spaces and facilities,
including but not limited to schools, cemeteries, parks, open spaces, and places for
recreation.
§ 153.172 USES
(A) Intent
This section establishes the desired uses for land and buildings in each of the four Historic
Zoning Districts. This is achieved through the variety of permitted, conditional, accessory,
and temporary uses allowed in each district. In some cases, special siting and size
limitations to establish the desired development character apply.
(B) General Provisions
(1) Permitted and conditional uses available in each of the Historic Zoning Districts are
shown in Table 153.172A. Permitted and conditional uses may be restricted by
location, size, period of operation, or other use-specific standards as designated
herein and within the Historic Design Guidelines.
(2) Table 153.172A – Explanation of Terms
(a) Listed uses are defined in §153.002: Definitions.
(b) A “P” in a cell indicates a use that is permitted by right in that zoning district,
subject to compliance with any use specific standards referenced in Table
153.172A and the applicable provisions herein.
(c) A “C” in a cell indicates a use that is allowed in that zoning district only upon
approval of a conditional use as described in §153.236 and compliance with any
use specific standards referenced in Table 153.172A and the applicable
provisions herein.
(d) A “S” in a cell indicates a use that is allowed in that zoning district only if limited
in size, subject to compliance with any use specific standards referenced in Table
153.172A and the applicable provisions herein.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
3
(e) A “T” in a cell indicates a use that is allowed in that zoning district for a limited
period of time pursuant to a permit from the City, subject to compliance with any
use specific standards referenced in Table 153.172A and the applicable
provisions herein.
(f) A blank cell indicates that the use is prohibited in that district.
(3) Use Specific Standards
Additional standards may apply to either permitted or conditional uses in the Historic
Zoning Districts. These additional standards are cross referenced in the last column
of Table 153.172A.
(4) Existing Uses
(a) All permitted or conditional uses under the zoning applicable to a property
immediately prior to its rezoning into a Historic Zoning District shall continue to
be allowed as permitted or conditional uses on the property, including any
expansions of uses or structures as permitted by this chapter, in addition to the
permitted and conditional use under the applicable Historic District, provided at
least one of the permitted or conditional uses under the prior zoning has been
operated continuously in an existing structure and/or associated use area on
the property within the 12 months prior to the rezoning of the property into the
Historic Zoning District.
(b) Once a use that complies with the Historic Zoning District is established on a
lot or parcel, no non-Historic Zoning District use permitted in the prior zoning
district may be reestablished. For multiple tenant buildings in existing districts,
no non-Historic Zoning District use permitted in the prior zoning district may be
reestablished after the entire multiple tenant building is abandoned or all
tenant spaces have established uses that comply with those listed for the
applicable Historic Zoning District.
(5) Similar Use Determination
(a) When a proposed land use is not explicitly listed in Table 153.172A, the
Director shall determine whether it is reasonably included in 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 of the Historic Zoning Districts.
2. The use is generally consistent with the intent of the Historic Zoning
Districts and this chapter.
3. The use will not materially impair the present or potential use of other
properties within the same district or bordering districts.
4. The use has no greater potential impact on surrounding properties than
those listed in the district in terms of aesthetics, traffic generation, noise,
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
4
potential nuisances, and other impacts related to health, safety, and
welfare.
5. The use will not adversely affect the relevant elements of the Community
Plan, the Historic Design Guidelines, and any other relevant plans or
documents.
(b) The Director’s written determination shall be provided to the applicant and may
be appealed to the Architectural Review Board.
(6) Principal Uses
Any property is permitted any combination of principal uses in accordance with the
requirements of this section and other applicable provision of this section.
(7) Accessory Uses
(a) 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.
(b) Temporary uses are governed by time limits as provided by this code.
(c) Any principal use listed in a zoning district in Table 153.172A shall be permitted
as an accessory use in the same zoning district.
(8) Use Table
Table 153.172A: Historic Zoning District – Use Table
P=Permitted
C=Conditional
S=Size Limited
T=Time Limited
Historic
Core (HC)
Historic
South
(HS)
Historic
Residential
(HR)
Historic
Public
(HP)
Use
Specific
Standards
Residential Permitted Uses
Dwelling, Single Family P P YES
Dwelling, Live-Work P P YES
Dwelling, Two-Family P P
Civic/Public/Institutional Permitted Uses
Cemetery P
Community Garden P P P P YES
Day Care, Adult and Child P P YES
Educational Facility P P P
Elementary or Middle
School P
Government Services,
Safety P
High School P
Library, Museum, Gallery P P P YES
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
5
Table 153.172A: Historic Zoning District – Use Table
P=Permitted
C=Conditional
S=Size Limited
T=Time Limited
Historic
Core (HC)
Historic
South
(HS)
Historic
Residential
(HR)
Historic
Public
(HP)
Use
Specific
Standards
Municipal Parking Lot P P P
Religious or Public
Assembly C/S C/S C/S YES
Parks and Open Space P P P P
Transportation, Park &
Ride C
Transportation, Transit
Station C
Commercial Permitted Uses
Animal Care, General
Services, Veterinary
Offices, and Veterinary
Urgent Care and Animal
Hospitals
P P YES
Artisan Production P P
Bank P P
Bed and Breakfast P P YES
Conference Center P/S YES
Eating and Drinking P P P YES
Entertainment/Recreation,
Indoor C YES
Office, General P P
Office, Medical P P
Parking, Structure C C
Parking, Surface Lot C YES
Personal Repair, & Rental
Services P/S/C P/S/C YES
Research & Development P P
Retail, General P/S/C P/S/C YES
Wireless Communications
Refer to
Chapter 99
of Dublin
Code of
Ordinances
Accessory and Temporary Permitted Uses
ATM, Walk-Up P P
Bicycle Facilities P P P P
Community Activity and
Special Event T T T T YES
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
6
Table 153.172A: Historic Zoning District – Use Table
P=Permitted
C=Conditional
S=Size Limited
T=Time Limited
Historic
Core (HC)
Historic
South
(HS)
Historic
Residential
(HR)
Historic
Public
(HP)
Use
Specific
Standards
Construction Trailer/Office T T T YES
Day Care, Adult or Child P P P P YES
Dwelling, Accessory P P P YES
Dwelling Administration,
Rental, or Sales Office P P YES
Eating & Drinking P P/S/C
Essential Utility Services P P P P
Exercise and Fitness P P P
Farmers Market P P P
Food Trucks T T T T YES
Home Occupation P P P YES
Outdoor Dining and
Seating P P P YES
Outdoor Display or
Seasonal Sales T T T YES
Parking, Structure C C
Parking, Surface Lot P P P
Renewable Energy
Equipment P P P P YES
Residential Model Home T T YES
Retail or Personal
Services P P
Swimming Pool P P P YES
Transportation, Transit
Stop P P P
Vehicle Charging Station P P P YES
Wireless Communications
Refer to
Chapter 99
of Dublin
Code of
Ordinances
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
7
(C) Use Specific Standards
(1) Residential Uses
(a) Dwelling, Single Family
1. Single-family detached dwellings shall have no more than one principal
building and its permitted accessory structures located on each lot.
2. Single-family dwellings in the Historic Residential (HR) District shall meet the
requirements of 153.173.
(b) Dwelling, Live-Work
1. No more than two non-resident employees are permitted in addition to the
resident(s) 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 153.173(M).
(2) Civic/Public/Institutional Uses
(a) 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.
2. Refuse and compost bins must be constructed to be rodent-resident 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.
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.
(b) Day Care, Adult and 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 surrounding properties shall use subdued, earth tone colors.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
8
(c) Library, Museum, Gallery. Incidental sales of refreshments and items related to
exhibits or activities at the facility are permitted.
(d) 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 Uses
(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) Conference Center
1. A 1/2-acre minimum site size.
2. A 3,000-square-foot maximum building size.
3. All parking must be provided on-site.
4. An access management plan demonstrating the ability of the site to
accommodate vehicular traffic during peak periods must be approved by the
Architectural Review Board.
5. Ground-story, street-facing transparency shall be a minimum of 40 percent.
(d) Eating and Drinking
1. Eating and drinking facilities shall be limited to no more than 3,500 square
feet of gross floor area in the Historic Core and Historic South Districts,
unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board.
2. Deliveries and refuse (such as but not limited to grease traps, recycling, and
trash) pick-up in the Historic South District shall be limited to between the
hours of 8:00 am local time and 5:00 pm local time.
(e) Entertainment/Recreation, Indoor. Indoor entertainment or recreation uses in the
Historic Public District must be owned and operated by either a public or non-
profit organization.
(f) Parking, Surface Lot
1. All surface parking lots shall meet the surface parking lot design
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
9
requirements of 153.173(F).
2. When constructed as a principal use, surface parking lots shall not have
frontage on or have direct access to West Bridge Street or High Street unless
permitted by the City Engineer.
(g) Personal Repair, and Rental Services
1. Personal, repair, and rental service establishments shall be limited to no more
than 5,000 square feet for single tenant buildings or for multi-tenant
buildings in the Historic Core and Historic South Districts, unless otherwise
permitted as a conditional use.
(h) Retail, General. To avoid large, single tenant uses that detract from the urban,
walkable intent of the Historic Districts, general retail uses in the Historic Core
and Historic South Districts shall be limited to no more than 10,000 square feet
of gross floor area, unless otherwise permitted as a conditional use.
(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 Chief Building Official, Fire Marshall, and/or Police
Chief.
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 provision of 153.097.
(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 surrounding properties shall use subdued, earth toned colors.
4. Adult and/or child day care uses are prohibited in civic building types as the
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
10
sole principal use.
(d) Dwelling, Accessory. An accessory dwelling located in a single-family dwelling
must comply with the following standards:
1. No more than one accessory dwelling unit is permitted on a lot with a single-
family dwelling.
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 single-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
façade as the principal building entrance closest to the street.
5. The owner of the dwelling must occupy either the principal dwelling unit or
the permitted accessory dwelling unit.
6. 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 153.073(B) and setbacks applicable to principal structures on the
property.
(f) Food Trucks.
1. Each food truck shall maintain all valid licenses required by the City, County
or State for operation of a business including but not limited to all applicable
licenses for a food service business.
2. Each food truck intended to be moved by a motorized vehicle shall maintain
a valid registration within the most recent 12-month period.
3. For property with a residential primary use, food trucks may operate on a
property for no more than six hours per calendar month, and in no case may
be stored on a property outside an enclosed structure. No food truck shall
operate before 8:00am or after 10:00 pm.
4. For a property with a non-residential primary use, mixed-use, or a vacant
commercial parcel, may not operate on a property for more than 14 calendar
days per month, and no food truck shall operate before 6:00 am or after
10:00 pm.
5. Food trucks located within the right-of-way shall be subject to the City of
Dublin Police regulations and enforcement.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
11
6. Each food truck shall provide a trash receptacle near the food truck, shall
prevent the accumulation of litter or containers from the food truck within 50
feet of the food truck, and shall remove and empty the trash receptacle in a
permitted location when the food truck ends sales for the day.
7. Food trucks shall not impede safe site circulation, as determined by the City
Engineer.
8. Food trucks shall not use speakers or audio amplification. All associated
equipment shall be contained within or on the food truck.
(g) Home Occupations. All home occupations in the Historic Districts shall comply
with the provisions of 153.073.
(h) 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 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.
5. Any speaker emitting music or sound shall be oriented to direct the sound
away from all surrounding properties, parks, and open spaces.
6. Any speaker emitting music or sound shall not operate between the hours of
11:00 pm and 8:00 am, unless otherwise approved by the Architectural
Review Board.
(i) 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 153.099. Merchandise shall only be displayed during the hours
of operation for the principal use. No permit is required.
3. Outdoor sales of Christmas trees and pumpkins shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 116 of the Dublin City Code.
(j) Renewable Energy Equipment
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
12
1. In the Historic Zoning districts, only equipment for the collection of solar and
geothermal energy is permitted.
2. Ground-mounted equipment shall adhere to the following requirements:
a. The collection of geothermal energy is permitted only to the rear of and
within five feet of the principal structure.
b. 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.
c. Ground-mounted renewable energy equipment shall be sited to minimize
view from the public right-of-way and surrounding properties and shall be
camouflaged to the extent that the equipment can function normally.
3. Roof-top and Building-mounted equipment shall adhere to the following
requirements:
a. 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.
b. Building-mounted renewable energy equipment shall be integrated into
the architectural character of the principal structure.
(k) Residential Model Home. Residential model homes shall comply with the
provisions of 153.073(B).
(l) Swimming Pool. Residential swimming pools are permitted in accordance with
Code Section 153.074(C).
(m) Vehicular Charging Stations.
1. The vehicle charging stations shall be integrated into a permitted or
accessory structure, and shall avoid the addition of freestanding structures
and equipment to the maximum extent practicable.
2. Any sign or advertising located on the vehicle charging station or related
structures shall be permitted a one-square-foot sign. Additional sign area
above the one-square-foot will be counted towards the sign allowance for
that type of sign applicable to the primary structure on that lot.
§ 153.173 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(A) Intent
The intent of the Historic Zoning Districts is to foster appropriate development standards
that preserve the historic character of the area, emphasizing traditional development
patterns and pedestrian-oriented design. The standards promote design of a comparable
size, scale, and mass to the existing development and character.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
13
(B) Applicability
The standards set forth in this chapter establish the regulation for the arrangement and
development of land and structures within the Historic Zoning Districts. These standards
should be applied in connection with the Guidelines and in consideration of the physical
context in which the subject property is located and shall be applied to all new
development within the Historic Zoning Districts and the properties designated on
Appendix G.
(C) General Development Standards
Table 153.173A outlines the general development regulations for land and structures
within the Historic Zoning Districts. The ARB may grant Waivers of these standards or
place conditions of approval that exceed these standards based on consideration of the
context and character of surrounding structures pursuant to the provisions in Section
153.176.
Table 153.173A: Historic Zoning Districts – General Development Standards
Development
Standard
Historic Core
(HC)
Historic
South (HS)
Historic
Residential
(HR)
Historic
Public (HP)
Minimum Lot Size 21,000 SF 21,000 SF 8,700 SF 21,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width 60 feet 60 feet 60 feet 60 feet
Maximum Lot
Coverage 85% 65% 45% 85%
Maximum Building
Height (Refer to
Building Height
definition)
30 feet
24 feet, unless
within 25 feet
of the rear
property line,
then maximum
height is 18
feet
24 feet 30 feet
Maximum Building
Footprint N/A
Not to exceed
a total of 3,000
SF; No single
building shall
exceed 1,800
SF
25% N/A
Front Yard Setback 0 feet 0 feet See Table
153.173B 15 feet
Side Yard Setback 0 feet 3 feet See Table
153.173B 10 feet
Rear Yard Building
Setback 5 feet 25 feet See Table
153.173B 20 feet
Rear Yard Pavement
Setbacks 5 feet 5 feet N/A 5 feet
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
14
Parking Location Rear Rear See Code
Section 153.207 Side or Rear
(D) Setbacks
1. Table 153.173B establishes the setback standards for properties within the Historic
Residential Zoning District.
2. Front Property Lines
(a) Only one front property line shall be required to be designated on a lot.
(b) The front yard setback shall be applied to the front lot line, which is designated as
the lot line that the building fronts.
3. The ARB may grant Waivers of these standards or place conditions of approval that
exceed these standards based on consideration of the context and character of
surrounding structures pursuant to the provisions in Section 153.176
Table 153.173B: Historic Residential District – Setbacks
For
Properties
Fronting
onto:
Minimum
Front Setback
(ft)
Minimum
Side Yard
Setback (ft)
Minimum
Total Side
Yards (ft)
Minimum
Rear Yard
Setback
Primary
Structure (ft)
Minimum Rear
Yard Setback
Detached
Accessory
Structures (ft)
Dublin Road 15 4 16
20% lot depth,
not to exceed
50 feet
15
Franklin Street 25 4 12 25
High Street
(north and
south)
15 4 16 15
South
Riverview
Street (east
side)
0 3 12 15
South
Riverview
Street (west
side)
20 3 12 15
North
Riverview
Street (east
side)
0 3 6 15
North
Riverview 20 3 6 15
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
15
Street (west
side)
Short Street 20 3 12 15
Roads not
otherwise
noted above:
20 3 12 15
(E) Location and Scale of Structures
(1) Intent
The intent of this section is to ensure the appropriate siting of primary structures,
building additions, and accessory structures.
(2) General Provisions
a. Primary structures shall be sited to address the street to contribute to the walkable
nature of the district.
b. Building additions to primary structures shall be subordinate and secondary to the
original building.
c. Building additions shall be clearly separated from the original structure in design.
d. Accessory structures shall be located a minimum of 20 feet behind the front façade
of the primary structure.
e. Accessory structures shall be subordinate in height than the primary structure;
and, shall be subordinate to the primary structure in scale and size.
(2) Attached Garages
a. Front loaded garages shall be a minimum of 20 feet behind the front façade of
the home.
b. Front loaded garages shall not exceed 35% of the linear distance of the front
elevation of the home.
c. Front loaded garage door openings shall be 18 feet or less in distance.
(F) Parking Requirements
(1) Intent
The intent of this section is to ensure the provision of adequate vehicular and bicycle
parking facilities within the Historic Zoning Districts for the use of occupants, employees,
and patrons.
(2) General Provisions
(a) Parking area shall be readily accessible by vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
16
(b) Required parking shall be provided either on-site, on-street, off-site, or in a
parking structure or surface parking lot located within 600 feet of the subject
parcel in which the parking lot or structure is located, unless approved by the
required reviewing body.
(c) Applicability to other regulations and guidelines:
1. The provisions of section 153.207, Parking in Residential Districts, shall apply
to development with the Historic Residential Zoning District.
2. All projects shall comply with the Historic Design Guidelines to the maximum
extent practicable and consistent with the standards set forth in this chapter.
(3) Parking Location
(a) On-site
1. Surface parking provided on-site shall not be located between the principal
structure and the public right-of-way, unless permitted by Tables 153.173A and
B.
2. Off-street parking may be provided within a principal structure.
3. Parking shall not be located within a setback, as outlined in Tables 153.173A
and B, except that parking areas may extend across contiguous lots in
developments with coordinated site design, shared access points and/or shared
parking arrangements.
4. Where on-site surface parking is provided on a site included as part of a
Preliminary Development Plan, parking may be permitted by the required
reviewing body to encroach required setbacks to facilitate coordinated site
design and contiguous parking areas.
(b) Off-site Parking
1. The use of off-site parking to meet the minimum parking requirement shall
require an approved parking plan.
2. If not under single ownership, provisions for off-site parking shall be made by
binding agreements between two or more property owners. Written
easements which provide for continued use and maintenance of the parking
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
17
shall be submitted to the City for approval. Any agreement shall include
provisions to address changes in use or ownership.
3. If an off-site parking agreement is severed or modified with the result of
eliminating required parking for one or more properties, parking for the
affected properties shall be brought into full compliance as required by this
section, and approval of a new or modified parking plan shall be required.
4. If located off-site, distances to required parking areas shall be measured along
a walkway from the nearest pedestrian entrance to the parking area to the
main entrance to the principal structure or use being served.
(c) On-street Parking
1. On-street spaces may be counted toward meeting the minimum parking
requirement for a parcel.
2. On-street spaces shall be on the same side of the street and more than one-
half the length of the parking space lies between the two side lot lines of the
parcel extended into the street right-of-way.
3. On corner lots, on-street spaces on both street frontages may be counted in
the same manner.
4. Credit for on-street parking spaces shall apply to parking for all uses on the
parcel rather than any specific use.
5. On-street parking spaces shall not be designated for exclusive use by any
specific use, building or lot.
(4) Electric Car Charging Points
Parking lots or structures are strongly encouraged to provide at least one electric plug-
in service point for every 200 parking spaces. Plug-in points shall be associated with an
individual parking space and shall be installed according to appropriate design
standards, as approved by the Director. Plug-in points are exempt from the service
structure screening requirements of Section 153.173(I).
(5) Parking Lot/Structure Lighting
Parking lot and parking structure lighting shall comply with the requirements of Section
153.173(J).
(6) Parking Lot Landscaping
Parking lot landscaping shall comply with the requirements of Section 153.173(H).
(7) Required Vehicle Parking
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
18
(a) Minimum Amount Required and Maximum Amount Permitted
1. Each use shall provide the minimum amount of parking required for that use
listed on Table 153.173C and shall be permitted to provide up to the maximum
amount of parking on-site, as indicated for that use in Table 153.172A, except
as may be modified by the required reviewing body.
2. When calculating minimum and maximum parking requirements, fractional
numbers shall be increased to the next whole number.
3. Unless otherwise noted, all square footage requirements are based on indoor
gross floor area.
4. Except as noted in Table 153.173C, no additional parking is required for
accessory or temporary uses when the square footage of the uses is included in
the parking calculation for the gross floor area of the principal use.
5. Parking and loading spaces for uses not addressed in Table 153.172A shall be
determined by the Director based on the anticipated parking impacts of the
proposed use, its similarity to characteristics of other listed uses, and supporting
documentation that may be provided by the applicant.
Table 153.173C: Required Vehicle Parking
Use Minimum Required Maximum
Permitted
Principal Uses
Residential
Dwelling, Single-Family
Dwelling, Two-Family
2 per dwelling unit 2 per dwelling
unit
Dwelling, Live-Work 2 per dwelling unit 3 per dwelling
unit
Civic/Public /Institutional
Cemetery Per approved parking plan
Community Center Per approved parking plan
Community Garden Per approved parking plan
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
19
Table 153.173C: Required Vehicle Parking
Use Minimum Required Maximum
Permitted
Day Care, Adult or Child Per approved parking plan demonstrating adequate site
circulation, including pick-up and drop-off areas
Educational Facility
1 per 3 persons maximum occupancy of largest seating
area, or maximum building capacity, whichever is higher,
as shown on the building permit
125% of
minimum
Elementary or Middle
School
Per approved parking plan demonstrating adequate site
circulation, including pick-up and drop-off areas
Government Services,
Safety 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. 150% of
minimum
High School Per approved parking plan demonstrating adequate site
circulation, including pick-up and drop-off areas
Library, Museum, Gallery Library: 3.3 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Museum or Gallery: 1 per 1,000 sq. ft.
125% of
minimum
Religious or Public
Assembly
1 per 6 persons maximum capacity in the largest seating
area, as shown on the building permit
200% of
minimum
Parks and Open Space Per approved parking plan
Transportation, Park &
Ride Per approved parking plan
Transportation, Transit
Station Per approved parking plan
Commercial
Animal Care, General
Services, Veterinary
Offices, and Veterinary
Urgent Care and Animal
Hospitals
2.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. 150% of
minimum
Artisan Production 2.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of
minimum
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
20
Table 153.173C: Required Vehicle Parking
Use Minimum Required Maximum
Permitted
Bank 2.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of
minimum
Bed and Breakfast 1 per guest bedroom, plus 1 for operator 150% of
minimum
Conference Center 1 per 6 persons maximum capacity in the largest seating
area, as shown on the building permit.
125% of
minimum
Eating and Drinking 10 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of
minimum
Entertainment/Recreation,
Indoor
Theater: 1 per 4 persons maximum capacity in the largest
seating area, as shown on the building permit 150% of
minimum Sports courts: 2 per court
Other uses: Per approved parking plan
Office, General
Less than 50,000 sq. ft. 2.5 per 1,000 sq. ft.
125% of
minimum
50,000-150,000 sq. ft. 3 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Greater than 150,000 sq.
ft. 4 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office, Medical 2.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of
minimum
Parking, Structure N/A N/A
Parking, Surface Lot N/A N/A
Personal, Repair & Rental
Services 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of
minimum
Research & Development 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of
minimum
Retail, General 3 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of
minimum
Wireless Communications N/A N/A
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
21
Table 153.173C: Required Vehicle Parking
Use Minimum Required Maximum
Permitted
Accessory and
Temporary Uses
No parking is required for accessory or temporary uses, except as noted
below.
Day Care, Adult or Child 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. 125% of
minimum
Dwelling Administration,
Rental or Sales Office 2 N/A
Residential Model Home 1 plus 1 per employee at maximum use N/A
Swimming Pool Per approved parking plan
(8) Adjustments to Required Vehicle Parking
The maximum on-site parking requirements may not exceed that permitted by Table
153.173C unless approved by the ARB. The minimum amount of parking required by
Table 153.173C may be reduced by approval of the ARB.
(a) Shared Parking Calculations
Where a mix of land uses creates staggered peak periods of parking, shared
parking plans that have the effect of reducing the total amount of needed parking
spaces may be approved. Parking spaces included in shared parking plans should
be equally accessible and available to each of the affected users. The collective
provision of off-street parking for two or more buildings or uses may be permitted
subject to the following:
1. Shared parking plans may include any lot or structure meeting the parking
location requirements. Surrounding lots included in the shared arrangement
shall be connected for vehicular passage and shall provide safe and efficient
pedestrian access to all uses served by the parking area(s).
2. A request for a shared parking reduction shall be based on a shared parking
analysis, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
a. The number of originally required spaces for different uses or facilities
sharing the same parking areas as noted in Table 153.173C; and
b. Documented percentages of required parking needed for different uses at
different days and times.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
22
3. The adjusted required parking for shared parking areas shall be the largest
number of spaces needed for all uses during the most intensive time period of
use.
4. Demonstration of Parking Need
In addition to or in lieu of parking adjustments, the required reviewing body
shall be permitted to approve a parking plan for fewer than the minimum
required parking spaces or more than the maximum permitted parking spaces
based on a demonstration of parking need by the applicant. The required
reviewing body shall consider:
a. The land use and development character of the area to be served by the
parking facility;
b. The availability of other publicly available parking in the area;
c. The timing of parking use relative to other uses in the area;
d. The parking requirement for similar uses as may be determined by the
Director;
e. Whether the all provided parking meets the location requirements;
f. Whether compliance with Table 153.173C is made to the maximum extent
practicable;
g. Whether other adjustments as described in this section should apply in
conjunction with or in lieu of the requested need-based adjustment; and
h. Whether supporting documentation, if provided, adequately demonstrates
that sufficient parking is available to meet projected typical demand.
(9) Accessible Parking Spaces
(a) Within the total number of off-street parking spaces provided, a minimum number
of spaces shall be designated, installed, and managed for use by the physically
disabled in compliance with the Ohio Building Code, current edition, Chapter on
Accessibility and the Referenced Standards therein.
(b) All handicapped parking spaces shall be designated by freestanding signs as
provided in the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices or as approved by
the City Engineer.
(10) Off-street Parking Space and Aisle Dimensions
Parking spaces and maneuvering aisles shall comply with Table 153.173D.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
23
TABLE 153.173D
OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE AND AISLE DIMENSIONS
Parking Pattern Aisle Width Regular Space Compact
Space*
1 Way 2 Way Width Length Width Length
Parallel 12 ft. 18 ft. 9 ft. 23 ft. 8 ft. 20 ft.
30-75 degrees 12 ft. 22 ft. 9 ft. 21 ft. 8 ft. 18 ft.
76-90 degrees N/A 22 ft. 9 ft. 18 ft. 8 ft. 16 ft.
*A maximum of 10% of parking spaces may be designed as compact parking
spaces, and all spaces shall be clearly marked and reserved for that use.
FIGURE 153.173A – OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE AND AISLE DIMENSIONS
(11) Parking Structure Design
Parking structures shall be designed to comply with the minimum requirements
outlined below. In addition, parking structures shall be designed to comply with the
Historic Design Guidelines to the maximum extent practicable and not inconsistent
with the standards in in this chapter.
(a) Entrance/Exit Lanes
1. One entrance lane shall be required for each 300 spaces or part thereof. One
exit lane shall be provided for each 200 spaces or part thereof.
2. Single entrance and exit lanes from the street shall be no wider than 16 feet.
Double entrance and exit lanes shall be no wider than 24 feet at the street
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
24
right-of-way. Where more than two entrance or exit lanes are required, a
separate entrance/exit shall be provided.
3. Locations of all proposed entrance and exit lanes shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer.
4. To reduce the width of sidewalk interruptions and promote walkability, only
single entrance lanes may be used unless access is provided from an
alley/service street.
(b) Stacking Spaces
Two vehicle lengths of stacking space, each measuring at least 20 feet long, shall
be provided between the street and the garage entry gate. The stacking area
shall not be located across a sidewalk or in the public right-of-way. Additional
stacking may be required by the City Engineer based upon traffic patterns and
street types or may be requested by the applicant based on a circulation plan
demonstrating need for the additional stacking spaces.
(c) Interior Circulation
The interior of the structure shall comply with the following standards.
1. Maximum aisle length shall not exceed 400 feet without providing a cross-
aisle.
(d) Cross aisles shall be a minimum of 18 feet and no greater than 24 feet in width.
(e) A minimum ceiling clearance height of 12 feet is required where the parking
structure has street frontage, excluding the driveway opening, and the parking
structure shall be designed and constructed to allow potential occupancy of the
first 20 feet of building depth by a commercial or a civic/public/institutional use
permitted by section 153.172A.
(f) Design of all other parking structures and upper levels shall include a minimum
ceiling clearance height of eight and one half feet.
(g) Below-grade parking structure levels shall provide minimum clear heights as
required by the Ohio Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
(12) Surface Parking Lot and Loading Area Design and Construction
(a) Grading
All off-street parking and loading areas including parking spaces, driveways,
aisles and circulation drives shall be graded and maintained so that water does
not unreasonably accumulate on the surface areas or flow or drain onto adjacent
public or private properties.
(b) Surfacing
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
25
1. All off-street parking and loading areas including parking spaces, driveways,
aisles and circulation drives shall be hard-surfaced with asphalt, concrete or a
combination of those materials approved by the City Engineer.
2. As an alternative, off-street parking areas may be surfaced with permeable
asphalt, permeable concrete or turf blocks, or some combination of
permeable and non-permeable surfaces, subject to review by the City
Engineer and the Fire Chief. The City Engineer may approve an adjustment
to the calculations for required stormwater management and retention
measures to reflect greater stormwater volume control through the use of
permeable paving.
3. All parking and loading surfaces shall be maintained in compliance with
§153.173(F)(14) at all times.
(c) Driveways
1. Any driveways not provided for or regulated by these provisions shall be
governed by §153.210. Where conflicting regulations exist between §153.210
and this section, this section shall prevail.
2. Adequate access to a parking lot shall be provided by clearly defined
driveways designed so that vehicles entering or leaving the parking lot will be
traveling in a forward motion, unless the City Engineer confirms that an
alternative design will protect traffic flow and traffic safety.
3. No driveway shall be permitted directly onto a West Bridge Street and High
Street, unless approved by the City Engineer.
4. On other street frontages, driveways shall be limited to one per lot or parcel,
whichever requires the fewer number of access points, unless vehicular
access is provided from an alley or service drive or the need for an additional
driveway on a street is documented based on an access management study
approved by the City Engineer.
5. If it is determined that shared driveways will better protect traffic flow or
traffic safety on surrounding streets, the City Engineer may require that
access to two or more adjacent surface parking or loading areas shall be
provided through one or more shared driveways.
6. Driveway aprons connecting parking lots to public roadways may not be
constructed with permeable materials.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
26
7. Driveways shall be no wider than 22 feet at the intersection with the adjacent
street right-of-way.
8. Curb radii for driveways connecting parking lots to public roadways shall not
exceed 20 feet.
(d) Curbs and Wheel Stops
1. Raised or rolled concrete curbs or wheel stops at least five inches high shall
be installed where necessary to prevent vehicle conflicts with abutting
landscape areas, sidewalks, streets, buildings or lot lines. There shall be a
minimum of four feet of clear walkway area and at least two and one-half
feet between a curb or wheel stop and any property line, planting area,
street, or building.
2. Planted areas shall be installed at a lower grade than the parking lot
pavement, include curbing at the edge of a landscaped area and have
openings or gaps allowing drainage from the pavement to enter and
percolate through the landscaped areas when used for stormwater
management purposes, or if required by the City Engineer.
3. Wheel stops may be used in conjunction with accessible parking spaces
where an adjacent walkway is installed at the same grade as the parking
space. Wheel stops may be used in addition to raised curbs where necessary
to prevent vehicle overhang onto adjacent walkways or near buildings, or in
conjunction with curb breaks used for stormwater drainage. Curbs shall be
required in all other circumstances.
(e) Striping
Parking areas shall be striped and maintained in good condition to be clearly
visible with lines to indicate parking space limits. All striping shall comply with
the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices unless an alternative is
approved by the City Engineer.
(f) Parking Pedestrian Circulation
For each surface parking area that contains over 100 vehicle parking spaces or
contains any parking spaces located more than 350 feet from the main entrance
of the principal structure, a pedestrian circulation plan shall be submitted and
comply with the walkability and pedestrian circulation standards applicable to
parking areas in the design guidelines.
(13) Required Loading Spaces
(a) Location
1. Off-street loading spaces may only be located on areas of a lot that are not
required to be occupied by a principal or accessory structure.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
27
2. Off-street loading areas may not be located on any parking spaces or parking
aisles designated to meet the minimum parking requirements of this section,
unless approved in a required parking plan demonstrating that the location
and timing of loading activities will not conflict with typical parking use on the
site or with vehicular or pedestrian circulation.
3. An alley or service street may be used instead of a separate off-street loading
space, subject to approval as part of a required parking plan demonstrating
that the loading and delivery activities will be coordinated with other users of
the alley to minimize access and circulation conflicts.
4. On-street parking spaces may be counted toward meeting the minimum
loading space requirement for a parcel provided that the spaces meet the
requirements for parking location, and subject to approval as part of a
required parking plan demonstrating that the on-street spaces are of
adequate size, number and availability to serve the intended delivery
vehicle(s) without creating conflicts with surrounding vehicular, bicycle or
pedestrian traffic and circulation.
5. Required fire access zones may not be used to meet loading space
requirements.
6. No loading dock, or any loading area used for the storage or staging of
materials being transported to or from the site associated with commercial
uses, shall be located closer than 50 feet to any lot in a residential district
unless entirely contained within a completely enclosed building, or screened
as required by section 153.173(H), nor shall any loading dock or loading area
directly face a residential district.
(b) Number Required
1. The minimum number of off-street loading spaces required is listed in Table
153.173F.
TABLE 153.173F:
MINIMUM LOADING SPACES REQUIRED PER
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE
25,000 sq. ft. GFA or less 1 space
25,001 - 50,000 sq. ft. GFA 2 spaces
50,001 - 100,000 sq. ft. GFA 3 spaces
2. A loading space plan demonstrating the frequency and type of loading
activities will be required to be approved by the Architectural Review Board
as part of a Minor Project or Final Development Plan.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
28
3. The required number of loading spaces may be increased or reduced by the
required reviewing body when it is demonstrated that the frequency and type
of loading activities at that location warrant a different number.
4. For principal structures of 25,000 square feet or less in gross floor area,
loading and delivery activities may be conducted using an alley or service
street, on-street parking spaces, or other on-site parking area, unless the
required reviewing body determines that a dedicated off-street loading space
is necessary based on the frequency and type of loading activities anticipated
for the use.
(c) Loading Space Dimensions and Screening
1. All off-street loading spaces shall be at least 12 feet wide and 30 feet long
with a height clearance of 14 feet, unless the required reviewing body
determines that the typical delivery vehicle(s) designated in an approved
parking plan can be adequately accommodated by reduced loading space
dimensions.
2. Refer to §153.173(I) for off-street loading area screening requirements.
3. Truck loading and unloading docks and maneuvering areas shall be designed
so that truck movements do not interfere with traffic on public streets or off-
street parking when vehicles are parked for loading and unloading. Loading
areas requiring vehicles to back in from the street are prohibited on West
Bridge Street and High Street, unless otherwise permitted by the City
Engineer. Vehicles loading or unloading may not extend over any sidewalk or
into any public right-of-way between the hours of 6:00 am and midnight,
unless located entirely within a designated on-street parking lane or within
the vehicular travel lane of an alley or service street as permitted in an
approved parking plan.
(14) Maintenance and Use
(a) General Provisions
1. Unless an equal number of required spaces conforming to Table 153.173C
are provided, parking and loading areas shall be maintained and not used for
any other purpose while the principal structure or use remains in operation.
Other parking arrangements for temporary community activities and special
events may be permitted with approval from the City of Dublin Events
Administration.
2. All parking lots shall be maintained free of potholes, litter, debris, glass, nails
or other dangerous materials.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
29
3. Surfacing, curbing, wheel stops, lighting fixtures, signs, and related
appurtenances shall be maintained in good condition. The visibility of
pavement markings delineating parking spaces and directional control shall
be maintained.
4. Except on a temporary basis in the event of heavy rainfall or snowfall, all off-
street parking and loading facilities shall be maintained free of accumulated
snow or standing water which may prevent their full use and occupancy.
5. All permeable paving materials shall be maintained in an unbroken condition
and shall be regularly swept and vacuumed to prevent blockages of sand,
sediment, or other materials that would impair their permeability to water as
originally designed.
6. Signs designating the use of individual private parking spaces for specific
users, buildings or lots shall not be legible from a public right-of-way, except
where such a sign is otherwise required by this Chapter.
(b) Use Restrictions
1. It is unlawful for any person to park or store any vehicle in a parking lot or
parking structure without the consent of the owner, holder, occupant, lessee,
agent or trustee of the property.
2. All vehicles parked in a parking lot or parking structure shall be capable of
being started and driven and have a valid registration and license within the
most recent 12-month period.
3. A recreational and utility vehicle may be located outside of an enclosed
structure for up to 72 hours in any 30-day period, provided the owner or
person in charge of the recreational and utility vehicle is the owner or a guest
of a resident of that property. The vehicle shall be parked on a hard surface
and shall not be used for overnight sleeping or living.
4. Off-street parking and loading areas may not be used for material storage,
storage or display of vehicles and/or merchandise, or for vehicle or
machinery repair or maintenance. If located within an off-street parking or
loading area, refuse storage stations and dumpsters shall be located and
screened in accordance with §153.173(I) and shall not interfere with
driveway circulation or access to parking spaces and loading areas.
5. Except on parcels where the sale of vehicles is a permitted or approved
conditional use of the property, no vehicle may be parked in any off-street
parking or loading area for the sole purpose of displaying the vehicle for sale.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
30
6. Unless no other parking area is reasonably available, no vehicle that, at the
determination of the Director, is intended for the display of advertising to the
public may be parked so as to be visible to traffic on a public street or
parking area.
(15) Bicycle Parking
(a) Applicability
1. Bicycle parking is required for any development or use with six or more
required vehicle parking spaces.
(b) Minimum Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces Required
1. Bicycle parking spaces shall be required as follows:
a. For residential uses, except attached and detached single-family, one space
for every two dwelling units. Up to 50% of required spaces may be
provided within garages for multiple-family uses provided the ARB
determines that the garage size and dedicated bicycle parking facilities are
generally adequate to accommodate these spaces.
b. For civic/public/institutional uses, one space for every 20 required vehicle
parking spaces.
c. For commercial uses, one space for every 10 required vehicle parking
spaces.
2. Provided that bicycle parking is not completely eliminated, required bicycle
parking may be increased or reduced by the ARB when it is demonstrated that
the level of bicycle activity at that location warrants a different amount.
(c) Facility Type
1. Bicycle parking racks, docks, or posts shall be designed and installed to allow
a bicycle to be locked to a structure, attached to the pavement, building, or
other permanent structure, with two points of contact to an individual bicycle
frame. Racks, docks, and posts shall be designed to allow the bicycle frame
and one or both wheels to be locked with a U-lock when used as intended.
Facility types, designs and locations within the street-right-of-way shall require
approval by the City Engineer.
(d) Location
1. Required bicycle parking shall be located within a reasonable walking distance
of the principal building entrances being served. The location and design shall
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
31
ensure that bicycle parking and facilities do not obstruct vehicle parking or
pedestrian walkways as required by the Ohio Building Code, the Americans
with Disabilities Act, and other applicable state and federal laws, policies and
guidelines. Bicycle facilities and parking areas shall meet the sight visibility
requirements of this code.
2. Outdoor bicycle parking areas shall be located in well-lit areas.
3. A pedestrian-accessible walk shall be available between the outdoor bicycle
parking area and the principal building entrance. Public sidewalks may be used
to meet this requirement.
4. Bicycle lockers shall be located inside or to the side or rear of the principal
structure, but not within any required setback or required building zone.
5. A property that contains a shared bicycle rental pick-up/drop-off facility that is
available and accessible to the public and is part of a system of such facilities
designed to encourage bicycle use in the city or region shall be exempt from
on-site bicycle parking requirements for the lot on which the shared bicycle
facility is located, and for any lots in common ownership located wholly or
partially within 1,000 feet of the shared bicycle facility.
6. Public bicycle parking provided by the City and located within the street right-
of-way may be counted toward meeting the minimum bicycle parking
requirement for a parcel provided that the spaces are on the same block face
as the subject parcel.
7. Public bicycle parking spaces shall not be designated for exclusive use by any
specific use, building or lot.
(e) Installation
1. Bicycle parking shall be installed according to the dimensional requirements
set forth by the manufacturer and the latest edition of the APBP Bicycle Parking
Guidelines, or similar industry publication acceptable to the Director.
(G) Stormwater Management
(1) Stormwater management practices, such as storage and retention facilities, may be
integrated into open spaces. Refer to Chapter 53 for design requirements.
(2) Stormwater features - Stormwater features in open spaces may be designed as
formal or natural amenities with additional uses other than stormwater management
alone, such as an amphitheater, sports field, or a pond or pool as part of the
landscape design. Stormwater features shall not be fenced and shall not be designed
or placed so as to impede public use of the land they occupy.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
32
(3) Qualified Professional - Stormwater management features incorporated into open
spaces shall be designed by a licensed design professional.
(H) Landscaping and Tree Preservation
(1) Intent
The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of the Historic Dublin, and
designated outlying properties, reduce noise and air pollution, reduce heat island
impacts, protect the character and value of surrounding neighborhoods, and
promote public health and safety through appropriate landscaping or street
frontages and surface parking lots. This section is also intended to ensure buffering
between significantly different land uses, and that trees are preserved and replaced
in a manner appropriate to urban environments.
(2) General
(a) The provisions of sections 153.132 through 153.148 shall apply to Historic Dublin
and designated outlying properties, unless specifically modified or waived by the
ARB.
(b) Each application for development or redevelopment shall include a landscape
plan showing compliance with applicable provisions. The siting of buildings shall
avoid the removal of desirable trees in good or fair condition where alternatives
consistent with the provisions of this chapter are available.
(c) Protected trees, as defined in this Chapter, removed from any portion of a lot
consistent with an approved Minor Project, Preliminary or Final Development Plan
shall be replaced in accordance with §153.146, except as provided by
§153.173(G).
(d) Existing trees which are incorporated into the landscape plan shall be protected
during construction as required by §153.145.
(e) Landscape plans shall exhibit diversity in tree selection, as determined to be
appropriate by the City Forester and the Director of Parks and Open Space.
(f) In all areas where landscaping is required, the surface area of any land-scape
bed shall be predominantly covered within four years after installation by living
materials, rather than bark, mulch, gravel or other non-living materials. Areas
included in rain gardens or other vegetated site features to meet stormwater
management requirements are excluded from this requirement with prior
approval from the Director.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
33
(g) Areas included in rain gardens or vegetated site features created to meet
stormwater management requirements may be counted towards any landscaping
required by §153.173(H) if landscaped to meet the requirements.
(h) All irrigation systems shall be designed, installed, and operated to minimize run-
off and over-spray of irrigation water onto roadways, sidewalks, and adjacent
properties, and shall be installed with rain sensors to turn the system off during
rainy conditions.
(i) Shrubs and plants that exceed two and one-half feet in mature height are
prohibited in required sight visibility triangles for site access points as defined in
Appendix C and are prohibited in required sight visibility triangles for street
intersections as defined by the City Engineer.
(j) If two or more conflicting landscape requirements apply to the same area, the
one requiring the most landscaping shall apply.
(k) A registered landscape architect shall be used to prepare landscape plans
required for applications for Final Development Plan.
(3) Street Trees
When a property is developed or redeveloped in Historic Dublin the applicant shall
be required to plant and maintain trees in the street right-of-way pursuant to the
following requirements. No existing street trees shall be required to comply with the
following requirements unless they are required to be removed and replaced
consistent with an appropriate approved application as provided in §153.176.
(a) A minimum of one tree is required per 40 linear feet of street frontage or fraction
thereof. Refer to Table 153.173G, Street Tree Spacing Requirements, for spacing
based on tree size and site characteristics.
(b) Street trees shall be planted within streetscape planting zones in tree wells, tree
lawns based, or open planting beds based on the applicable street type design
requirements.
(c) Street trees shall be planted in topsoil approved by the Director of Parks and
Open Space or the City Forester. Structural soil or an equivalent material
approved by the City Forester shall be placed under paved areas adjacent to tree
wells or planting beds, parallel to and behind the curb, and connecting planting
beds or tree wells to one another beneath the paved surface within the
streetscape planting zone. The City Forester may require additional structural soil
to ex-tend horizontally beyond the planting zone beneath sidewalks or other
paved surfaces, as necessary to ensure the long term health of street trees,
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
34
depending on the planting and paving conditions within individual street types.
Structural soil shall not be used in planting beds.
(d) Species and Sizes:
1. Street trees shall be from the approved Urban Street Tree List for Dublin,
Ohio or other species approved by the City Forester.
2. Street trees shall have a clear trunk of at least seven feet above the ground.
The minimum trunk caliper measured at six inches above the ground for all
street trees shall be no less than two and one-half inches. Existing trees in
good or fair condition may be used to satisfy these requirements with prior
approval of the City Forester.
3. Small tree species are permitted for use in planting zones where overhead
utility lines exist. Small tree species may also be planted in medians, in
addition to medium and/or large tree species, where medians are provided.
(e) Spacing and Location - Street trees shall be spaced as set forth in Table
153.173G below unless modified by the City Forester based on unusual site
conditions or obstructions.
TABLE 153.173G
STREET TREE SPACING
REQUIREMENTS
Small
Tree
Medium
Tree
Large
Tree
Spacing range between trees 20-25
ft.
30-35
ft. 40-45 ft.
Minimum distance between trunk and face
of curb (at planting) 3 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft.
Minimum distance from intersection 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft.
Minimum distance from fire hydrants and
utility poles 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.
May be planted within 10 lateral feet of
overhead utilities Yes No No
(f) Maintenance and Replacement by Property Owner - The property owner shall be
required to maintain the street trees for one year after the trees are planted and
replace any tree which fails to survive or does not exhibit normal growth
characteristics of health and vigor, as determined by the City Forester. The one-
year period after the approval of the City Forester shall begin at each planting
and shall recommence as trees are replaced.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
35
(g) Prohibited Activities
1. No person shall top any tree within the public right-of-way unless specifically
authorized by the City Forester. Topping is de-fined as the severe cutting
back of limbs to stubs larger than three inches in diameter within the tree’s
crown to such a degree so as to remove the normal canopy and disfigure the
tree, as determined by the City Forester.
2. Unless specifically authorized by the City Forester, no person shall
intentionally damage, cut, carve, transplant, or remove any tree or shrub;
attach any rope, wire, nails, advertising posters, or other contrivance to any
tree or shrub, allow any gaseous liquid, or solid substance which is harmful
to trees or shrubs to come in contact with them; or set fire or permit fire to
burn when fire or heat will injure any portion of any tree or shrub.
3. No person shall excavate any tunnels, trenches, or install a drive-way or
sidewalk within a radius of ten feet from the trunk of any public tree or shrub
without first obtaining the prior written approval from the City Forester.
4. No person shall remove a tree or shrub from the City-owned tree lawn,
streetscape planting zone or other public property without first obtaining the
prior written approval of the City Forester.
5. No person shall by any type of construction reduce the size of a tree lawn or
streetscape planting zone without prior written approval of the City Engineer.
6. Decorative lights, strings of lights, electrical cords or wires are not permitted
to be attached to any tree for more than four consecutive months.
(h) Municipal Rights
1. The City shall have the right to plant, prune, maintain and remove trees,
plants and shrubs within public rights-of-way and other public grounds as
may be necessary to ensure public safety or to preserve or enhance the
environmental quality and beauty of public grounds. This section shall not
prohibit the planting of street trees by surrounding property owners
providing that the prior written permission of the City Forester has been
granted.
2. The City Forester may cause or order to be removed any tree or part of a
tree that is in an unsafe condition or which by rea-sons of its nature is
injurious to sewers, electric power lines, gas lines, water lines, or other
public improvements, or is affected with any injurious fungi, insect or
other pest.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
36
3. The City Forester shall have the right to enter private property to access
trees adjacent to public areas for the purposes of proper pruning, after
reasonable prior written notice has been given to the property owner.
4. Wherever it is necessary to remove a tree(s) or shrub(s) from a public
planting zone or other public property, the City shall endeavor to remove
and replant or replace the trees or shrubs. No protected tree within the
public right-of-way or on other public grounds shall be removed without
prior re-view by the City Forester, and the trees shall only be re-moved if
the City Forester determines there are no other means available to
preserve the tree.
5. The City Forester shall have the right to cause the removal of any dead or
diseased tree(s) located on private property within the city and/or cause
the removal of branches of trees located on private property that
overhang or impede access to public property, when those trees
constitute a hazard to life and property, or harbor an epiphytotic dis-ease
which constitutes a potential threat to other trees within the city. The City
Forester shall notify in writing the owners of the trees to be removed.
Removal shall be done by the owners at their own expense within 60
days after the date of service of written notice, unless a longer period is
agreed to in writing by the City Forester, to allow time to attempt to treat
and cure a salvageable diseased tree. In the event of failure of owners to
comply within 60 days, the City Forester shall notify in writing the owners
of the trees of the City’s authority to remove any tree(s) and charge the
cost of removal to the owner as provided by law.
(4) Perimeter Landscape Buffer
(a) Perimeter landscape buffer is required when a non-residential land use is
adjacent to a parcel containing only single-family detached buildings (regardless
of whether there is an intervening street, alley, or driveway).
(b) These requirements apply when a site subject to these requirements is
developed or redeveloped. No existing development shall be required to install
perimeter landscape buffering because of a change in the nature, character, or
zoning classification of an adjacent parcel.
(c) The required perimeter landscape buffer area may be located within a utility or
other easement with the prior approval of the City Engineer provided all of the
landscape requirements are met.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
37
(d) Required buffer materials must be placed on the parcel where development or
redevelopment is occurring, unless both the parcel providing the buffering and
the parcel being buffered are in common ownership, in which case the buffer
may be provided on either or portions of both properties.
(e) Vehicles or other objects shall not overhang or otherwise intrude upon the
required perimeter landscape buffer. Refer to §153.173(F)(12)(d) for curb and
wheel stop requirements.
(f) Existing landscape material in good or fair condition may be used to satisfy these
requirements with the prior approval of the Director.
(5) Surface parking and circulation area landscaping – All surface parking lots containing
ten or more parking spaces and other vehicular use areas shall provide landscaping
as required by this section.
(a) Street frontage screening - Surface parking lots and other vehicular use areas
located within 40 feet of a public street shall either be landscaped, or a street
wall shall be installed in accordance with §153.173(I) along the parking lot
boundary facing the street to create a visual edge along the public right-of-way.
(b) Perimeter buffering - Where a surface parking lot is located within 30 feet of a
side, corner side, or rear lot line, and the adjacent property contains only single-
family detached building types, the property owner shall install perimeter
buffering meeting the requirements of §153.173(H)(4).
(c) Interior Landscaping - In addition to required street frontage and perimeter
buffering described in the above sections, a minimum of 5% of the interior
parking lot area, (including all parking spaces, interior drives, loading docks,
drop-off/pick-up lanes, and access drives beyond the right-of-way), shall be
landscaped.
(6) Foundation planting - Building foundation landscaping is required along all sides of a
building facing a public or private street or open space or facing a surface parking
area located on the same lot but is not required for portions of the front or corner
side building façades located within 10 feet of the front property line and where a
streetscape or patio treatment is provided.
(7) Credit to Preserve Existing Trees
(a) Credit available - Property owners who demonstrate they have preserved
mature, non-diseased trees with a three-inch caliper as measured at diameter
breast height (DBH) during development or redevelopment may obtain credits
toward required landscaping. Trees intended to be preserved shall be indicated
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
38
on the landscape plan and shall be protected during construction through use of
tree protection fencing around the critical root radius. The total amount of tree
credits shall not exceed 50% of the required tree landscaping requirement.
(b) Amount of credit - Credit for preserved trees is shown in Table 153.173H. Any
preserved trees for which credit is given and that are lost to damage or disease
within five years after the credit is awarded, shall be replaced by the land owner
with the number of trees for which the credit was granted.
TABLE 153.173H:
TREE PRESERVATION CREDITS
DBH of Preserved Tree
(inches)
Number of Trees
Credited
Over 12 3
6 inches to 11.9 2
3 inches to 6 1
(8) Tree Preservation
(a) General Provisions
1. Tree Preservation Plan Required
a. Due to unique and/or noteworthy characteristics including size, species,
age, and historical significance, landmark trees and significant groups of
mature, healthy trees are community amenities that shall be preserved to
the maximum extent feasible.
b. Applicants shall submit a tree preservation plan for approval by the
required reviewing body that demonstrates the site landscaping complies
with the provisions of §153.173(H). At the Preliminary Development Plan,
the property owner shall submit a copy of the tree preservation plan to
the appropriate public utilities in order to alert those public utilities to the
proposed placement of the trees in relation to utility service lines.
c. A tree survey prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted with the
tree preservation plan for all Final Development Plan and/or Minor Project
Review applications for lots containing existing trees. The tree survey
shall include the location, size, condition and species of all existing trees
over four-inch caliper as measured at DBH.
d. The tree preservation plan submitted as part of the Final Development
Plan and/or Minor Project Review application shall identify all landmark
trees and/or significant tree stands on the site, including critical root
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
39
zones to establish the limits of tree preservation zones, as determined by
the required reviewing body.
e. The property owner shall replace inch for inch any protected trees that
are removed or lost due to damage, regardless of their location on the
lot, except as provided in §153.173(H)(8)(a)4.
2. Site layout and design - Where practicable, site design and architectural
layout activities shall preserve existing protected trees and avoid risk of
protected tree loss through changes of grade and soil moisture, both on the
subject parcel and on surrounding parcels. This includes, but is not limited to,
the layout and design of buildings and any associated site improvements
including auguring, jacking, or boring to install utilities (as opposed to open
cutting). The critical root zones of protected trees on the subject parcel and
adjacent parcels shall be reviewed and land disturbance within those zones
avoided to the extent reasonable.
3. Tree removal permit – the provisions of section 153.143 shall apply, except
as provided in section §153.173(H)(8)(a)4.
a. Protected trees used as credit to meet a required tree landscape
requirement which die shall be replaced by the land owner with the
number of trees for which the credit was granted. Replacement trees may
count to-wards the credit amount for the development.
b. Replacement trees provided pursuant to §153.173(H)(8) shall count
towards landscaping required under other portions of this section if they
meet the size, type, and location standards for the landscaping required
4. Exemptions - The following activities are not subject to the tree replacement
requirements for protected trees as described in §153.146 provided the
proposed tree removal is included in the required application as described in
§153.176.
a. Removal of trees that, at the determination of the City Forester, are
deemed hazardous or undesirable with respect to structure, species,
and/or condition;
b. Removal of trees on any portion of a site required to be occupied by a
public street as approved by the City Engineer and the required
reviewing body with a Development Plan Review application;
c. Removal of trees which are an obstruction to traffic signals or traffic
signs, power lines, or other utilities;
d. Removal of trees necessary for rescue in an emergency or for cleanup
after a natural disaster; and
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
40
(b) Maintenance and Replacement
1. Street trees and public trees - Each property owner shall comply with those
standards for maintenance, replacement, protection and management of
street trees and public trees in §153.173(H)(3).
2. Other required landscaping on private property – For landscaping other than
public trees and street trees, each property owner shall:
a. Maintain all required landscaping in good condition, as determined by the
City Forester;
b. Remove any landscaping or tree that dies or is required to be re-moved
due to damage or disease within three months after the loss of that
landscaping or tree; and
c. Replace the landscaping or tree within three months of its removal.
3. The City Forester may extend times for performance if weather or other
conditions prevent performance within the times stated above.
(c) Alternative Landscaping - In lieu of compliance with the specific requirements of
§153.173(H) an owner may propose alternative approaches consistent with the
intent of this section to accommodate unique site conditions, abutting or
surrounding uses, or other conditions, as deemed appropriate by the required
reviewing body. Requests for alternative landscaping shall be reviewed by the
required reviewing body with the Minor Project or Final Development Plan
application and approved only if the proposed alternative is equal to or better
than the aesthetic, environmental, and buffering functions anticipated with the
provisions of this section.
(I) Fences, Walls, and Screening
(1) Purpose and Intent
The purpose of these provisions is to establish regulations outlining the use and type
of fences, walls and screening. This is for the conversation and protection of
property, the assurance of safety and security, the enhancement of privacy, and the
improvement of the visual environment.
(2) Prohibited Materials
(a) Chain link, vinyl and temporary plastic fences (such as snow fences) are
prohibited except during construction as security for construction sites and
materials. Fences that are electrically charged, constructed of barbed wire, and
razor wire are prohibited. No fence, wall or retaining wall shall be constructed of
materials not designed to be used for that purpose. High quality synthetic
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
41
materials may be approved with the Minor Project or Final Development Plan by
the ARB with examples of successful, high quality installations.
(3) Fence Standards
(a) Fences shall be permitted between the principal structure on a lot and the front,
side and/or rear property lines; and shall not exceed four feet in height or be
more than 50% opaque unless otherwise required by this section or approved by
the Architectural Review Board.
(b) The height provisions or the previous sections shall not apply to fences or walls
required to comply with the screening standards of this section.
(c) The height provisions shall apply to all portions of retaining walls that extend
above grade level, as measured form the elevated side of the retaining wall.
Where a fence is located on top of a retaining wall, the combined height of the
retaining wall and fence shall not exceed the maximum height permitted for a
fence, as measured from the elevated side of the retaining wall.
(4) Stone Wall Standards
(a) Stone walls are intended to screen vehicular use areas or service areas and/or to
define the pedestrian realm.
(b) Stone walls shall be constructed as dry-laid stone.
(c) Stone walls shall be permitted between the principal structure on a lot and the
front, side and/or rear property lines; and shall be a minimum of 22 inches in
height and shall not exceed 36 inches in height.
(d) Stone walls are prohibited in required sight visibility triangles for site access
points and street intersections, as determined by the City Engineer.
(e) Existing stone walls shall be preserved, unless otherwise approved by the
Architectural Review Board.
(5) Roof-Mounted Mechanical Equipment
(a) All roof-mounted mechanical equipment (including but not limited to HVAC
equipment, exhaust fans, cooling towers, and related guardrails or safety
equipment) shall be fully screened from view at ground level on all sides of the
structure and, to the extent practicable, from surrounding buildings of similar
height.
(b) The standards of §153.173(I)(4)(a) shall not apply if the only feasible location
for screening would impede the functioning of solar, wind or geothermal energy
equipment or systems.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
42
(c) The roof-mounted screening shall not be permitted to exceed the maximum
permitted building height, unless approved by the Architectural Review Board.
(6) Ground-Mounted Mechanical Equipment
(a) All ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be incorporated within the
footprint of a principal or accessory structure or shall be fully screened from view
on all sides.
(b) The standards of §153.173(I)(4)(a) shall not apply if the only feasible location
for screening would impede the functioning of solar, wind or geothermal energy
equipment or systems.
(7) Outdoor Waste and Storage Container Enclosures
(a) All waste, refuse, and recycling containers and enclosures shall be incorporated
within the footprint of a principal or accessory structure to the maximum extent
practicable. If incorporation within the building footprint is not practicable,
outdoor waste and storage containers and enclosures shall be fully screened
from view on all sides by landscaping or by a decorative wall or fence finished
and constructed to match the materials and design of the nearest wall of the
principal structure and shall be fully opaque year round.
(b) The wall or screen shall be one foot taller than the height of the waste or
storage container or enclosure being screening, up to a maximum of 12 feet.
(c) Chain link, vinyl, EIFS, and unfinished or non-decorated CMU are prohibited
screening materials.
(d) Enclosures that contain access doors to accommodate servicing of equipment
and emptying of containers shall be self-closing, be constructed out of materials
the coordinate with the design and materials of the enclosure and shall remain
closed and all containers fully within the structure when not being used.
(8) Access Doors - Screening structures may contain access doors to accommodate
servicing of equipment and emptying or replacement of containers. The access doors
shall be self-closing and shall remain closed and all containers fully within the
structure when not being used.
(9) Vegetative Screening - Vegetative screening that complies with the design guidelines
may be used to meet the requirements of this §153.173(I).
(10) Alternative Screening - In lieu of compliance with the requirements of
§153.173(I), an alternative approach to accommodate unique site conditions or
surrounding uses may be approved if the required reviewing body determines that
the proposed alternative achieves the aesthetic, environmental, and screening
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
43
results as well or better than compliance with the standards of §153.065(I).
(J) Lighting
The lighting standards within this section are intended to allow adequate night time
lighting to protect public safety while also protecting residential uses from excessive night
time light and glare, protecting motorists from glare along public rights-of-way, reducing
consumption of electricity for lighting purposes, and prohibiting excessive light trespass
beyond property lines.
(1) Exemptions
(a) Lighting for single family detached and single family attached dwellings
(b) Pedestrian walkway ground lighting
(c) Lighting for designated sports fields
(d) Street lighting
(2) Fixture power and efficiency
(a) All light fixtures shall meet the standards in Table 153.173I for power and
efficiency
TABLE 153.173I: FIXTURE POWER AND EFFICIENCY
Maximum permitted initial lamp lumens per sq.
ft. 9.7 lumens/sq. ft.
Maximum lamp allowance 44,000 lumens
Minimum lumens per watt or energy consumed
(as documented by manufacturers
specifications or results of an independent
testing laboratory)
80 lumens/watt
(3) Shielding
(a) All exterior light sources and lamps that emit more than 900 lumens shall be
concealed or shielded with an Illuminations Engineering Society of North America
(IESNA) full cut-off style fixture with an angle not exceeding 90 degrees to
minimize the potential for glare and unnecessary diffusion on surrounding
property. No portion of the lamp, reflector, lens, or refracting system may extend
beyond the housing or shield, with the exception of pedestrian lighting.
(b) All light sources shall be designed, located, and installed so that the light source
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
44
is not directly visible from any surrounding property in a residential district.
(4) Lighting Uniformity
(a) Lighting across a horizontal surface shall have an average range from one to
three footcandles.
(5) Light Trespass
(a) Light generated on site shall not add more than one footcandle to illumination
levels at any point at grade level 10 feet beyond the property line.
(6) Lighting Plans
(a) Lighting plans submitted as part of applicable minor projects or final
development plans shall include existing lighting from streets and surrounding
buildings developed under these standards, and proposed lighting generated
from light poles and building lighting.
(7) Light Poles
(a) The base of light poles in parking areas shall be either flush with grade or
mounted on a concrete foundation projecting no more than 36 inches above
grade. The base of light poles in non-parking areas shall be either flush with
grade or mounted on a concrete foundation projecting no more than six inches
above grade.
(b) Light poles should be a maximum of 12 feet in height.
(8) Wall Lighting
(a) Decorative wall lighting may be used to provide uplighting, downlighting, or
other types of lighting accents for buildings within the Historic Zoning Districts.
Decorative lighting shall not exceed 900 lumens unless installed and shielded in
accordance with this section.
(b) Ground or pole-mounted floodlights are not permitted for façade lighting.
(9) Canopy Lighting
(a) All canopy lighting shall use recessed luminaire fixtures and shall be designed
and located so as to prevent glare onto surrounding properties.
(b) Highly reflective material shall not be installed on the underside of the canopy.
(10) Prohibited Lighting Types
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
45
(a) Sodium vapor light fixtures are prohibited in Historic Dublin.
(K) Utility Undergrounding and Screening
(1) In Historic Dublin, all utility lines including but not limited to water supply, sanitary sewer
service, electricity, telephone and gas, and their connections or feeder lines shall be
placed underground.
(2) All utility connections shall be kept to the rear or the side of the building, out of view or
screened. Applicants shall coordinate with utility providers to site transformers and other
similar utility structures to the rear or sides of buildings, or otherwise out of view or
screened.
(3) Existing above-ground utility lines shall be required to be buried with the provision of
new streets, or as otherwise required by the City Engineer.
(L) Public Art
(1) Site development may include the installation of public art in accordance with city
policies and procedures.
(M) Signs
(1) Purpose
(a) The purpose of signs in the Historic Zoning Districts is to provide identification with
high visual quality in a manner that respects the character and scale of residential
areas and match the general character and scale of Dublin’s original village
commercial center. Signs should provide business identification in a manner
consistent with the historic appearance and character of the districts, while
encouraging a more interesting streetscape.
(b) Signs should provide high quality awareness through graphics that effectively
assist in navigation, information, and identification for both pedestrians and
vehicles.
(2) General Provisions
(a) All applicable requirements of section 153.150 through 153.164 shall apply to the
signs within Historic Dublin, except as modified herein. In the event of a conflict
with the provisions of the Signs Chapter (sections 153.150-153.164), the
provisions of this section shall govern.
(b) Where noted for the purposes of permitted signs, street frontages shall apply only
to public streets.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
46
(c) Approval Authority
1. All new ground and building signs within Historic Dublin shall be subject to
review and approval by the Architectural Review Board.
2. All signs shall require a permanent sign permit unless otherwise exempted for
a specific sign type.
3. Required reviewing bodies shall not address the content of the sign message.
4. Off-premises signs are only permitted with the approval of a master sign plan.
5. All signs located within or projecting over the public right-of-way shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to placement.
6. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, the design and placement of
City sponsored banners for special events or public announcements affixed to
public facilities in the right-of-way within the Architectural Review District shall
be approved by the City Manager prior to placement.
7. Master Sign Plan
a. Any applicant may request approval of a master sign plan that departs from
the requirements of this section, provided the purpose and intent of the
sign and graphic standards for the Historic Zoning Districts and the Historic
Design Guidelines are maintained. The ARB shall determine the
appropriateness of signs and their placement given the architecture of
buildings within these districts.
b. A master sign plan may be reviewed concurrently with a Final Development
Plan or Minor Project Review.
c. A master sign plan shall include, at a minimum: the proposed locations,
types, number, heights and sizes of signs, indicated on scaled plans and/or
building elevation drawings; proposed materials to be used for sign
structures and sign faces; and proposed types of illumination.
d. Where applicable, all signs located within a development shall meet the
requirements established in an approved master sign plan. All
requirements of this section shall continue to apply except as modified by
the master sign plan.
(3) Sign Design and Lighting
All permitted sign types shall be designed with the maximum of creativity and the
highest quality of materials and fabrication. It is strongly recommended that all signs
be designed by a professional sign designer and be installed by a qualified sign builder
or contractor.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
47
(a) General
All signs shall have dimensional letters, raised or routed with a minimum .5-inch
relief; and shall be constructed of a high-quality, durable material. The provisions
of Section 153.158(C)(3): Limitations on Sign Shape shall not apply to properties
within the Historic Zoning Districts.
(b) Prohibited Sign Designs
Channel letter signs and cabinet signs shall be prohibited. Signs constructed with
a raceway shall be prohibited. The provisions of Section 153.154 shall apply.
(c) Illumination.
The illumination of signs is strongly encouraged to help add a sense of liveliness
and activity to the area. Unless otherwise noted, signs may be externally
illuminated, provided that all exterior lighting meets the requirements of
§153.154(J). Awning signs and sandwich board signs may not be illuminated.
Illuminated signs shall be constructed so that conduit and piping for electrical
sources are not exposed to view.
(d) Sign Colors and Logos/Secondary Images
Logos or images used to convey information about the business or use of the
building or lot shall be compatible with the size, design, and scale of the sign.
Complementary, colorful logos and signs are encouraged to help add character
and interest to the building and streetscape.
1. Signs shall be limited to three colors. Black and white are considered colors.
The background color shall be considered one of the three permissible colors,
unless individually mounted letters are used, in which case the building façade
is not considered one of the three colors.
2. Colors used in a registered corporate trademark or symbol shall not be limited
in number but shall be considered as one of three permissible colors.
(4) Sign Materials
(a) All signs shall be fabricated with high quality, durable, and weather resistant
materials. The material shall be compatible with the primary building materials of
the structure to which the sign is associated.
(b) All signs shall be fabricated, constructed and installed to conceal fasteners.
(c) The following materials shall be permitted to be used for the construction of sign.
The required reviewing body may approve other materials if determines that the
material provides the same quality, durability, and weather resistance as a
permitted sign material.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
48
1. All Signs except Window Signs
a. Permitted materials: HDU, cedar, redwood, and treated lumber
2. Window Signs
a. High performance, pressure sensitive, fade resistant vinyl.
(5) Permitted Sign Types
(a) All sign types permitted for properties within the Historic Core, Historic South, and
Historic Public zoning districts are listed in Table 153.173J. Refer to section
153.173(M)(5) for number of signs permitted and section 153.173(M)(6) for
requirements for specific sign types.
(b) Different sign types may be used on the same frontage.
(c) Where required, setbacks shall be measured from the public street right-of-way or
lot line, as applicable.
Table 153.173J: Sign Types Permitted in the Architectural Review District
Sign Type Code Section
Reference Sign Type Intent
Ground Sign
Ground Sign §153.173(M)(6)(a);
Table 153.173K
Ground signs are intended primarily for
buildings with greater front and corner
setbacks.
Building-Mounted Signs
Wall Sign
§153.173(M)(6)(b);
Table 153.173L
Building-mounted signs are intended to
provide visibility for pedestrians and
vehicles approaching from different
directions and to create a diversity of
signs along an active streetscape.
Awning Sign
Projecting Sign
Window Sign
Other Permitted Signs
Directory Sign
§153.173(M)(6)(c);
Table 153.173M
Directory signs are intended to provide
identification for upper story tenants
and/or tenants that are otherwise not
permitted an individual identification
sign. Directory signs may also be used
for restaurant menus and other similar
uses.
Display Sign
Display signs are intended to advertise
goods or services. Display signs may
change frequently and may be
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
49
Table 153.173J: Sign Types Permitted in the Architectural Review District
Sign Type Code Section
Reference Sign Type Intent
attached to or located within 3 feet of
a window on the interior of the
building. Examples include products for
sale or display, and signs that show or
describe goods or services offered.
Sandwich Board Sign
Sandwich board signs are intended to
be used in areas with high pedestrian
and commercial activity.
(6) Number of Permitted Signs
(a) Single Tenant Buildings - A combination of two different sign types, including
ground signs and building-mounted signs, are permitted for the building. For lots
with more than one street frontage, one additional ground or building-mounted
sign is permitted along the second lot frontage, not to exceed a total of three
signs.
(b) Multiple Tenant Buildings - A combination of two different sign types, including
ground signs and building-mounted signs, are permitted for each ground floor
tenant with a storefront.
(c) An additional building-mounted sign is permitted for each tenant with a storefront
where the tenant also has a dedicated public entrance facing an off-street parking
area or parking structure in the same block, provided that the secondary public
entrance is located on the side or rear façade of the building.
(d) Tenant spaces located above the ground floor may be identified by a directory sign
or by a window sign or projecting sign located adjacent to a common public
entrance providing access to the upper floor tenant spaces.
(7) Specific Sign Type Requirements
(a) Ground Signs
1. Ground sign height is measured from established grade of the base of the sign
to the top of the sign or its frame/support, whichever is taller. The height may
not be artificially increased.
2. All ground signs shall comply with the provisions of Table 153.173K: Ground
Sign Requirements.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
50
Table 153.173K: Ground Sign Requirements
Number Refer to §153.173(L)(5): number of signs permitted
Size Maximum 8 sq. ft.
Location Minimum setback of 8 ft. from the street right-of-way or any property line.
Height Maximum 6 ft.
General
Permitted ground signs may be attached to a freestanding wall or other similar
structure on the same lot as the building or use.
Sign foundations may not be exposed. They shall either be mounted on a masonry
base or clad in material compatible with the material used for the sign and the
principal structure containing the use with which the sign is associated.
Ground signs shall be landscaped where appropriate to site conditions.
(b) Building Mounted Signs
1. Building Mounted Sign Types and Measurements
a. Building-mounted signs include wall signs, awning signs, projecting signs,
and window signs.
b. Wall sign height is measured directly beneath the sign from the established
grade at the base of the structure to which the sign is attached to the top
of the sign.
c. Wall sign areas for buildings with storefronts shall be determined by taking
the length of the storefront applicable to each tenant and computing sign
requirements for that portion of the total wall.
d. Projecting sign height is measured directly beneath the sign from the
established grade at the base of the structure to which the sign is attached
to the top of the sign but shall not include brackets or equipment which
are necessary to attach the sign to the structure. Necessary brackets or
equipment shall not be counted as part of the sign area.
2. All building-mounted signs shall comply with the provisions of Table 153.173L:
Building Mounted Signs, except that:
a. Any building-mounted sign associated with a secondary public entrance
shall not exceed six square feet in size and shall be located within six feet
of the secondary public entrance, as measured horizontally along the
building façade.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
51
b. Any projecting sign associated with a common public entrance providing
access to upper floor tenant spaces shall not exceed eight square feet and
be located within six feet of the common public entrance.
Table 153.173L: Building-Mounted Sign Requirements
Wall Sign
Number Refer to §153.173(L)(5): number of signs permitted
Size Maximum 8 sq. ft.
Location
On walls facing public streets
Signs shall be located on the portion of the wall associated with the tenant space or
storefront, and/or within 6 ft. of the common public entrance, where not associated
with a storefront.
Wall signs shall not extend more than 14 inches from the face of the structure to
which it is attached.
Height Maximum 15 feet and shall not extend above the roofline.
Awning Sign
Number Refer to §153.173(L)(5): number of signs permitted
Size 20% of the cumulative surface of the awning area, not to exceed 8 sq. ft.
Location Awning signs may be on any portion of the awning, and affixed flat to the surface
and shall not extend vertically or horizontally beyond the limit of the awning.
Height Maximum 15 feet. The lowest portion of an awning sign shall be at least 8 feet
above the sidewalk.
Projecting Sign
Number Refer to §153.173(L)(5): number of signs permitted
Size Maximum 8 sq. ft.
Location
Within 6 ft. of the principal entrance. Projecting signs shall be separated by at least
10 ft. from another projecting sign, as measured along the building façade.
Projecting signs shall not extend more than 6 ft. from the face of the structure to
which it is attached and maintain at least 8 ft. of clearance above the sidewalk. A
projecting sign shall be located within 6 ft. of the principal entrance of the building
or storefront, as measured horizontally along the building façade.
Height
Maximum 15 feet, or not extending above the sill of the second story window,
whichever is lower. The lowest portion of an awning sign shall be at least 8 feet
above the sidewalk.
Window Sign
Number Refer to §153.173(L)(5): number of signs permitted
Size 20% of the surface area of the window to which it is attached, not to exceed 8 sq.
ft.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
52
Location Ground floor only, except as permitted by this section.
General
Window signs shall only be permitted in lieu of display signs affixed to a window.
Refer to Table 153.173M, Requirements for Other Permitted Signs, for Display Sign
Requirements.
(c) Other Permitted Signs
1. Directory signs, display signs, and sandwich boards shall be permitted in
accordance with Table 153.173M.
Table 153.173M: Requirements for Other Permitted Signs
Directory Signs
Number 1 per public entrance.
Location Located within 6 ft. of the entrance and mounted flat to the wall.
Size Maximum 4 sq. ft.
Height Ground floor only.
Display Signs
Size
Display signs located within 3 feet of the window shall not exceed 20% of the
surface area of the window on which the signs are displayed.
Display signs affixed to a window shall not exceed 20% of the surface area
and shall not be permitted if a window sign is used.
Height Ground floor only.
Sandwich Board Signs
Number 1 per ground floor storefront tenant.
Location
Sandwich board signs are permitted only immediately in front of the ground
story tenant space.
Signs shall be placed within 6 ft. of the primary ground floor public entrance of
the business. Signs shall maintain a minimum unobstructed 5-ft. clearance on
sidewalks and shall not impede the safe movement of pedestrians or the safe
operation of vehicles.
Sandwich board signs shall be removed and stored indoors or in a location not
visible to the public during non-business hours.
Size 6 sq. ft. per side.
Height 3 ft.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
53
Table 153.173M: Requirements for Other Permitted Signs
General
Sandwich board signs shall be constructed with a wood or metal frame with a
chalkboard or whiteboard face. The sandwich board sign frame shall be finished
in subdued colors.
Sandwich board signs constructed of plastic, PVC, vinyl, and other similar
materials as determined by the Planning Director are prohibited. Tracked line
slide letters are prohibited.
Review Sandwich board signs require approval of a Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval
prior to use/installation.
§ 153.174 DESIGN STANDARDS
(a) Intent
The design standards in this section outlines required building details for alterations,
additions and new construction, which serve to reinforce the traditional development
character of the Historic Zoning Districts.
(b) Roof Type Requirements
(1) Pitched, hipped, gabled, or a combination are also permitted within the Historic Zoning
Districts subject to conformance with the Historic Design Guidelines and subject to
approval of the ARB.
(2) Flat roofs
(a) Flat roofs are permitted within Historic Dublin, except for properties that are zoned
Historic Core, unless otherwise determined by the ARB to be architecturally
appropriate.
(b) Eaves are encouraged on street facing facades
(c) Flat roofs are permitted to use a roof material appropriate to maintain proper
drainage.
(3) Parapets
1. Parapets shall be provided on flat roofs that are high enough to screen the roof
and any roof appurtenances from view from the street(s) and any adjacent
building of similar height or lower, provided that parapets shall be no less than two
feet and no more than six feet high. Where a six-foot parapet is insufficient to
screen rooftop mechanical equipment a screening structure shall be required.
2. Parapets shall wrap around all sides of the building.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
54
(4) Pitched roofs
(a) Hipped and gabled roofs are permitted, in addition to roofs with combinations of
hips and gables with or without dormers.
(b) Permitted pitch roof materials include dimensional asphalt composite shingles with
a 25-year or greater warranty, wood shingles and shakes, metal tiles or standing
seam, slate, and ceramic tile. Other high quality simulated examples of these
materials may be approved by the ARB with examples of successful, high quality
installations in comparable climates.
(c) Pitch Measure
1. The principal roof shall have a pitch appropriate to the architectural style of the
building. Roofs shall not be sloped less than a 6:12 (rise: run) or more than
12:12, unless otherwise determined to be architecturally appropriate by the
ARB.
2. Slopes greater than 12:12 may be used on pitched roofs without a closed ridge
to accommodate mechanical equipment within the roof structure and screened
from view. These roofs must be designed with the appearance of closed ridges
when viewed from all directions at street level and, to the maximum extent
practicable, from buildings of similar heights in close proximity. The use of this
roof configuration and pitch shall be based on the appropriateness of the roof
design to the architectural style.
3. Unless determined to be appropriate to the architectural style of the building, a
pitch greater than 3:12 is required on roofs of dormers, porches, balconies, or
other minor roofs.
(5) Gambrel and Mansard Roofs
(a) Gambrel and mansard roofs are permitted only for single family detached
buildings, unless otherwise determined by the ARB to be architecturally
appropriate for other uses.
(b) Gambrel and mansard roofs shall be dimensional shingles, cedar shake, slate, or
metal. Other high quality simulated examples of these materials may be approved
by the ARB with examples of successful, high quality installations in comparable
climates.
(6) Other roof types
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
55
(a) Other roof types not listed as a specific type but are deemed architecturally
appropriate to the proposed building may be approved by the required reviewing
body.
(b) Roof terraces and roof plantings are permitted within the Historic Zoning Districts.
(c) Decorative towers that are incorporated into a building design may be permitted in
the Historic Zoning Districts subject to approval of the ARB. Decorative towers are
additional to and may exceed the maximum building height in the district in which
it is located. The maximum width of the tower shall be one-third the width of the
front façade of the building or 30 feet, whichever is less. No rooftop appurtenances
are permitted on tower roofs.
(7) Roof Elements
(a) Parallel Ridge Lines
1. When appropriate to the architectural character of the building, and where the
principal ridge line of any building type runs parallel to any street, gabled ends,
perpendicular ridge lines or dormers shall be incorporated to interrupt the mass
of the roof.
2. Perpendicular ridge lines are not required to intersect the primary ridge line
(i.e. the secondary roof mass may be physically lower than the primary ridge
line), provided the appearance is determined to be architecturally appropriate
by the required reviewing body.
(b) Dormer Design
1. Dormers shall be scaled and detailed appropriate to the architectural character
of the building type. Dormer windows should be sized in relation to the
windows used in the upper story, and dormers should be no wider than
necessary to accommodate the window and coordinated trim. Visibility into
permanently unfinished space is prohibited where dormer windows are
installed.
(c) Gable Ends
1. An architecturally appropriate element such as a vent, window, or other
decorative element is required on street facing gable ends.
(d) Roof penetrations
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
56
1. Roof penetrations (fans, exhaust, vents, etc.) shall be concealed and shall not
be visible from the public street frontage, unless otherwise approved by the
Architectural Review Board.
(c) Entrance Design
(1) Principal entrances on all buildings shall be at a pedestrian scale, effectively address
the street, and be given prominence on the building façade. This may be satisfied
through the use of architectural features including, but not limited to, entranceway
roofs; sidelight windows, transom window, or other adjacent windows; additional
moldings with expression lines; a bay of unique width; or a raised stoop.
(2) Principal entrances on all single-family detached and single-family attached building
types shall incorporate open porches or stoops unless otherwise determined by the
ARB to be architecturally appropriate.
(3) Doors for commercial uses along all street frontages shall be consistent with the
design of principal entrances and include glass and full operating hardware in the
design of the door. Exterior doors for residential uses shall also include glass, but this
requirement may be met through the use of transom and/or sidelight windows.
(4) Roll-up security grilles shall not be permitted.
(d) Windows
(1) Windows may be wood, metal-clad wood, or vinyl-clad wood. The Architectural
Review Board may approve other high quality synthetic materials with examples of
successful, high quality installations in comparable climates.
(2) Highly reflective glass is prohibited. For the purposes of this section, highly reflective
glass has an exterior visible reflectance percentage greater than 20%.
(3) Spandrel glass, or heavily tinted glass that impedes views into the interior of the
building is prohibited.
(4) Windows shall have architecturally appropriate lintels and projecting sills.
(5) Windows shall have vertical proportions with architecturally or historically appropriate
window divisions.
(e) Shutters
(1) If installed, shutters shall be sized to provide complete coverage to the windows when
closed, appear operable, and include functioning hardware.
(2) Shutters shall be wood or engineered wood. The ARB may approve other materials
with examples of successful, high quality installations in comparable climates.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
57
(f) Canopies and Awnings
(1) Awnings and canopies may be used if they function as suitable protection from the
elements. To provide suitable protection an awning or canopy may encroach over the
sidewalk, provided the lowest portion is at least eight feet above the sidewalk.
(2) Awnings and canopies may be mounted inside frames, above openings and/or below
transoms, but installation methods shall be consistent on a building.
(3) Awnings and canopies shall be designed to be consistent with the architecture of the
building and other existing awnings and canopies on a building.
(a) Awnings
1. Awnings shall be open on the underside.
2. Awnings shall be made of durable and fade- resistant canvas, decorative metal
with metal used for the internal structure, or an alternative, high-quality,
durable material, if determined to be architecturally appropriate by the
required review body.
3. Awnings shall not be internally illuminated but may be lighted from above by
downcast fixtures mounted to the building wall.
(b) Canopies
1. Canopies may be clad with glass, metal, wood, or a combination of these
materials.
2. Canopies may be cantilevered or supported from the building wall by metal
cables or rods.
3. Canopies may include downward casting light fixtures and may be lighted from
above by downcast fixtures mounted to the building wail.
(g) Balconies
(1) General
(a) Balconies shall be a minimum open area of six feet deep and five feet wide.
(b) Balconies may be recessed into a building façade. Balconies that are not recessed
into the façade shall be independently secured and unconnected to other balconies
above and below. Balconies may not extend into a right-of-way.
(2) Juliet balconies
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
58
(a) Juliet balconies are permitted only on upper floors of buildings where windows
extend to the floor or where doors are present.
(b) Juliet balconies may project up to 24 inches and shall not extend more than six
inches past the fenestration.
(c) Juliet balconies used with windows must be secured to the outside window jamb.
(h) Stoops
(1) Stoops may be located on the front and/or corner side façades of the building.
(2) Stoops and steps shall not encroach within the right-of-way.
(i) Chimneys and Vents
(1) Chimneys on exterior walls shall be treated as architectural elements.
(2) Chimneys on exterior walls shall extend full height from the ground and vertically past
the eave line and must be finished in brick or stone. Cantilevered and shed-type
chimneys are prohibited.
(3) Vents shall be finished to match the color of the exterior wall.
(j) Exterior Building Material Standards
(1) Façade Materials
(a) Permitted building materials shall be high quality, durable materials
including but not limited to stone, manufactured stone, full depth brick,
brick veneer, wood siding, glass, and fiber cement siding.
(b) Other high quality synthetic materials may be approved by the required
reviewing body with examples of successful, high quality installations in
comparable climates.
(2) Roof Materials
(a) Permitted roof materials include dimensional asphalt composite shingles
with a 25-year or greater warranty, wood shingles and shakes, metal tiles
or standing seam, slate and ceramic tile.
(3) Color
(a) Colors for all building materials shall be selected from appropriate historic
color palettes from any major paint manufacturer, or as determined
appropriate by the required reviewing body.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
59
(k) Accessory Uses and Structures
Accessory buildings and uses are regulated per the requirements set forth in section
153.074.
§ 153.175 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
(A) Purpose. The purpose of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) shall be to:
(1) Promote the educational, cultural and economic wellbeing of the community
through the preservation and maintenance of the historic sites as landmarks and
tangible reminders of early architecture in Dublin.
(2) Prevent the deterioration of Historic Dublin and historic sites.
(3) Improve the quality of life in the city.
(4) Implement the recommendations and standards set forth in the Historic Design
Guidelines.
(5) Record, protect and preserve cultural resources affected by, or adjacent to, any
project.
(B) Duties. The Architectural Review Board shall have the following duties:
(1) Review and act upon all applications for alteration, additions, new construction,
and demolition within Historic Dublin and designated outlying properties, as
outlined in this chapter.
(2) Make recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
for revisions to this chapter or recommend other legislation that would best serve
to develop, preserve, restore, and beautify Historic Dublin, and designated
outlying properties, as established in Section 153.170.
(3) Maintain the Historic Design Guidelines concerning the conservation of historic
areas, buildings, and resources. Insofar as practicable, these guidelines shall be
considered in the ARB’s decisions with respect to alterations, demolitions, and
new construction, as appropriate.
(4) Maintain an inventory of all landmarks and preservation districts. The Board may
use existing inventories by the Ohio Historic Preservation Office or other
recognized agency to fulfill this requirement. The inventory shall be updated
periodically to reflect changes, alterations, and demolitions. All inventory
materials shall be recorded on Ohio Historic Inventory and/or Ohio
Archaeological inventory forms and shall be available through duplicates to the
Ohio Historic Preservation Office. This inventory shall be made available to the
public upon request.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
60
(5) Make determinations of contributing or noncontributing status based on the City
of Dublin Historical and Cultural Assessment and other applicable and relevant
documentation.
(6) Conduct, cause to be conducted, or assist in a continuing survey of all properties,
sites, or areas of architectural, archaeological, historic, and aesthetic interest in
the city when it deems necessary.
(7) Undertake efforts to improve the education of the citizens of the city with respect
to Dublin’s architectural and historical heritage.
(8) Act as a liaison as directed by City Council on behalf of the city to individuals and
organizations concerned with historic preservation.
(9) When requested by the city, review all proposed historic registry nominations for
properties within the city. When expertise not represented on the ARB is
necessary for review of a proposed nomination, the ARB shall seek expert
academic or consulting advice before rendering a decision.
(10) Provide a written annual report to the City Council, which shall address at a
minimum the Board’s activities, cases, decisions, and special projects. The
annual report shall be kept on file and available for public inspection.
(C) Membership.
(1) The Architectural Review Board shall consist of five voting members appointed
by City Council.
(2) Membership of the ARB shall consist of the following, unless otherwise
authorized by City Council:
(a) A member of the Dublin Historical Society who is recommended by the
Society.
(b) A person who maintains his or her personal residency within Historic
Dublin or one of the designated outlying properties, as outlined in Section
153.170.
(c) A person who owns commercial property within Historic Dublin.
(d) A person who has architectural training or has extensive building or
building inspection experience.
(e) A person who operates a commercial business within Historic Dublin.
(3) Members shall have a demonstrated interest, knowledge, or expertise in historic
preservation. At least two members should be preservation related professionals,
to the extent they are available, such as the professions of architecture,
architectural history, history, archaeology, landscape architecture, planning or
related disciplines.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
61
(4) Members shall serve without compensation unless otherwise provided by City
Council.
(5) Each member shall hold office from the date of his or her appointment for a term
of three years. Any member may continue in office after his or her term expires
until an appointed successor takes office; or until 60 days have elapsed,
whichever occurs first.
(6) All vacancies created by the expiration of the terms, resignations, or other means
shall be filled in accordance with the requirements of division (2) above. In the
event the requirements of division (2) cannot be met, City Council may fill
vacancies as it may deem appropriate. Vacancies shall be filled within 60 days as
prescribed in Article VII of the City Charter. A member appointed to fill a vacancy
shall serve out the term of the previous member.
(7) The ARB shall establish its Rules and Regulations, and Guidelines with approval
from City Council.
(8) The ARB shall elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson as set forth in its Rules
and Regulations.
(9) The ARB will hold a regular monthly meeting unless there is no business to come
before the ARB. Special meetings may be called as set forth in the ARB’s Rules
and Regulations. All meetings of the ARB shall be open to the public as
prescribed in Article VII of the City Charter.
§ 153.176 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA
A. Intent
The intent of this section is to provide an efficient, predictable, and context-based
review process for development applications in Historic Dublin and designated outlying
properties, as outlined in Section 153.170.
B. Required Approvals
(1) This section outlines the requirements and procedures for the development
review specifically within Historic Dublin and designated outlying properties. The
review procedures of this section shall be used for all development applications
in Historic District and designated outlying properties, as outlined in this section.
(2) The Architectural Review Board shall review and make a determination regarding
the following application requests:
(a) Requests for alterations or changes to architectural features of existing sites
and structures.
(b) Requests for additions or new construction to existing sites and structures.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
62
(c) Signs
(d) Demolition
(3) Applications for review by the Architectural Review Board are not required for the
following:
(a) Ordinary maintenance to correct any deterioration, decay, or damage to a
structure or site and to restore the structure as nearly as practicable to an
original state prior to its deterioration, decay or damage.
(b) Interior building improvements that do not involve any exterior changes,
alterations, or modifications, including minor mechanical items such as
residential roof vents and plumbing pipes.
(c) Landscaping for single-family dwellings.
(4) No building permit or Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval shall be issued by the
Chief Building Official or the Director and/or their designees for any proposal
which is subject to the Architectural Review Board’s review unless approval has
been granted in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.
(5) All other applicable requirements of sections 153.170 through 153.178 apply to
all development within the areas under the jurisdiction of the Architectural
Review Board, as provided in this chapter.
C. Abbreviations.
The following abbreviations and terms are used in this section:
BZA: Board of Zoning Appeals
CC or Council: City Council
ARB: Architectural Review Board
PD or Director: Planning Director
PZC or Commission: Planning and Zoning Commission
TABLE 153.176A: SUMMARY PROCEDURE TABLE
R = Recommendation D = Decision A = Administrative Appeal RF = Review & Feedback
Type of Application PD ARB BZA PZC Council Zoning Code Reference
Zoning Code Approvals
Zoning Map or Text Amendment R R R D § 153.234
Conditional Use R R D § 153.236
Special Permit R D § 153.231(G)
Use Variance R R D § 153.231 (H)(3)
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
63
TABLE 153.176A: SUMMARY PROCEDURE TABLE
R = Recommendation D = Decision A = Administrative Appeal RF = Review & Feedback
Type of Application PD ARB BZA PZC Council Zoning Code Reference
Non-Use (Area) Variance R D § 153.231(H)(2)
Other Approvals
Building Code Appeal D § 153.231(I)
Historic District Applications
Pre-Application RF §153.176(D)
Informal Review RF RF §153.176(E)
Concept Plan R D §153.176(F)
Concept Plan with a Development
Agreement R R D §153.176(F)
Preliminary Development Plan R D §153.176(G)
Final Development Plan R D A §153.176(H)
Minor Project R D A §153.176(I)
Demolition R D A §153.176(J)
Administrative Departure R D §153.176(K)
Waivers R D §153.176(L)
Master Sign Plan R D §153.173(L)/§153.176(M)
Administrative Approval D A §153.176(N)
Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval D §153.233/§153.176(P)(3)
D. Pre-Application
(1) Purpose and Applicability
(a) The purpose of the Pre-Application submittal is to provide a potential applicant with
a non-binding review of a development proposal and to provide information on the
procedures and policies of the City, including application review procedures.
(b) Pre-Application reviews do not result in a development decision or permit, and shall
not obligate the City or the developer to take any action on the proposal.
(2) Review Procedures.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
64
(a) A request for a pre-application review shall be made in accordance with the
provisions of division (P)(1) of this section.
(b) Requests shall be submitted to the Director, who shall be responsible for circulating
any submittal material to the applicable departments for input.
(c) The Director and staff shall use reasonable efforts to conduct an expeditious review
of the submitted materials and provide non-binding input and recommendations.
(d) The Director may schedule a meeting with the potential applicant to discuss the
request or may provide a written summary of the staff review.
(e) Additional staff reviews of the pre-application submittal may be requested by the
applicant prior to filing a formal application.
(f) Any and all written summaries of the pre-application review shall be forwarded to
the required reviewing body.
E. Informal Review
Prior to submittal of an application for a Concept Plan (CP), an applicant may submit an
Informal application for review of a development concept with the ARB. Such submittal
shall include a completed application form and supporting material sufficient to describe
the development concept. The review of the informal submittal shall be non-binding upon
the ARB and the applicant, however, it is intended to provide feedback by the ARB that
should inform the preparation and subsequent review of the CP. The Planning Director
shall prepare a brief analysis and comments that will be submitted to the ARB with the
application.
F. Concept Plan
(1) Purpose and Applicability
(a) The purpose of the Concept Plan (CP) is to provide a general outline of the scope,
character, and nature of the proposed development that is consistent with the
policy direction of the Community Plan, the Historic Design Guidelines, the
requirements of the Historic Zoning Districts and those applicable to designated
outlying properties, other related policy and regulatory documents, and the review
criteria, and to consider the proposal within the context of existing and planned
development within the vicinity of the project.
(b) The CP allows the required reviewing body the means to ensure that the proposed
concept is consistent with the following:
1. That the proposed land uses are consistent with Community Plan, Historic
Design Guidelines, and applicable Zoning Code requirements;
2. That the proposed development and layout are generally compatible with the
existing development pattern and scale of development within Historic Dublin;
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
65
or surrounding development for the designated outlying properties;
3. That the proposed development concept generally preserves and maintains the
historic nature of a given site; and
4. That the proposed development concept has the potential to create a walkable,
pedestrian scale place.
(c) The CP review provides an opportunity for public input at an early stage of the
development process.
(d) The CP review is intended to provide clear direction to the applicant by the required
reviewing body resulting from its review and approval of the application.
(e) If the CP is approved by the required reviewing body it shall serve as a basis for
preparation by the applicant of the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) for the
proposed development.
(f) For projects that will propose a development agreement due to the need for
development timeframe, public infrastructure, public and private contributions,
development restrictions, or other related items, City Council shall serve as the
required reviewing body for the CP. In those cases, the Director and the
Architectural Review Board shall each review the CP and provide a
recommendation to Council to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the
CP.
(2) Review Procedure.
(a) The CP is a mandatory step in the development review and approval process.
(b) An application for a CP shall be made in accordance with the provisions of divisions
(P)(1) of this Chapter.
(c) The ARB shall be the required reviewing body for the CP in Historic Dublin and any
designated outlying property, unless a development agreement is proposed in
conjunction with a proposed project, then City Council shall be the required
reviewing body for the CP.
(d) The Director shall make a recommendation to the ARB for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial of the CP application under the criteria of division (F)(4) of
this section.
(e) The ARB shall review the CP application, the minutes of the ARB meeting if an
informal review was requested by the applicant, the Director’s recommendation,
and render its decision based on the criteria of division (F)(4). In the instance the
ARB is the required reviewing body, the Board will render a decision for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial and written record of the Board’s decision shall
be provided.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
66
(f) In the instance of a CP associated with a proposed development agreement, the
Board will make a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial
to City Council.
(g) City Council shall review the CP application and the recommendations of ARB and
the Director, and render its decision based on the criteria of division (F)(4) of
approval, approval with conditions, or denial.
(3) Submittal Requirements
It is the intent of these regulations that the CP shall indicate overall design of the
proposed project. Information submitted should be comprehensive enough to enable
the required reviewing body to understand the existing site and concept for the
proposed development, and to evaluate consistency with the review criteria in division
(F)(4). The applicant shall submit an application and supplemental materials as outlined
in division (P)(1) and determined by the Director.
(4) Review Criteria
The required reviewing body shall make its decision on an application for a CP based on
each of the following criteria and may consider the recommendation of the Director and,
if City Council is the required reviewing body, the recommendation of the ARB. For
applications associated with a development agreement, the ARB shall apply these
criteria in the formulation of its recommendation to City Council.
(a) The CP is consistent with the applicable policy guidance of the Community Plan,
applicable Zoning Code requirements, and other applicable City plans, and citywide
administrative and financial policies;
(b) The CP is consistent with the Historic Design Guidelines;
(c) The CP conforms to the applicable requirements of the Code;
(d) The CP is consistent with surrounding historic context, character, and scale of the
immediately surrounding area and the district as a whole;
(e) The applicant or applicant’s representative has demonstrated that it has technical
expertise and experience with appropriate construction methods consistent with
sound historic preservation practices;
(f) The illustrative lots, supporting street and pedestrian network, and internal
circulation provide a coherent development pattern and the conceptual locations of
access points to surrounding streets will avoid adverse impacts on surrounding
neighborhoods and traffic infrastructure;
(g) The proposed land uses allow for appropriate integration into the community,
consistent with adopted plans, and align with the requirements of §153.172 Uses;
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
67
(h) The conceptual buildings are appropriately sited and scaled to create a cohesive
development character that complements the surrounding environment, and
conforms to the architectural requirements of §153.174 Design Standards and the
Historic Design Guidelines;
(i) The conceptual design of open spaces, including location and relationship to
surrounding buildings, provides for meaningful public gathering spaces that benefit
the community both within and outside the proposed development; and
(j) The CP allows for the connection and or expansion of public or private infrastructure
and the continued provision of services required by the City or other public agency.
G. Preliminary Development Plan
(1) Purpose and Applicability
(a) The purpose of the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) is to establish a framework
for the proposed development that is consistent with the requirements of the
Community Plan, Historic Design Guidelines, applicable Zoning Code requirements,
other adopted plans, policies, and regulations, and the review criteria.
(b) The PDP allows the ARB to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with
the following:
1. That the street network provides a coherent and rational development pattern,
and provide for walkable urbanism;
2. That the proposed building and site layout is appropriate to the location and
surrounding neighborhood;
3. That planned open spaces and building types within the development are
integrated in order to complement each other;
4. That the building design considers the general massing, scale and arrangement
of other structures in the immediate vicinity;
5. That the architectural design be compatible the surrounding character and reflect
key buildings and landmarks within Historic Dublin.
6. That the proposed development is consistent with the general development
requirements of the City with respect to such elements as infrastructure,
transportation, and environmental considerations;
7. That the proposed development will contribute to the creation of signature
places in the City.
(c) The PDP is intended to establish the direction of the proposed development based
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
68
on all applicable code requirements and shall refine the approved CP.
(d) If a PDP is approved by the ARB, such action shall be binding and shall serve as the
basis for submittal of the Final Development Plan (FDP) for the proposed
development or phases thereof.
(2) Review Procedure
(a) An application for a PDP may not be submitted prior to the review and approval of
a CP.
(b) The PDP is a mandatory submittal requirement prior to filing a FDP. However, the
PDP may be combined with the FDP at the request of the applicant, by motion of
the ARB following its approval of the CP, or if recommended by the Director and
agreed by the applicant.
(c) An application for PDP shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions of
divisions (P)(1) of this section.
(d) The ARB shall be the required reviewing body for the PDP within Historic Dublin and
for designated outlying properties.
(e) The Director shall make a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions,
or denial of the PDP application under the criteria of division (G)(4) of this section.
(f) The ARB shall review the PDP application and the recommendation of the Director
and render its decision based on the criteria of division (G)(4) of this section for
approval, approval with conditions, or denial. A written record of the Board’s decision
shall be provided to the applicant.
(3) Submittal Requirements
It is the intent of these regulations that a PDP shall provide information that is sufficient
to ensure general conformity with the regulations and that can serve as a basis for the
future consideration of a FDP. Information submitted should be sufficiently detailed to
enable the ARB to understand the existing site and the PDP for the proposed
development, and to evaluate consistency with the review criteria in division (G)(4). The
applicant shall submit an application and supplemental materials as outlined in division
(P)(1) and determined by the Director.
(4) Review Criteria
The ARB shall make its decision on an application for a PDP based on each of the
following criteria:
(a) The PDP shall be consistent with the approved CP, the record established by the
required reviewing body, the associated Staff Report, and the Director’s
recommendation;
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
69
(b) The development is consistent with the Community Plan, the Historic Zoning Districts
requirements, applicable Zoning Code requirements, other adopted City plans, and
related policies;
(c) The PDP is consistent with the Historic Design Guidelines;
(d) The proposed land uses align with all applicable requirements and use specific
standards of §153.172 Uses;
(e) The proposed PDP is consistent with surrounding historic context, character, and
scale of the immediately surrounding area and the district as a whole;
(f) The proposed buildings are appropriately sited and scaled to create a cohesive
development character that complements the surrounding environment, and
conforms to the requirements of §§153.173 and 153.174, and the Historic Design
Guidelines;
(e) The proposed lots conform to the requirements of §153.173;
(f) The proposed street types conform to the requirements and standards.
(g) The proposed design of the internal circulation system, driveways, and any
connections to the public realm provide for safe and efficient access for pedestrians,
bicyclists, vehicles, and emergency services;
(h) The proposed design of buildings conforms to the Zoning Code and is consistent
with the Historic Design Guidelines, while integrating with nearby development;
(i) The proposed open spaces are appropriately sited and designed to conserve or
enhance natural features as appropriate, enhance the community both within and
outside the proposed development;
(j) The scale and design of the proposed development allows for the adequate provision
of services currently furnished by or that may be required by the City or other public
agency including, but not limited to, fire and police protection, public water and
sanitary sewage services, recreational activities, traffic control, waste management,
and administrative services;
(k) The proposed development provides adequate stormwater management systems
and facilities that comply with the applicable regulations of this code and any other
applicable design criteria or regulations as adopted by the City or required by other
government entities;
(l) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing and/or planned
public or private infrastructure consistent with the City's most recently adopted
capital improvements program;
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
70
(m) If the development is to be implemented in phases, each phase has adequate
infrastructure to serve the development independently without the need for further
phased improvements; and
(n) The proposed development demonstrates consistency with the recommendations,
principles, and intent of all applicable design standards and guidelines, including
but not limited to buildings, open spaces, and streetscapes.
(o) The applicant or applicant’s representative has demonstrated that it has technical
expertise and experience with appropriate construction methods consistent with
sound historic preservation practices.
H. Final Development Plan
(1) Purpose and Applicability
(a) The purpose of the Final Development Plan (FDP) is to confirm compliance with the
PDP, all applicable requirements of the Code, Community Plan, Historic Design
Guidelines, and other adopted plans, policies, and regulations, and the review
criteria.
(b) The FDP allows the ARB to ensure that the proposed development is compliant with
the following:
1. That the street network provides a coherent and rational development pattern,
and provide for walkable urbanism;
2. That the proposed building are appropriate to the location and neighborhood,
including assuring that the dimensions of a parcel meet the lot size requirements
for the applicable zoning district;
3. That the architecture, building materials and colors, landscaping and buffering,
and site layout create a functional, aesthetically appealing urban place;
4. That planned open spaces and building are integrated in order to complement
each other;
5. That the proposed development is consistent with the general development
requirements of the City with respect to such elements as infrastructure,
transportation, and environmental considerations; and
6. That the proposed development will contribute to the creation of signature places
in the City.
(c) The FDP is intended to verify the proposed development, or phases of development,
is in compliance with all applicable code requirements, and is consistent with the
PDP.
(d) All development within Historic Dublin and designated outlying properties shall
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
71
require an approved FDP prior to applying for site disturbance approval, CZPA,
and/or building permits. In addition, the following development activities shall also
require an approved FDP:
1. When a project involves the design or construction of new streets, or a proposed
realignment or relocation of any street that is required or permitted by the City;
2. When a project requires land subdivision in accordance with Chapter 152; or
3. When a project does not meet the criteria for a Minor Project (MP).
(e) Applications for a FDP shall be reviewed by the ARB, whose approval shall be binding
and shall serve as the regulatory and administrative document for zoning
compliance.
(2) Review Procedures
(a) An application for a FDP shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions of
divisions (H)(4) and (P)(1) of this section.
(b) The PDP may be combined with the FDP at the request of the applicant, by motion
of the ARB at the time of CP review and approval, or recommended by the Director.
(c) The ARB shall be the required reviewing body for the FDP within the Historic Zoning
Districts, and other designated outlying properties.
(d) The Director shall make a recommendation to the ARB for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial of the final development plan application under the criteria of
division (H)(4) of this section.
(e) The ARB shall review the FDP application and the recommendation of the Director
and render its decision based on the criteria of division (H)(4) of this section for
approval, approval with conditions, or denial. A written record of the Board’s decision
shall be provided.
(3) Submittal Requirements
It is the intent of these regulations that a FDP shall provide final project information that
is sufficient to ensure general conformity to an approved PDP. In cases where the
applicant has been authorized to submit a combined PDP and FDP, then the submittal
shall incorporate the required information for the PDP and as required below.
Information should be sufficiently detailed to enable the ARB to understand the existing
site and the FDP for the proposed project or a portion thereof, and to evaluate
consistency with the review criteria in division (H)(4). The applicant shall submit an
application and supplemental materials as outlined in division (P)(1) and determined by
the Director.
(4) Review Criteria
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
72
The ARB shall make its decision on an application for a FDP based on each of the
following criteria:
(a) The FDP shall be substantially similar to the approved PDP, and consistent with the
record established by the required reviewing body, the associated Staff Report, and
the Director’s recommendation;
(b) The proposed development is consistent with the Community Plan, other adopted
City plans, and citywide administrative and financial policies;
(c) The proposed development is consistent with the Historic Design Guidelines;
(d) The proposed FDP is consistent with surrounding historic context, character, and
scale of the immediately surrounding area and the district as a whole;
(e) The proposed land uses conform to all applicable requirements and use specific
standards of §153.172 Uses;
(f) The proposed buildings are appropriately sited and conform to the requirements of
§153.173 Site Development Standards and the Historic Design Guidelines;
(g) The proposed street layout and lots conform to the requirements;
(h) The proposed design of the internal circulation system, driveways, and any
connections to the public realm provide for safe and efficient access for pedestrians,
bicyclists, vehicles, and emergency services;
(i) The proposed design, architecture, and materials of buildings is consistent with the
Historic Design Guidelines, while integrating with nearby development, and avoids
overshadowing of existing historic structures and landmarks;
(j) The proposed site design, landscaping, screening, and buffering is consistent with
the §153.173 and §153.174, and the Historic Design Guidelines;
(k) The proposed open spaces are appropriately sited and designed to conserve or
enhance natural features as appropriate, enhance the community, benefit the
community both within and outside the proposed development;
(l) The scale and design of the proposed development allows for the adequate provision
of services currently furnished by or that may be required by the City or other public
agency including, but not limited to, fire and police protection, public water and
sanitary sewage services, recreational activities, traffic control, waste management,
and administrative services;
(m) The proposed development provides adequate stormwater management systems
and facilities that comply with the applicable regulations of this code and any other
applicable design criteria or regulations as adopted by the City or required by other
government entities;
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
73
(n) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing and/or planned
public or private infrastructure consistent with the City's most recently adopted
capital improvements program;
(o) If the development is proposed to be implemented in phases, each phase has
adequate infrastructure to serve the development independently without the need
for further phased improvements; and
(p) The proposed development demonstrates consistency with the recommendations,
principles, and intent of all applicable design standards and guidelines, including but
not limited to buildings, open spaces, and streetscapes.
(q) The applicant or applicant’s representative has demonstrated that it has technical
expertise and experience with appropriate construction methods consistent with
sound historic preservation practices.
I. Minor Project
(1) Purpose and Applicability
The purpose of the Minor Project (MP) is to provide an efficient review process for
smaller projects that do not have significant community effects.
(2) Minor Projects Defined. The following projects shall be considered eligible for review
and approval as an MP:
(a) Individual single-family detached dwelling units, including new construction,
additions, alterations, and exterior modifications.
(b) Development of mixed use and nonresidential principal structures of 3,000 square
feet or less gross floor area and associated site development requirements.
(c) Additions to principal structures that increase the gross floor area by not more than
25%, or not more than 1,500 square feet gross floor area, whichever is less, existing
as of the effective date of this amendment, or when first constructed, and associated
site development requirements.
(d) Exterior modifications to principal structures, except as outlined in the Administrative
Approval Section 153.176N.
(e) Signs, landscaping, parking, and other site related improvements that do not involve
construction of a new principal building.
(f) Accessory structures and uses.
(h) Parking plans when not associated with a PDP or a FDP.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
74
(3) Review Procedure
(a) An application for a minor project MP shall be made in accordance with the provisions
of divisions (I)(5 and (P)(1) of this section.
(b) The ARB shall be the required reviewing body for the MP.
(c) The Director shall make a recommendation to the ARB for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial of the MP under the criteria of division (I (5).
(d) The ARB shall review the MP application and the Director’s recommendation, and
render its decision based on the criteria of (I)(5) of this section for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial. A written record of the ARB’s decision shall be provided.
(e) If the application is not approved by the ARB, the applicant shall be given the
opportunity to revise the application in response to the ARB comments and resubmit
for reconsideration.
(g) Decisions of the ARB are appealable to the BZA.
(4) Submittal Requirements
It is the intent of these regulations that an application for a MP provides sufficient
information to ensure general conformity to the applicable provisions of this code. The
information should be sufficiently detailed to enable the required reviewing body to
understand the existing site and the MP request for the proposed project or a portion
thereof. An archeological assessment should be included. The applicant shall submit an
application and supplemental materials as outlined in division (P)(1) and determined by
the Director.
(5) Review Criteria
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) shall make its decision on an application for a MP
based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the Director:
(a) The MP shall be consistent with the Community Plan, applicable Zoning Code
requirements, Historic Design Guidelines, and adopted plans, policies, and
regulations;
(b) In cases where a MP is proposed within or as part of an approved PDP or FDP, the
MP shall be consistent with such approved PDP or FDP;
(c) The MP shall be consistent with the record established by the required reviewing
body, the associated Staff Report, and the Director’s recommendation;
(d) The proposed land uses meet all applicable requirements and use specific standards
of §153.172 Uses;
(e) The proposed development is consistent with the Historic Design Guidelines;
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
75
(f) The proposed MP is consistent with surrounding historic context, character, and
scale of the immediately surrounding area and the district as a whole;
(g) The proposed buildings are appropriately sited and conform to the requirements of
§153.173 Site Development Standards and the Historic Design Guidelines; and
(h) The proposed site improvements, landscaping, screening, signs, and buffering shall
meet all applicable requirements of the Code and respond to the standards of the
Historic Design Guidelines.
J. Demolition
(1) Purpose and Applicability
(a) The intent of a Demolition is to provide an efficient process to demolish a structure
within Historic Dublin or a designated outlying property.
(2) Demolition Defined
The following projects shall be considered eligible for review and approval as a
demolition:
(a) If the property that is to be demolished is categorized as a contributing building
per a determination of the ARB using the City of Dublin Historical and Cultural
Assessment the property owner or applicant shall demonstrate by credible
evidence that the property owner will suffer economic hardship if the request to
demolish is not granted. In determining whether the property owner has
demonstrated economic hardship the Board shall consider the factors established
in Section 153.176(J)(5)(a).
(b) If the property that is to be demolished is categorized as a non-contributing
building per a determination of the ARB using the City of Dublin Historical and
Cultural Assessment the property owner or applicant shall demonstrate one of the
criteria outlined in Section 153.173(J)(5)(b) is met.
(c) If a property owner believes that a property designated as a contributing property
by the ARB is in fact non-contributing, it may present evidence to the ARB to that
effect. Such a determination will be considered a Waiver under Section
153.176(L) and shall be subject to the Waiver procedures. The ARB will be guided
in its determination by the National Register of Historic Places criteria, including
the National Register Bulletin 15 “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation”.
(3) Review Procedures
(a) An application for a demolition shall be made in accordance with the
provisions of the divisions (J)(5) and (P)(1) of this section.
(b) The ARB shall be the required reviewing body for applications for a
demolition within Historic Dublin and for any designated outlying properties.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
76
(c) The ARB shall review the request after receiving a complete application and
make a decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny, a demolition
application under the criteria of division (J)(5) of this section. A written
record of the Board’s decision shall be provided.
(d) The ARB may impose a waiting period not to exceed one year. During this
period the ARB and the applicant shall make every reasonable effort to find
an alternative to demolition. During this period, the owner of the structure
shall maintain and preserve the structure to prevent further deterioration. If
the Board and the applicant do not agree on a means of preserving the
structure within the specified waiting period, the application for demolition
may be approved or denied.
(e) A request for demolition may be transferred with the sale of the property. A
new owner shall not be required to re-apply. However, the requirements of
this section shall continue to apply to any new owner(s).
(f) A contributing property may not be demolished until a replacement structure
has been approved by the ARB.
(4) Submittal Requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that a demolition
shall provide adequate information to justify the request to remove a structure.
The information should be sufficiently detailed to enable the required reviewing
body to understand the existing site and the MP request for the proposed project
or a portion thereof. An assessment of cultural resources is required to be
submitted with the application and supplemental materials as outlined in division
(P)(1) and determined by the Director.
(5) Review Criteria
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) shall make its decision on an application for
a demolition based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of
the Director:
(a) If the property that is to be demolished is categorized as a contributing
building per the City of Dublin Historical and Cultural Assessment the
applicant shall demonstrate by credible evidence that the property owner will
suffer economic hardship if the request to demolish is not granted. In
determining whether the property owner has demonstrated economic
hardship the Board shall consider the following factors:
1. Will all economically viable use of the property be deprived without
approval of the demolition.
2. Will the reasonable investment-backed expectations of the property
owner be maintained without approval of the demolition.
3. Was the economic hardship created or exacerbated by the property
owner.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
77
4. In evaluating the factors established in (1) – (3) above, the ARB may
consider any or all of the following:
a. A property’s current level of economic return.
b. Any listing of the subject property for sale or rent, price asked, and
offers received, if any, within the previous two years, including
testimony and relevant documents.
c. The feasibility of alternative uses for the property that could earn a
reasonable economic return.
d. Any evidence of self-created hardship through deliberate neglect or
inadequate maintenance of the property.
e. Knowledge of landmark designation or potential designation at time of
acquisition.
f. Economic incentives and/or funding available to the applicant through
federal, state, city, or private programs.
(b) If the property that is to be demolished is categorized as a non-contributing
building per the City of Dublin Historical and Cultural Assessment the
property owner shall demonstrate one of the following criteria are met.
1. By credible evidence the property owner will suffer economic hardship if
the request to demolish is not granted. In determining whether the
property owner has demonstrated economic hardship the Board shall
consider the factors established in section 153.176(J)(5)(a).
2. The structure contains no features or architectural, historic, or
archeological significance to the character of the area in which it is
located.
3. The location of the structure impedes the orderly development of the
District, substantially interferes with the purposes of the District, or
detracts from the historical character of its immediate vicinity; or, the
proposed construction to replace the demolished structure significantly
improves the overall quality of the Architectural Review District without
diminishing the historic value of the vicinity or the District.
(K) Administrative Departures
(1) Purpose and Applicability
(a) The intent of the Administrative Departure (AD) is to provide an efficient process to
allow minor deviations from the strict application of the Code requirements caused
by unusual site or development conditions or conditions unique to a particular use
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
78
or other similar conditions that require reasonable adjustments, but remain
consistent with the intent of this Chapter.
(b) The AD shall not convey special rights or other approvals that would not otherwise
result from a decision under this code.
(2) Administrative Departure Defined. An AD shall be limited to any modification of no
greater than 10% to a numeric zoning standard related to building dimensions, lot
dimensions or coverage, open space, landscaping, parking, fencing, walls, screening, or
exterior lighting.
(3) Review Procedure.
(a) An application for an AD shall be made in accordance with the provisions of divisions
(K)(5) and (P)(1) of this section.
(b) The ARB shall be the required reviewing body for administrative departures.
(c) A request for an AD may be submitted with an application for a PDP, FD, MP, or at
any other time as may be necessary.
(d) A request for an AD may be processed simultaneously with a PDP, FDP, or MP to
which it relates.
(e) The Director shall make a recommendation to the ARB for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial of the AD under the criteria of division (K)(5).
(f) The ARB shall determine whether each requested AD is approved, approved with
conditions, or denied. A written record of the ARB’s decision will be provided.
(g) Should the ARB find that the request does not meet the criteria for an AD, the
applicant may request a Waiver under the provisions of division (I) of this section or
submit a new application for a FDP or MP, as applicable.
(4) Submittal Requirements
It is the intent of these regulations that an application for an AD provides sufficient
information to evaluate whether the request should be granted under divisions (K)(2)
and (K)(5). The information should be sufficiently detailed to enable the required
reviewing body to understand the existing site, proposed AD, and the related PDP,
FDP or MP for the proposed project or a portion thereof. The applicant shall submit an
application and supplemental materials as outlined in division (P)(1) and determined
by the Director.
(5) Review Criteria. The ARB shall make its decision on the requested AD based on the
following criteria:
(a) The need for the AD is caused by unique site conditions, conditions on surrounding
properties, and/or otherwise complies with the spirit and intent of the Community
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
79
Plan, Historic Design Guidelines, other adopted City plans and policies, and all
applicable requirements within §§153.170 through 153.178;
(b) The AD is not being requested simply to reduce cost or as a matter of general
convenience;
(c) The AD does not have the effect of authorizing any use, sign, building type, or open
space type that is not otherwise permitted in the applicable zoning district;
(d) The AD, if approved, does not adversely impact the pedestrian experience; and
(e) The AD, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or greater
development quality with respect to design, material, and other development features
than without the AD.
(L) Waivers
(1) Purpose and Applicability. Under the provisions of this section, Waivers are a process to
allow deviations from specific code requirements that may only be granted by the ARB.
(2) Waivers Defined. The following shall be considered eligible for review and approval as
an Waiver:
a. A deviation from a requirement of §§ 153.172C through 153.174, which
do not otherwise qualify for an AD under the provisions of division (K) of
this section; or
b. A request for determination of a contributing versus non-contributing
structure.
(3) Review Procedure.
(a) An application for a Waiver shall be made in accordance with the provisions of
divisions (L)(4) and (P)(1) of this section.
(b) The ARB shall be the required reviewing body for Waivers. In cases where a Waiver
is submitted with a Minor Project (MP), the ARB shall be the required reviewing body
for both the Waiver and the MP.
(c) The Waiver may be submitted with any application for a PDP or FDP.
(d) The Director shall make a recommendation to the ARB for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial of the Waiver under the criteria of division (L)(5). Additional
Waivers determined by the Director during his/her review, may be included for
review by the ARB.
(e) The ARB shall review the requested Waiver using the criteria of division (5) of this
section. Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other
requirements of this Chapter resulting from the requested Waiver, those Waivers
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
80
shall also be reviewed by ARB.
(f) The ARB shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Waiver request. A
written record of the ARB decision will be provided.
(4) Submittal Requirements
It is the intent of these regulations that an application for a Waiver provides sufficient
information to evaluate whether the Waiver should be granted under divisions (L)(3)
and (L)(5). The information should be sufficiently detailed to enable the ARB to
understand the existing site, proposed PDP, FDP, or MP, and the related Waiver request
for the proposed project or a portion thereof. The applicant shall submit an application
and supplemental materials as outlined (P)(1) and determined by the Director.
(5) Review Criteria
The ARB shall make its decision on an application for a proposed Waiver based on all of
the following criteria:
(a) The need for the Waiver is caused by unique site conditions, the use of or conditions
on the property or surrounding properties, or other circumstance outside the control
of the owner/lessee, including easements and rights-of-way;
(b) The Waiver, if approved, will not negatively impact the historic context of the
immediately surrounding area or the district as a whole.
(c) The Waiver, if approved, will generally meet the spirit and intent of the Community
Plan, Historic Design Guidelines, other adopted City plans and policies, and all
applicable requirements in §§153.170 through 153.178;
(d) The Waiver is not being requested solely to reduce cost or as a matter of general
convenience;
(e) The Waiver, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or greater
development quality with respect to design, material, and other similar development
features than without the Waiver;
(f) The requested Waiver is better addressed through the Waiver rather than an
amendment to the requirements of this Chapter; and
(g) The Waiver does not have the effect of authorizing any use that is not otherwise
permitted in the applicable zoning district.
(h) In the event of Waivers from numeric or dimensional standards, the Waiver does
not exceed 20%.
(i) In the event of Waivers from determinations of contributing or noncontributing
status, the provisions in Section 153.175(J)(c) shall also apply.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
81
(M) Master Sign Plan
(1) Purpose and Applicability
(a) The purpose of the Master Sign Plan (MSP) is to define the scope, character, and
aesthetic quality of signs and sign regulations for an individual tenant, multi-tenant
building, or multi-building development; while allowing an additional degree of
flexibility and creativity in sign design and display.
(b) The MSP review is intended to confirm the proposed sign design or comprehensive
sign plan is consistent with the development context, architectural character, and
the Historic Design Guidelines. MSPs are not intended to permit larger or more visible
signs, and are not intended to permit a greater number of signs without
consideration of the Historic Design Guidelines.
(c) The MSP allows the ARB the means to evaluate the proposal for its consistency with
§153.170 through §153.178, the Community Plan, Historic Design Guidelines, and
other adopted City plans, and the review criteria, and to consider the proposal within
the context of existing and planned development within the vicinity of the project
boundary.
(2) Review Procedure
(a) An application for a MSP shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions of
divisions (M)(3) and (P)(1) of this Chapter.
(b) The ARB shall be the required reviewing body for MSPs in Historic Dublin.
(c) The Director shall make a recommendation to the ARB for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial of the MSP application under the criteria of division (M)(4) of
this section. The Director’s recommendation shall be provided prior to the respective
public hearing.
(d) The ARB shall review the MSP application and the recommendation of the Director,
and render its decision based on the criteria of division (M)(4) for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial. A written record of the Board’s decision shall be provided.
(e) The applicant may request additional review meetings with the ARB.
(3) Submittal Requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that the MSP shall indicate
general information, sign design standards, and the area of applicability. Information
submitted should be comprehensive enough to enable the ARB to understand the
existing site and design concept for the proposed MSP. The applicant shall submit an
application and supplemental materials as outlined in division (N)(1) and determined by
the Director.
(4) Review Criteria. The ARB shall render its feedback on an application for a MSP based on
each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the Director.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
82
(a) The MSP is consistent with the Community Plan, Historic Design Guidelines, and
other adopted City plans and policies;
(b) The proposed signs are appropriately sited and scaled to create a cohesive character
that complements the surrounding environment and meets the intent of the
architectural requirements of §153.174 Design Standards and the Historic Design
Guidelines; and
(c) The proposed signs are not in conflict with public streets, open spaces, utilities, or
rights-of-way, and do not impede the continued provision of services required by
the City or other public agency.
(N) Administrative Approval
(1) Purpose and Applicability.
(a) The Director may authorize an Administrative Approval (AA) to an approved FDP or
MP that is required to correct any undetected errors or omissions, address conditions
discovered during the permitting process or construction, or that is necessary to
ensure orderly and efficient development.
(b) Any approved AA must be consistent with the intent of the related approved FDP or
MP.
(c) The Director may also authorize an AA to existing structures and associated site
improvements that are necessary to complete ordinary maintenance, refurbishment
or Zoning Code compliance.
(2) Administrative Approval Defined.
The following are considered AA’s:
(a) Adjustments to lot lines;
(b) Adjustments to the location and layout of parking lots;
(c) Adjustments of up to 10% in total building floor area or floor plan;
(d) Adjustments to building height up to 10% for no more than 10% of the floorplate
of the highest occupied floor when necessary to accommodate building equipment
or features required to comply with building code;
(e) Substitution of landscaping materials specified in the landscape plan;
(f) Redesigning and/or relocating stormwater management facilities;
(g) Relocating fencing, walls or screening (not including screening walls);
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
83
(h) Modifications to sign location, sign face, landscaping and lighting;
(i) Changes in building material;
(j) Changes in building color, in compliance with the approved Historic Paint Color
palette;
(k) Changes required by outside agencies such as the county, state, or federal
departments; and/or
(l) Other modifications deemed appropriate by the Director that do not alter the basic
design or any specific conditions imposed as part of the original approval.
(3) Review Procedure.
(a) An application for an AA shall be made in accordance with the provisions of divisions
(N)(4) and (P)(1) of this section.
(b) The Director shall be the required reviewing body for applications for an AA.
(c) The Director shall review the request after receiving a complete application and make
a decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an AA application under the
criteria of division (N)(5) of this section. The Director’s decision shall be provided to
the applicant in writing.
(d) The Director may forward any AA application to the ARB for consideration. In making
such a determination, the Director shall conclude that the application raises complex
issues, including that the proposal is of such magnitude that it has a detrimental
effect on the approved development or there are neighborhood or community-wide
effects that may result if the proposal is approved, that would benefit from a public
review and decision by the ARB.
(e) If denied, or approved with conditions, the applicant shall be given the opportunity
to revise the request in response to the Director's comments and resubmit for further
consideration.
(f) Requests not meeting the requirements for an AA shall require the filing and
approval of a new application for a FDP, MP or other application as applicable, in
accordance with this section.
(g) Decisions may be appealed to ARB.
(4) Submittal Requirements
It is the intent of these regulations that an application for an AA provides sufficient
information to ensure general conformity to the applicable provisions of this code and
the approved FDP or MP, and to evaluate whether the AA should be granted under
division (N)(2) and (N)(5). The information should be sufficiently detailed to enable the
Director to understand the existing site and the AA request for the proposed project or
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
84
a portion thereof. The applicant shall submit an application and supplemental materials
as outlined (P)(1) and determined by the Director.
(5) Review Criteria
The Director shall make his or her decision on an application for a proposed AA based
on all of the following criteria:
(a) Adjustments to lot lines do not create additional lots, required setbacks and/or RBZs
are maintained, and the boundaries to any approved PDP, FDP, or MP are not
altered;
(b) Adjustments to the location and layout of parking lots maintain the perimeter
setbacks, yards, buffers, and required parking;
(c) Adjustments for buildings do not alter the character or the use of the originally
approved building, building height(s), or floor plans except as provided for in division
(K)(2);
(d) Substitution of landscaping materials shall be of an equal or greater size and quality
as the approved materials;
(e) Redesigned and/or relocated stormwater management facilities shall maintain the
approved general character of said facilities and the approved stormwater capacities;
(f) Relocating fencing, walls, or screening (not including screening walls) shall maintain
the same level and quality of materials and screening;
(g) Modifications to sign location, sign face, and related landscaping and lighting, shall
maintain the approved general sign design, number of signs, and dimensional
requirements;
(h) Changes in building material shall be similar to and have the same general
appearance comparable to previously approved material; such changes shall be of
equal or higher quality than the previously approved material;
(i) Changes in color shall be complementary to the architectural design and character
of the building;
(j) The modification is not being requested solely to reduce cost or as a matter of general
convenience; and
(k) The requested modification would be better addressed through the modification
rather than an amendment to the requirements of this Chapter or to the approved
FDP or MP.
(O) Other Applicable Approvals
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
85
(1) Conditional Uses. The Conditional Use approval procedures in §153.236 shall apply in
the Historic Zoning Districts. The PZC is the required reviewing body for Conditional Use
applications.
(2) Zoning Map or Text Amendment. The amendment procedures of §153.234 shall apply
in the Historic Zoning Districts. In addition, a recommendation from the Director shall
be submitted for consideration by the PZC and City Council.
(3) Preliminary and Final Plats. Reviews of Preliminary and Final Plats shall be governed by
Chapter 152 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances.
(4) Special Permit. The Special Permit procedures in §153.231(G) shall apply in the Historic
Zoning Districts.
(5) Zoning Variance. The Zoning Variance procedures in §153.231(H) shall apply in the
Historic Zoning Districts. In addition, a recommendation from the Director shall be
submitted for consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and for City Council in the
instance of a use variance.
(6) Public Tree Permit. The Tree Permit requirements of §153.134(G) shall apply in the
Historic Zoning Districts.
(P) General Provisions
(1) Applications.
(a) Each application required by this section shall be made in writing on a form
provided by the City and shall be accompanied by the fee as established by City
Council.
(b) Applications shall include all information required by the City, unless deemed
unnecessary by the Director based on the nature and scale of the proposed
development. No application shall be accepted and processed by the City until it is
deemed complete by the Director. If found to be incomplete, the Director shall
inform the applicant of any additional materials required to certify that the
application is complete.
(c) After acceptance of a complete application, the Director and/or required reviewing
body may request additional materials if deemed necessary to evaluate the
proposal.
(d) No application for a FDP that has been denied by the ARB shall be resubmitted for
a period of one year from the date of the decision, unless permitted by the Director
after a demonstration by the applicant of a change of circumstances from the
previous application that may reasonably result in a different decision.
(e) The Director may approve the simultaneous review of applications required by this
Chapter and/or a subdivision plat required by the Code, if the Director determines
that simultaneous review will not adversely impact the achievement of the purpose
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
86
and intent of this Chapter. The provisions of §153.176(G) and (H) govern relative
to the filing of a combined PDP and FDP.
(f) Where public reviews are required by this Chapter, a written notice of the public
meeting shall be sent, not less than ten days prior to the meeting, to the
applicant, property owner, and owners of parcels of land within 300 feet of the
subject parcel(s), as listed on the County Auditor's current tax list. The notice
shall, at a minimum, indicate the property that is the subject of the request,
describe the nature of the request, the time, date and location of the meeting at
which the application will be considered, and indicate when and where written
comments will be received concerning the request.
(2) Decisions.
(a) Any application required to be reviewed under this section shall be approved,
approved with conditions, or denied by the required reviewing body based on the
applicable review criteria as provided in this section and other applicable provisions
of this Chapter. The recommending body and required reviewing body shall state
the reasons for their decisions in the minutes and provide a written record of the
decision.
(b) Prior to reaching a decision, if the required reviewing body determines that an
application does not meet the applicable review criteria as provided in this section
and other applicable provisions of this Chapter, but determines that the application
could meet those criteria with modifications that could not be reasonably
conditioned, the applicant may request that the decision on the application be
postponed to provide the opportunity to make those modifications.
(c) The ARB shall apply the standards and Guidelines within the context of a site to
either grant Waivers or place conditions of approval that impose additional
restrictions. In considering Waivers or conditions that impose additional restrictions,
the ARB shall consider the historic context of the immediately surrounding area and
the district as a whole.
(d) Following the approval of a FDP or MP, the applicant may proceed with the process
for obtaining a Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval (CZPA) and Building Permit (BP),
consistent with the approval as granted. All construction and development under
any BP shall comply with the approved FDP and MP, and any other approval, as
applicable.
(3) Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval. A CZPA issued by the Director verifying compliance
with all applicable zoning requirements is required prior to modification, extension, or
alteration of sites and structures, and/or change of use in the Historic Zoning Districts.
(4) Code Administration
The ARB may evaluate and monitor the application of the requirements and standards
of §153.170 through §153.178 by the Director. The ARB may advise the Director as to
whether it finds that the requirements or standards (including requests for an AA) are
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
87
being applied correctly, and recommend to City Council any changes needed to better
implement the Community Plan, Historic Design Guidelines, and other related policy and
regulatory documents adopted by the City.
(5) Duration of Approvals.
(a) Because the review of an Informal application is non-binding on the City and does
not result in a decision by the ARB, the comments made during the Informal
application review do not expire. However, if the applicant makes any material
change in the Informal application following the review, the applicant should not
assume that the previous Informal review comments remain applicable to the
revised application.
(b) An approved CP shall be valid for a period of no more than one year. If an application
has not been filed for a PDP for at least a portion of the site within that one-year
period, then the CP shall no longer be valid. A new CP application shall be required
in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter.
(c) An approved PDP shall be valid for a period of no more than two years. If a FDP
application for at least a portion of the site has not been filed within that two-year
period, then the PDP shall no longer be valid. A new PDP application shall be required
in accordance with this Chapter.
(d) An approved FDP shall be valid for a period of no more than two years. If a Building
Permit and/or CZPA has not been filed for at least a portion of the project within the
two-year period, the FDP shall no longer be valid. A new FDP application shall be
required in accordance with this Chapter.
(e) An approved MP shall be valid for a period of no more than two years. If a Building
Permit and/or CZPA for at least one portion of the site has not been filed within that
two-year period, then the MP shall no longer be valid. A new MP application shall be
required in accordance with this Chapter.
(f) Abandonment
1. Once a final approval is granted by the required reviewing body, if the Director
of Building Standards determines that work has been abandoned for a
continuous period of six months, the approval shall lapse and cease to be in
effect.
2. The Director of Building Standards shall make the determination of abandonment
based on the presence of one or more of the following conditions:
a. Removal of construction equipment or supplies;
b. Expiration of an active building permit issued by the City;
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
88
c. Evidence of a failure to maintain the property, such as overgrown weeds,
failure to secure buildings, broken windows, or other evidence of lack of
maintenance;
d. Other actions documented by the Director of Building Standards and/or
Director evidencing an intent to abandon the construction of the project.
3. Once the Director of Building Standards makes a determination of abandonment,
if a new application is not submitted within 90 days from the date of the
determination, the owner shall restore the site to its previous condition, and/or
remove any structures or other evidence of work on the site, within 180 days
from the date of the determination of abandonment. If the owner fails to restore
the site to its previous condition within 180 days, the City may take any and all
actions necessary to restore the site to its previous condition, including removing
any structures or other evidence of work, and the costs of removal shall be
assessed against the property.
§ 153.177 PROCEDURES FOR HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION, EXPANDING THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DISTRICT, AND ESTABLISHING LANDMARKS
(A) Requests to establish or remove an area, property, or properties not included in a
Historic Zoning District or to designate an individual property or site as a landmark for
protection, or to remove or otherwise change a designation, may be initiated by the ARB
or the owner of the proposed property. Upon initiation of the request by the ARB, the
owner shall be notified by the city by registered mail of the request. The notification
shall include a request for the owner’s written comments and written consent for
designation.
(B) In the event the owner(s) written consent to the proposed designation for the property
is not received, the ARB shall schedule a public hearing on the proposed designation
with notice as provided for ARB hearings. In addition, the ARB shall cause the notice to
be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the city.
(C) In considering the designation of any area, place, building, structure, or similar object in
the city as a landmark, preservation site, or for inclusion in a Historic Zoning District, the
ARB shall consider the proposal in terms of the following criteria prior to making a
recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission:
(1) In character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural
characteristics of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, or United States.
(2) Its location as a site of a significant historic event.
(3) Its identification with a person who is significantly contributed to the culture and
development of the region.
(4) Its exemplification of the cultural, economic, social, or historic heritage of the
region.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
89
(5) Its portrayal of the environment of a group of people in an era of history
characterized by a distinctive architectural style.
(6) Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type or
specimen, or the embodiment of distinctive styling features, or an example of
skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building and/or outbuilding.
(7) Its identification as the work of an architect or master builder whose individual
work has influenced the development of the region.
(8) Its embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or
craftsmanship which represent a significant architectural innovation.
(9) The effect of the designated area on the surrounding areas, and the projected
development of the community.
(10) Its unique location or singular physical characteristic representing an established
and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, the community, or the city.
(D) After review the ARB shall forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning
Commission which shall review the proposal, the recommendation of the ARB, and the
criteria of division (C) above and mark a recommendation to City Council concerning the
proposed designation.
(E) The City Council shall consider the findings and recommendations of the ARB and the
Planning and Zoning Commission in making its determination with respect to the
proposed designation of an area, property, or site as a landmark or preservation district.
(F) The city shall notify any owner or any person having a legal or equitable interest in the
affected property of the decision by Council. All affected city departments, boards, and
commissions shall also be notified.
(G) A request for demolition may be transferred with the sale of the property. A new owner
shall not be required to re-apply. However, the requirements of this section shall
continue to apply to any new owner(s).
(H) If the ARB considers an application for demolition or removal of a historically and
architecturally significant structure within the District, the Board may impose a waiting
period not to exceed one year. During this period the HCPC and the applicant shall make
every reasonable effort to find an alternative to demolition. During the waiting period
the owner of the structure shall maintain and preserve the structure to prevent further
deterioration. If the Board and the applicant do not agree on a means of preserving the
structure within the specified waiting period, the application for demolition may be
approved or disapproved. The imposition of the waiting period is subject to appeal in
accordance with the provisions of sections 153.231(F).
§ 153.178 MAINTAINENCE
(A) Intent
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
90
The section is intended to ensure the owner of a structure or property within Historic
Dublin or designated outlying structure or property provide sufficient and reasonable care,
maintenance and upkeep appropriate to ensure any building's upkeep and to prevent its
destruction by deterioration.
(B) Any parking area, pedestrian way, landscaping, sign, or other site element shall also be
properly maintained in a safe and functional condition, and be maintained to ensure its
historical value. This provision shall be in addition to all other applicable code provisions.
(C) Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prevent any ordinary maintenance or
repair of an exterior architectural feature or site now or hereafter located within Historic
Dublin or on a designated outlying property which involves no change in material, design,
arrangement, texture or color; nor shall anything in this chapter be construed to prevent
the construction, reconstruction, alteration, modification, or demolition of any feature
which the Chief Building Official shall certify, pursuant to appropriate provisions of the
Codified Ordinances or state law regarding public safety, as being an unsafe or dangerous
condition.
(D) The Architectural Review Board may present evidence of a violation to the city for
appropriate action.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
1
§ 153.002 DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly
indicates or requires a different meaning, as determined by the Director.
(A) Uses definitions.
(1) Uses definitions - A
(a) ACCESSORY STRUCTURE or BUILDING. A subordinate structure or building, the
use of which is incidental to and customarily used in connection with the principal structure or
use and which is located on the same lot with the principal structure or use.
(b) ACCESSORY USE. A subordinate use which is incidental to and customarily used
in connection with the principal structure or use and which is located on the same lot with a
principal structure or use, unless otherwise permitted by this chapter.
(c) ANIMAL CARE.
1. GENERAL SERVICES. A facility providing grooming, daycare, boarding, and
training for household pets.
2. VETERINARY OFFICES. A facility for medical, dental, or other health services
related to the diagnosis and treatment of animals' illnesses, injuries, and physical ailments, but
not including crematory services.
3. VETERINARY URGENT CARE AND ANIMAL HOSPITALS. A facility for
emergency care for the treatment of animal illnesses, injuries, or physical ailments, but not
including crematory services.
(d) ARTISAN PRODUCTION. Establishments manufacturing and/or assembling small
scale products. Artisan production includes, but not limited to food, beverage, and bakery
products; printmaking and photography; art; leather products; soap and candles; jewelry and
clothing/apparel; metal work; furniture; glass or ceramic production.
(e) ATM, WALK-UP. An automated teller machine installed on the exterior face of a
building accessible only by pedestrians.
(f) ATTACHED ACCESSORY USE/STRUCTURE. Any use and/or structure that is
integrated visually, structurally and architecturally with the principal structure, has an attached
roof with similar design to the principal structure, permits access between the principal
structure and the addition either internally or under the roof, and/or shares a common wall with
the principal structure or is connected to the principal structure by an enclosed space.
(g) AUTO-ORIENTED COMMERCIAL FACILITY. A facility where a service is
rendered or a sales transaction is made while the patron is typically not required to exit a
vehicle, or a facility that includes services rendered directly on, to, or for vehicles. Auto-oriented
commercial facilities include, but are not limited to establishments with drive-in/drive-through
services, drive-up ATMs (automated teller machines), car washes (all types), fueling/service
stations, facilities specializing in vehicle maintenance (oil changes, installation of car
accessories, and other similar minor vehicle service facilities), and stand-alone parking lots. The
sale of vehicles (new or used) is not included within this definition.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
2
(2) Uses definitions - B
(a) BED AND BREAKFAST. A private home providing accommodations to the
traveling public in habitable units for compensation, and is generally limited to short-stay
facilities. This use includes the provision of related accessory and incidental services such as
eating and drinking, meeting rooms, and the sale of gifts and convenience goods.
(b) BICYCLE FACILITIES. Any amenity or element including, but not limited to,
bicycle racks, lockers, and showers intended for use by either recreational or commuter cyclists.
(3) Uses definitions - C
(a) CIVIC USE. A use in a building or location that provides for community meetings
and/or activities including, but not limited to, government administration, school administration,
recreation center (public or private), Chamber of Commerce, Arts Council, public library, or
other public buildings owned or operated by the city.
(b) COMMUNITY ACTIVITY. An activity that is open to the general public and
sponsored by a public, private, nonprofit or religious organization that is educational, cultural,
or recreational in nature. This use includes but is not limited to school plays and church fairs.
(See also SPECIAL EVENT.)
(c) COMMUNITY CENTER. A public or not-for-profit facility offering meeting, activity,
and/or recreation space and facilities that is available to the public with or without a fee
charged. This definition may include space within a commercially used building, provided that
the facility is available to the public.
(d) COMMUNITY GARDEN. An area for cultivation of fruits, flowers, vegetables, or
ornamental plants by more than one person or family generally organized and managed by a
public or not-for-profit organization. Incidental sales are permitted.
(e) COMMUNITY RESIDENCE. A family-like residential living arrangement for five or
more unrelated individuals with disabilities in need of the mutual support furnished by other
residents of the community residence as well as the support services provided by any staff of
the community residence. Residents may be self-governing or supervised by a sponsoring entity
or its staff which provides habilitative or rehabilitative services related to the disabilities of the
residents. A community residence seeks to emulate a biological family to normalize its residents
and integrate them into the surrounding community. Because it is extremely unlikely that a
group of more than 12 people can successfully emulate a family and prevent an institutional
atmosphere from developing, no more than 12 individuals may live in a community residence.
Its primary purpose is to provide shelter in a family-like environment; treatment is incidental as
in any home. Inter-relationships between residents are an essential component. A community
residence shall be considered a residential use of property for purposes of all zoning and
building codes. The term does not include any other group living arrangement for unrelated
individuals who are not disabled nor residential facilities for prison pre-parolees or sex
offenders. The term "community residence" includes the following two categories:
1. FAMILY COMMUNITY RESIDENCE. A relatively permanent living
arrangement with no limit on length of tenancy for five or more unrelated individuals with
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
3
disabilities, including but not limited to Adult Family Homes and Adult Care Facilities licensed by
the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services under R.C. § 5119.34.
2. TRANSITIONAL COMMUNITY RESIDENCE. A temporary living arrangement,
with a limit on length of tenancy, for five or more unrelated individuals with disabilities.
(f) CONFERENCE CENTER. A facility designed to accommodate and support meetings
or conferences. The facility may be either freestanding or incorporated into a hotel or office
facility, and may include eating and drinking facilities but excluding overnight lodging if not part
of a hotel.
(g) CONSTRUCTION AND CONTRACT SERVICE TRADES. Facilities used for the
repair of machinery, equipment, products or by-products. May include outdoor storage of
materials, supplies or equipment as an accessory use.
(h) CONSTRUCTION TRAILER/OFFICE. A trailer or portable building used to
provide temporary work space for construction management personnel during the construction
of a building or facility.
(i) CORPORATE RESIDENCE. An accessory use integrated as part of a principal
structure or in an accessory structure available in conjunction with a nonresidential use that
provides temporary housing for personnel or visitors and is not available to the general public.
(4) Use definitions - D
(a) DATA CENTER. A facility with typically lower employee counts than general office
uses that houses computer systems and associated data and is focused on the mass storage of
data.
(b) DAY CARE, CHILD OR ADULT. An adult day care facility offers social,
recreational and health-related services in a protective setting to individuals who cannot be left
alone during the day because of health care and social need, confusion or disability. A child day
care is a facility providing non-medical care and supervision outside the home for minor
children, provided the supervision is less than 24 hours per day and the facility is licensed by
the State of Ohio. This definition includes preschools, nursery schools, and other similar
facilities.
(c) DISABILITY. A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more
of an individual's major life activities, impairs an individual's ability to live independently, having
a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. People with
disabilities do not include drug addicts or alcoholics when they are using alcohol, illegal drugs,
or using legal drugs to which they are addicted.
(d) DISH ANTENNA. An outside accessory antenna that is linked to a receiver located
on the same lot and used for the reception of signals transmitted by stations licensed by the
Federal Communications Commission in the Radio Broadcast Services including AM, FM and TV.
(e) DISTRICT ENERGY PLANT. A facility that is not a public utility and that
generates electrical energy for distribution to a defined area containing ten or more structures.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
4
(f) DRIVE-IN/DRIVE-THROUGH. A structure or building feature, including but not
limited to a service window, automated device, or other equipment that is designed to provide
sales and service to patrons who remain in their motor vehicles, including associated driveways
and driving aisles by which patrons reach the structure or building feature.
(g) DWELLING.
1. ACCESSORY DWELLING. A dwelling unit for occupancy by an individual who is
providing services to a principal use of the property, such as watchmen, maintenance
personnel, or temporary guests, including corporate residences; or an accessory dwelling
associated with a single-family dwelling, two-family dwelling, or townhouse dwelling.
2. DWELLING ADMINISTRATION, RENTAL, OR SALES OFFICES. A permanent
or temporary building or office used to administer a building containing dwelling units or to
market the rental or sale of dwelling units on or near the property within a defined development
site.
3. LIVE-WORK DWELLING. A structure including residential dwelling units
connected with principal non-residential uses listed as permitted uses within a particular zoning
district. The predominant character of the structure is intended to be harmonious with
residential areas.
4. MULTIPLE-FAMILY DWELLING. A building arranged or intended for three or
more households living independently of each other in separate dwelling units, any two or more
of which may be provided with a common entrance or hall. Dwellings located on upper stories
of a structure with non-residential uses on other stories are included in the definition of
multiple-family dwelling.
5. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. A detached or attached building arranged or
designed to be occupied by one family, the structure having only one principal dwelling unit.
6. TOWNHOUSE. A building consisting of three or more dwelling units attached to
each other through the use of shared party walls on one or both sides, with each unit having a
ground floor and a separate entrance.
7. TWO-FAMILY DWELLING. A building arranged or designed to be occupied by
two families, the structure having only two dwelling units with separate entrances.
(5) Uses definitions - E
(a) EATING & DRINKING. A facility that prepares or serves food or beverages
directly to the public for on- or off-premise consumption. This use includes but is not limited to
sit down or take-out restaurants, cafes or coffee shops, ice cream parlors, and may also include
uses such as taverns, brewpubs, or wine bars.
(b) EATING & DRINKING (ACCESSORY). Eating & drinking when accessory to a
principal use of the property, and when the facilities are designed and intended for use
primarily by residents or occupants of the principal use of the property.
(c) EDUCATIONAL FACILITY. A facility offering classes, training courses, or skill
development to the public, employees or to members of an organization. This use includes but
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
5
is not limited to vocational, business, or technical schools, training centers, colleges, and
universities, but does not include an elementary, middle, or high school.
(d) ELEMENTARY OR MIDDLE SCHOOL. A facility providing education to students in
kindergarten through eighth grades using a curriculum recognized by the State of Ohio, and
including related assembly, sports, and activity areas, but not including facilities regularly used
for housing or sleeping of students.
(e) ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATION, INDOOR. A facility or area providing
opportunities for physical exercise, physical training or improvement of health for the general
public or members of an organization. This use includes but is not limited to: theaters, bowling
alleys, dance halls, game centers, gymnasiums, health clubs, exercise and fitness facilities, and
climbing wall centers.
(f) ESSENTIAL UTILITY SERVICES. Facilities used to provide utility services to a
building or property, including but not limited to water pipes, sewer pipes, electric lines and
boxes, telecommunication lines or fiber optic equipment, gas regulator stations, and storm
drainage pipes. This use does not include major utilities such as water or sewer treatment
plants, electric generating plants, and other facilities that are primary rather than accessory
uses of the sites on which they are located. Wireless communication facilities are also not
included in this definition.
(g) EXERCISE AND FITNESS. A facility or area providing opportunities for exercise or
fitness for the general public or members of an organization, including but not limited to health
or exercise rooms and swimming pools, when accessory to a principal use of the property.
(6) Uses definitions - F
(a) FAMILY. A family consists of any person living alone or any of the following groups
living together as a single housekeeping unit that shares common living, sleeping, cooking, and
eating facilities: (1) any number of people related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship,
or other duly and legally authorized custodial relationship and no more than two unrelated
individuals who provide care or assistance or are domestic employees, (2) two unrelated
individuals and their children related to either of them and their foster children, or (3) four
unrelated individuals. A family does not include any society; club; boarding or lodging house;
fraternity; sorority; or group of individuals whose association is seasonal or similar in nature to
a resort, motel, hotel, boarding or lodging house, nor that is institutional in nature.
(b) FARMERS MARKET. An area, which may or may not be in a completely enclosed
building, where on designated days and times, growers and producers of horticultural and
agricultural products may sell those products and/or other incidental items directly to the public.
(c) FOOD TRUCK. A mobile food and beverage unit which is temporarily stored on a
privately-owned lot where food items are sold to the general public. May be motorized or
unmotorized. Food truck includes food vehicle, food trailer, food cart, and temporary
commercial structures designed for the sale of food and beverages accessory to the primary
structure/use.
(d) FUELING/SERVICE STATION. A facility used primarily for the sale of vehicle
fuels, oils or accessories. Services may include maintenance and lubrication of automobiles and
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
6
replacement or installation of minor parts and accessories but shall not include major repair
work such as engine or transmission replacement, body and fender repair or spray painting.
This use may include the retail sales of convenience goods.
(7) Uses definitions - G
(a) GOVERNMENT SERVICES.
1. GENERAL. A facility providing the administration of local, state, or federal
government services or functions.
2. SAFETY. A facility providing police, fire, or emergency medical services to the
surrounding community.
3. SERVICE. A facility providing government services that includes vehicle and
equipment parking and/or service or maintenance yards.
(8) Uses definitions - H
(a) HEDGE. A row of dense, closely spaced living plant material composed of vines,
trees, shrubs, bushes or combination thereof.
(b) HELIPAD/HELIPORTS. An aviation accessory devoted to the landing, takeoff and
storing of helicopters.
(c) HIGH SCHOOL. A facility providing education to students from ninth through 12th
grades using a curriculum recognized by the State of Ohio and including related assembly,
sports and activity areas, but not facilities regularly used for the housing or sleeping of
students.
(d) HOME OCCUPATION. A business or occupation incidental and subordinate to a
principal residential use conducted within a dwelling. Examples include but are not limited to:
artist's studio, office, teaching, or consultancy.
(e) HOSPITAL. Any facility in which in-patients are provided diagnostic, medical,
surgical, obstetrical, psychiatric, or rehabilitation care for a continuous period longer than 24
hours, or a medical facility operated by a health maintenance organization.
(f) HOTEL. A building or series of buildings providing accommodations to the traveling
public in habitable units for compensation, and includes but is not limited to both short-stay and
extended stay facilities. This use includes the provision of related services such as eating and
drinking, meeting rooms, and the sale of gifts, and convenience goods.
(9) Uses definitions - I (reserved for future use)
(10) Uses definitions - J (reserved for future use)
(11) Uses definitions - K (reserved for future use)
(12) Uses definitions - L
(a) LARGE FORMAT RETAIL. A retail or wholesale use of 20,000 square feet or more
of gross floor area as a single use area.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
7
(b) LIBRARY, MUSEUM, GALLERY. Facilities containing collections of books,
manuscripts, and similar materials for study and reading, or exhibiting works of art or objects in
one or more of the arts and sciences.
(13) Uses definitions - M
(a) MANUFACTURING AND ASSEMBLY. A facility used for the fabrication,
assembly, finishing, packaging or processing of components and/or finished goods.
(b) MEDICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY. A facility for sampling,
photographing, analyzing or testing bodily fluids and other medical specimens. These facilities
may not include laboratories for the sole purpose of research.
(c) MINI-STORAGE. A facility of leased or owned structures available to the general
public for the storage of goods.
(d) MIXED USE. A mixed use development consists of two or more principal uses such
as residential and commercial uses, and where the arrangement of buildings and uses share
internal and external vehicular and pedestrian circulation, open spaces, and other similar
development features. A mixed use development may occur either vertically within a structure,
or horizontally within multiple structures as part of a coordinated development.
(e) MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR, MAJOR. A facility or area where major mechanical
(engine, transmission or other major mechanical systems) or body work is conducted on
vehicles and/or trailers.
(14) Uses definitions - N
(15) Uses definitions - O
(a) OFFICE.
1. CALL CENTER. A facility providing customer service or sales requests by
telecommunication or other data means.
2. FLEX. A facility including office, research, laboratory, manufacturing, clean
assembly, warehousing, or other related activities whose configurations and construction
methods allow for easy conversion of interior and exterior space.
3. GENERAL. A facility providing executive, management, administrative, or
professional services. This use includes corporate offices, law offices, architectural firms,
insurance companies and other executive, management or administrative offices for businesses
or corporations. General office uses may include the administration of local, state, or federal
government services or functions. This facility does not include medical offices, call centers, or
flex offices.
4. MEDICAL. A facility providing medical, dental, or other health services relating to
the diagnosis and treatment of human illnesses, injuries, and physical ailments treated in an
office setting. This includes outpatient surgery, rehabilitation, incidental laboratories and other
related activities, but does not include overnight patient stays.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
8
(b) OUTDOOR DINING AND SEATING. An area accessory to an eating and drinking
facility or a retail business in which food and beverages are served, offered for sale, or are
available for consumption outside of the principal structure.
(c) OUTDOOR DISPLAY OR SEASONAL SALES. The display of goods outside the
principal structure on the site for the purpose of marketing or sales for a temporary period of
time typically not exceeding three months in any calendar year, when accessory to a principal
use of the property.
(d) OUTDOOR SEASONAL PLANT DISPLAY. An area adjacent to a retail business
that, as an outdoor accessory use, displays live garden plant material for sale by the adjacent
principal retail business. Display may include live plants such as flowers and trees suitable for
planting or landscaping.
(e) OUTDOOR SERVICE FACILITY. If not otherwise defined as outdoor seasonal
plant display, an area that is not fully enclosed by solid walls and a roof and where services are
rendered or goods are displayed, sold, or stored. Outdoor service facilities may include, but are
not limited to outdoor dining areas, restaurant patios, outdoor storage areas, open-air markets,
garden stores, and stand-alone parking lots.
(16) Uses definitions - P
(a) PARKING.
1. MUNICIPAL PARKING. A parking lot or structure owned or controlled by the
city or other public entity available for use by the general public.
2. PARKING, ACCESSORY. Parking that is provided to comply with minimum off-
street parking requirements in this chapter for a principal use of the property or a designated
nearby property, and that is provided exclusively to serve occupants of or visitors to a principal
and/or accessory use.
3. PARKING STRUCTURE. A facility used for vehicle parking and where there are a
number of floors or levels on which parking takes place, either freestanding or integrated into a
building.
4. PARKING STRUCTURE, ACCESSORY. A structure that contains parking
provided to comply with minimum off-street parking requirements in this chapter for a principal
use of the property or a designated nearby property, and that is provided exclusively to serve
occupants of or visitors to a principal and/or accessory use.
5. SURFACE PARKING LOT. The use of land to provide off-street parking for
vehicles. For the purposes of the BSD districts in §§ 153.057 to 153.066, surface parking does
not include driveways for single-family attached or detached residential units.
(b) PARKS AND OPEN SPACE. Public or private land that has been identified for
active or passive parks or property to be left in a generally natural state.
(c) PERSONAL, REPAIR, & RENTAL SERVICES. A facility or establishment that
provides services associated with personal grooming, personal instruction or education, the
maintenance of fitness, health and well-being, or the rental, servicing, maintenance, or repair of
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
9
consumer goods. This use includes but is not limited to yoga centers, beauty salons, barbers
and hairdressers, meditation centers, massage centers, dry cleaning shops, tailors, shoe repair,
and electronics repair shops. This facility does not include motor vehicle, recreational vehicle, or
heavy equipment repair or rental.
(d) PORTABLE CLASSROOM. A manufactured structure not permanently attached to
the ground, used on a temporary basis in conjunction with a permanent structure to provide
educational services.
(e) PORTABLE NONRESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. A building(s) or similar
structure(s) designed for occupation which is not placed on a permanent foundation. The
definition shall include construction trailers, portable classrooms, tents, trailers and any other
uses which may be proposed for these structures.
(f) PRINCIPAL USE. The primary or predominant use of a lot, parcel, or structure.
(g) PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY. A facility used to provide police, fire, or emergency
medical services to the community.
(16) Uses definitions - Q
(17) Uses definitions - R
(a) RELIGIOUS OR PUBLIC ASSEMBLY. A facility in which the public or members of
an organization gather to engage in collective activities, which may include worship, study,
relaxation, service activities, assembly space, or recreation. This use includes but is not limited
to churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, clubs, meeting halls, and social organizations.
(b) RENEWABLE ENERGY EQUIPMENT OR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
EQUIPMENT. Equipment for the collection of solar, wind or geothermal energy or its
conversion to electrical energy or heat for use on the same property or for incidental sale to a
utility when that equipment is accessory to a permitted or approved conditional principal use of
the property.
(c) RENEWABLE WIND EQUIPMENT. Equipment for the collection of wind energy or
its conversion to electrical energy or heat for use on the same property or for incidental sale to
a utility when that equipment is accessory to a permitted or approved conditional use of the
property. Includes both building mounted and ground mounted units. Ground mounted units
have a foundation and are not dependent on a building for structural support.
(d) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. A facility or area for conducting scientific
research, synthesis, analysis, investigation, testing, or experimentation, and including the
fabrication of prototypes, assembly, mixing and preparation of equipment and components
incidental or necessary to the conduct of such activities. Research and development includes
support facilities, but not including facilities for the manufacture or sale of products except as
may be incidental to the main purpose of the laboratory.
(e) RESIDENTIAL MODEL HOME. A residential structure used by a licensed
homebuilder/developer, real estate worker or realtor to demonstrate construction, display built-
in amenities and color selection charts to prospective home buyers and promote the sale or
lease of housing units.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
10
(f) RETAIL, GENERAL. A facility or area for the retail sale of general merchandise or
food to the general public for direct use and not for wholesale. This use includes but is not
limited to sale of general merchandise, clothing and other apparel, flowers and household
plants, dry goods, convenience and specialty foods, hardware and similar consumer goods.
(g) RETAIL OR PERSONAL SERVICES (ACCESSORY). General retail, as defined,
when accessory to a non-retail or personal service principal use of the property.
(18) Uses definitions - S
(a) SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT. A commercial
establishment including adult cabaret, adult store, or adult theater primarily engaged in persons
who appear nude/semi-nude, live performances, films or other visual representations, adult
booths, or sale or display of adult material.
(b) SPECIAL EVENT. A temporary outdoor use of land for the purposes of a
gathering, including but not limited to a fair, festival, celebration, or fundraiser.
(c) SWIMMING POOL. Any confined body of water, with a rim/deck elevation less
than one foot above the existing finished grade of the site, exceeding 100 square feet in water
surface area, and 24 inches in depth, designed, used, or intended to be used for swimming or
bathing purposes.
(19) Uses definitions - T
(a) TRANSPORTATION.
1. PARK-AND-RIDE. A facility providing parking and shelter for transit passengers
or carpooling that typically includes parking lots and associated structures located along or near
public transit routes.
2. TRANSIT STATION. When a transit station is the principal use of the property, it
is a facility where public transit vehicles load and unload patrons, and where patrons may
transfer between public transit lines. This use does not include park and ride or ride-sharing
facilities, transit vehicle repair or maintenance facilities, bus stops located on public property, or
bus stops accessory to a principal use of the property.
3. TRANSIT STOP. An incidental area, either along the public right-of-way or on a
private site, with shelters or other related amenities for patrons waiting for buses or other forms
of public transportation. A transit stop shall not include a transit station, park-and-ride, or other
major transit facility.
(b) TRUCK AND VAN RENTAL ESTABLISHMENT. A business that deals in the retail
and/or wholesale rental of trucks and commercial vans used for such purposes as moving and
storage, transportation of goods, and other similar uses.
(20) Uses definitions - U
(a) UTILITIES.
1. ELECTRIC SUBSTATION. A facility where electricity generation, transmission
and distribution system is managed through the use of transformers.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
11
2. RENEWABLE ENERGY FACILITIES. Commercial-scale operations for the
collection of solar, wind, or geothermal energy and its conversion to electrical energy for sale to
a public utility.
(21) Uses definitions - V
(a) VEHICLE SALES, RENTAL, AND REPAIR. A facility or area used for the retail
sale of vehicles (new or used) and related vehicle service facilities, renting of vehicles, repairing
vehicles or the sale and installation of tires, batteries, and other minor accessories and services
for vehicles. This use does not include supplies, tires, or parts unrelated to repairs being
performed on the premises, or a fueling/service station.
(b) VEHICLE CHARGING STATION. When accessory to a permitted or approved
primary use of the property, vehicle charging stations are facilities or areas at which electric
powered or hybrid powered motor vehicles can obtain electrical current to recharge batteries.
(22) Uses definitions - W
(a) WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION. Facilities and accessory uses for the
mass storage and movement of goods as well as transportation, logistics, maintenance and
fleet parking.
(b) WHOLESALING AND DISTRIBUTION. Facilities and accessory uses for the
mass storage and movement of goods as well as transportation, logistics, maintenance and
fleet parking.
(c) WIRELESS COMMUNICATION. Wireless communications facilities and related
terms are defined in § 99.04 of this Code of Ordinances.
(B) General definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply
unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning, as determined by the
Director.
(1) General definitions - A
(a) ABANDONED SIGN. A sign associated with an abandoned use, a sign that
remains after the termination of the business, or a sign on its immediate premises not
adequately maintained and not repaired within the specified time under § 153.162.
(b) ABOVEGROUND POOL. Any confined body of water, with a rim/deck elevation
more than one foot above the existing finished grade of the site, exceeding 100 square feet in
water surface area, and 24 inches in depth, designed, used, or intended to be used for
swimming or bathing purposes.
(c) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. The official charged with the administration and
enforcement of this chapter. For the city, the administrative official is the Director of Land Use
and Long Range Planning.
(d) ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TEAM or ART. An administrative body of the city
and Washington Township officials responsible for certain administrative reviews and approvals
as designated in this chapter.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
12
(e) AGGREGATE DIAMETER. The combined diameter of a multiple trunk tree
measured at breast height (see DIAMETER BREAST HEIGHT).
(f) AISLE. That portion of the off-street parking and loading area that provides access
to parking, stacking or loading spaces, exclusive of driveways and parking and loading spaces.
(g) ALLEY. A secondary access way typically not less than 20 feet in width available
for public use or transportation and affording vehicular access to abutting property.
(h) ALTERATION. Any change, addition or modification in construction or any change
in the structural members of a building, such as walls or partitions, columns, beams or girders,
the consummated act of which may be referred to in this chapter as "altered" or
"reconstructed." Any action to change, modify, reconstruct, remove or demolish any exterior
features of an existing structure or of the site. Ordinary maintenance to correct any
deterioration, decay or damage to a structure or site and to restore the structure as nearly as
practicable to an original state prior to its deterioration, decay or damage is excluded from the
definition of alteration, provided the work does not involve a change in type and/or color of
building materials.
(i) ANIMATED SIGN. Any sign that uses or has the appearance of movement or
change of artificial and natural lighting or noise to depict action or create a special effect or
scene.
(j) APPLICANT. Any person who applies for a zoning approval through the provisions
of this chapter.
(k) ARCADE. A roofed or built structure, extending over the sidewalk or square, open
to the street except for supporting columns, piers, or arches.
(l) ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER. The architectural style, general design, and
general arrangement of the exterior of a building or other structure intended to recreate a
period of history, architectural theme or other similar effect.
(m) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD or ARB. The Architectural Review Board of
the city, as created in § 153.172.
(n) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DISTRICT, or HISTORIC DISTRICT. The
Architectural Review District of the city. The term may also be used to refer to Ohio Historic
Inventory Properties as provided in § 153.170, where appropriate.
(o) ARCHITECTURAL STYLE. The predominant historic features that make a building
or other structure notable or historically identifiable architectural styles within given areas of the
historic district, as described in § 153.172 4(B)(4), the Historic Design Guidelines or in other
defined areas.
(p) ARTICULATION. Detailing, decoration, expression lines, shadow lines, and other
similar techniques used to provide architectural interest.
(q) AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE (ATM). An electronically operated device used
to conduct financial transactions on site, by means of direct computerized access. These
devices may be accessible by vehicle and/or pedestrians.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
13
(r) AUTO-SHARE PARKING SPACE. A parking space designated for use only by a
vehicle owned or leased by an entity and made available to members of the entity for their
shared use. Examples of this use include spaces reserved for a ZipCar or Flexcar vehicle.
(s) AWNING. A roof-like covering, often adjustable, over a door, window, or other
opening in a structure, designed to provide protection against the elements such as sun, wind,
or rain.
(t) AWNING SIGN. A sign painted on or affixed to an awning.
(2) General definitions - B
(a) BANNER. A non-rigid cloth, plastic, paper, or canvas sign, used on a temporary
basis, typically related to a special event or promotion that is cultural, educational, charitable, or
recreational in its function, under the sponsorship of a for-profit establishment or business, or a
public, private nonprofit or religious organization.
(b) BENCH SIGN. Any sign painted on, located on, or attached to any part of the
surface of a bench, seat, or chair placed on or adjacent to a public roadway.
(c) BICYCLE CIRCULATION PLAN. A detailed plan showing the location of all site
access points, bicycle facilities, and travel routes expected to be used by bicyclists.
(d) BICYCLE FACILITIES. All amenities or elements including bicycle racks, lockers,
and showers intended to assist either recreational or commuter cyclists.
(e) BILLBOARD. An off-premise sign directing attention to a specific business,
product, service, entertainment or other activity sold, offered, or conducted off-site.
(f) BLAND ELEVATION. An elevation that lacks the minimum required openings and
architectural features, such as windows, doors, exterior chimneys, or other similar architectural
features.
(g) BLANK WALL. A façade or portion of a façade with no windows or doors or other
elements of transparency.
(h) BLOCK. The aggregate of lots, pedestrianways and alleys or service lanes, whether
public or private, typically surrounded on all sides by public streets.
(i) BLOCK FACE. The aggregate of all the building façades on one side of a block. Lots
with their front property line and buildings with their front façade along the block face are
referred to as "fronting" on the block or street.
(j) BLOCK PERIMETER. The horizontal distance around the boundaries of the block.
(k) BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, or BZA. The Board of Zoning Appeals of the city.
(l) BOARD ORDER. The official document issued by the Architectural Review Board or
Board of Zoning Appeals containing the official record of a final action or recommendation on
an application for a review required by the ARB or BZA in accordance with this chapter.
(m) BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT (BSD). A planned area of the city generally
bounded on the east by Sawmill Road, on the north and west by I-270, and including land
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
14
within the Architectural Review District boundaries and along the north and south sides of SR
161.
(n) BUILDABLE AREA. Portions of a site or lot where development is permitted.
(o) BUILDING. A structure intended for shelter, housing or enclosure of persons,
animals or chattel. When separated by dividing walls without openings, each internal portion of
the structure so separated shall be deemed a separate building.
(p) BUILDING ACTIVITY AREA. The area of a lot in which construction and building
activities occur.
(q) BUILDING ENTRANCE. An access door into the building primarily intended for
pedestrian use.
(r) BUILDING FAÇADE. See FAÇADE.
(s) BUILDING FOOTPRINT, MAXIMUM. The total area on a site that is used by all
buildings, both primary and accessory, attached and detached, measured to the eave line.
Parking lots, landscaping, patios, decks, swimming pools, and other non-building facilities are
not included in the building footprint.
(t) BUILDING, HEIGHT. The vertical distance measured from the grade to the
highest point of the coping of a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; or to the mean
height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof, unless otherwise
specified by this chapter.
(u) BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGN. A type of wall sign which is physically
attached to a building façade and intended to provide an identity for buildings with three or
more stories and high visibility along a street. Building identification signs are typically used to
communicate a general name or address for a building or associated development, or to identify
a major commercial tenant within the building.
(v) BUILDING-MOUNTED SIGN. A sign which is physically attached to a building
façade or associated appurtenance, and intended to provide visibility for either pedestrians or
motorists. Building-mounted signs are typically used to identify commercial tenants within the
building or to identify the general name of a residential building or associated development.
Within the Bridge Street Corridor districts, building-mounted signs include wall signs, projecting
signs, awning signs and window signs, but do not include other types of signs that may be
attached to a building, such as building identification signs and directory signs.
(w) BUILDING TYPE. Required building forms for new construction and renovated
structures within districts specified in this chapter.
(x) BUS SHELTER SIGN. Any sign painted on or affixed to any bus shelter.
(3) General definitions - C
(a) CALIPER. The diameter of a tree trunk six inches above the existing grade or
proposed planted grade. This measurement is used for nursery-grown trees.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
15
(b) CANOPY. A freestanding or connected roof-like structure designed to offer
protection from the weather.
(c) CHANGE. Any new construction, alteration, demolition, or removal or other
construction involving any property subject to the provisions of this chapter including signs,
landscaping, and tree removal. CHANGE shall not include ordinary maintenance or repair of
any property if no change in material, design, color, or outward appearance is undertaken.
(d) CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN. A sign or portion thereof with characters, letters, or
illustrations that can be changed or rearranged by mechanical, electronic or manual means
without altering the face or surface of the sign.
(e) CHANNEL LETTERS. The outline of a letter, border, or similar object with a
vertical side wall to confine the lighting on the face either to restrict vision at an angle or to
prevent light spillage over adjacent areas.
(f) CHAPTER. Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances of Dublin, unless otherwise
specified.
(g) CHIMNEY. A structure projecting from the exterior wall of a house and enclosing
or appearing to enclose a flue that carries off smoke. It may or may not extend vertically to the
eaves line or have a foundation/connection to ground.
1. CANTILEVERED CHIMNEY. A chimney that projects from the exterior wall and
does not have a foundation or extension to the ground.
2. SHED-TYPE CHIMNEY. A chimney that does not extend full height vertically to
the eaves line. A shed chimney typically includes a direct vent outlet in the chimney wall.
(h) CISTERN. An underground storage component of a rainwater harvesting system
typically larger than 80 gallons.
(i) CITY. The City of Dublin, Ohio.
(j) CITY COUNCIL, or COUNCIL. The legislative body of the city.
(k) COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. Any vehicle used or designed to be used for business or
commercial purposes including but not limited to: bus, cement truck, commercial tree trimming
equipment, construction equipment, dump truck, garbage truck, panel truck, semi-tractor, semi-
trailer, or any other non-recreational trailer used for commercial purposes, stage bed truck, step
van, tank truck, tar truck, or other commercial type vehicle licensed by the Ohio State Bureau of
Motor Vehicles as a commercial vehicle or commercial truck.
(l) COMMISSION. The Planning and Zoning Commission of the city.
(m) COMMUNITY PLAN. The current adopted Community Plan of the city and any
amendments thereto.
(n) COMPACT PARKING SPACE. A vehicle parking space, with dimensions smaller
than a standard vehicle parking space, that is intended to be occupied by smaller vehicles. (See
§ 153.065(B)(4)).
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
16
(o) CONCEPT PLAN. A plan that generally indicates the overall design of a proposed
PUD or BSD project with sufficient information to enable the applicant and the city to discuss
the concept for the proposed development and to determine if the proposal is generally
consistent with the Community Plan and other applicable plans of the city.
(p) CONDITIONAL USE. A use allowed in a zoning district after approval is granted
by the Commission according to the provisions of § 153.236.
(q) CONSTRUCTION SIGN. A sign that identifies the project and, if desired, owners,
lenders, contractors, architects, and engineers of a project under construction.
(r) CONTRIBUTING. The status assigned to buildings and other cultural resources that
add to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities, or archaeological values for
which the district is significant. The resource itself may be individually eligible for listing in the
National Register; or it may fall short of the requirements for individual listing, but because it
retains sufficient integrity to add to the significance of the property, the resource is classified as
contributing. The resource may also be capable of yielding important information about the
period of significance.
(s) CORBEL. A build out of one or more courses of brick or stone from the face of a
wall, traditionally to form a support for timbers.
(t) CORNER FAÇADE. Any building face generally oriented along a corner side
property line, either within the corner required building zone or behind the corner setback.
(u) CORNER SIDE PROPERTY LINE. For corner lots occupied by a single building,
the corner side property line is the lot line abutting the street right-of-way from which the
corner required building zone (RBZ) or corner side setback, as applicable, is measured.
(v) CORNICE. Overhang of a pitched roof at the eaves line, usually consisting of a
fascia board, a soffit for a closed cornice, and appropriate moldings. Molded projections which
crown or finish the part of the roof to which they are affixed are included in the definition of
cornice.
(w) COURTYARD. An outdoor area enclosed by a building on at least three sides.
(x) CRITICAL ROOT ZONE. The area inscribed by an imaginary line on the ground
beneath a tree having its center point at the center of the trunk of the tree and having a radius
equal to one foot for every inch of diameter breast height.
(y) CROSSWALK. Designated paths intended for pedestrians to use for crossing the
street right-of-way, typically at intersections and sometimes at mid-block.
(z) CURB LINE. The face of a curb along a curbed public or private street.
(aa) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Tangible remains of past human activity that include
architectural and archeological resources specifically buildings, structures, sites, objects, and
districts. Includes prehistoric sites; historic or prehistoric objects or collection; rock inscription;
earthworks, canals, or landscapes; monuments and infrastructure.
(4) General definitions - D
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
17
(a) DAY. Calendar day.
(b) DECKING (POOL). The concrete, cement, wood, metal, brick, or other material
surrounding or immediately adjacent a swimming pool.
(c) DEMOLITION. The complete or substantial removal or planned destruction of any
structure.
(d) DETERIORATION. The impairment of value or usefulness of a structure or site
through action of the elements or lack of maintenance or upkeep.
(e) DEVELOPMENT SIGN. A temporary sign indicating such things as the names of
the architects, engineers, landscape architects, contractors, or similar artisans, and the owners,
financial supporters, sponsors and similar public or private individuals or firms having a role or
interest with respect to the development, structure, or project, whether public or private.
(f) DIAMETER BREAST HEIGHT (DBH). The diameter of a tree measured at four
and one-half feet above the existing grade at the base of the tree. This measurement is used
for existing forest trees.
(g) DIRECTIONAL SIGN. A temporary or permanent sign that provides information
regarding location, instructions for use, or functional/directional data, but not used for
advertising or identification.
(h) DIRECTOR. The Director of Planning of the city.
(i) DIRECTORY SIGN. Small signs or placards affixed to a wall or elevation adjacent
to the main entrance to a multiple-tenant building typically used to list tenants located within
the building.
(j) DIRECT VENT OUTLET. An outlet through an exterior wall associated with the air
supply and/or exhaust of a fire burner. It may or may not occur in a projecting box/chimney.
(k) DISPENSING STATION. The point of service for a fuel station at which a vehicle
is fueled. A dispensing station is that location serving one vehicle, regardless of the number of
individual fueling pumps or nozzles at the point of service.
(l) DISPLAY SIGN. Signs incorporated into the window display of a business intended
to advertise the goods and/or services associated with businesses and intended to change
frequently. Display signs may be attached to or located within three feet of a window and may
include restaurant menus or products for sale or display.
(m) DORMER. A window set vertically in a structure projecting through a sloping roof;
also the roofed structure containing that window or a ventilating louver.
(n) DOUBLE-FRONTAGE LOT. A lot having frontage along two public streets.
(o) DRIVEWAY. The hard paved surface of a lot that is specifically designated and
reserved for the movement of motor vehicles to and from a public or private street. This
definition includes the area from the street providing access to and from the lot and any
maneuvering areas.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
18
(p) DRIVEWAY APRON. A solid area of approved paving material immediately
adjacent to and connecting a public or private street to a parking lot, parking structure, or
driveway.
(5) General definitions - E
(a) EAVE. The lower edge of a pitched roof; it typically overhangs beyond the side of a
building.
(b) ELECTRONIC SCOREBOARD. An electronically-controlled changeable copy sign
used to display scoring information for sporting events, typically located on a sports field.
(c) ELEVATION. A geometric projection of the front, side, or rear outer surface of a
building onto a plane perpendicular to the horizontal; a vertical projection.
(d) ENTRY FEATURE SIGN. An on-premises ground-mounted sign that graphically
identifies a residential subdivision and/or multiple-family development. For commercial uses,
see JOINT IDENTIFICATION SIGN.
(e) EPIPHYTOTIC. The sudden and destructive development of a plant disease,
usually over large areas.
(f) ESTABLISHED GRADE LINE. The average finished grade for a site. All references
to sign height are from the established grade line unless otherwise noted.
(g) EXISTING STRUCTURE. For the purposes of § 153.062, EXISTING
STRUCTURES are structures that are lawfully existing but may not comply with the
requirements of the chapter because of restrictions such as front property line occupation, lot
coverage, required build zone, buildable area, height, or other requirements related to the
structure.
(h) EXISTING USE. For the purposes of § 153.059, EXISTING USES are uses that
are lawfully existing at the effective date of this amendment.
(i) EXPRESSION LINE. An architectural treatment extending or offset from the
surface plane of the building wall. Expression lines typically delineate the transition between
floor levels and the base-middle-top of a building.
(j) EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. A prominent or significant part or
element of a building, structure, or site. Features include the architectural style and general
arrangement of the exterior of the structure including building materials, windows, doors, lights,
signs, dry-laid stone fences and other fixtures appurtenant thereto. Features shall include the
style, material, color, height, area, and lighting, and location of a sign regulated by this chapter.
(6) General definitions - F
(a) FAÇADE. The exterior face of a building, including but not limited to the wall,
windows, windowsills, doorways, and architectural elements. May also be referred to as the
building façade.
(b) FASCIA. A horizontal piece (such as a board) covering the joint between the top of
a wall and the projecting eaves; also called fascia board.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
19
(c) FENCE. Any permanent or temporary partition, structure, or other material erected
as a dividing structure, barrier or enclosure, and not an integral portion of a structure requiring
a building permit.
(d) FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. A detailed plan showing the location of all site
improvements, including easements, utilities, buildings, parking areas, circulation routes, points
of ingress and egress, transportation and other public improvements (both on- and off-site),
landscaping, architectural drawings, loading and unloading zones, service areas, ground signs,
directional signs, location of refuse containers, lighting and accessory structures, and other
similar improvements, and may include a subdivision plat of a proposed PUD or BSD project.
Critical dimensions are shown unless otherwise required.
(e) FLAG. Any fabric or bunting containing the officially recognized and adopted colors,
patterns, or symbols used as the official symbol of a government, political, or corporate entity.
(f) FLAG LOT. An interior lot located generally to the rear of another lot but with a
narrow portion of the lot extending to the public street.
(g) FLASHING SIGN. Any directly or indirectly illuminated sign that exhibits changing
natural or artificial light or color effects by any means whatsoever.
(h) FLAT ROOF. A roof with no visible slope and no parapet.
(i) FLOOR AREA, GROSS (GFA). The sum of the gross horizontal area of the several
floors of the building measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls or from the center
line of walls separating two buildings. The gross floor area of a building shall include the
basement floor area only if more than one-half of the basement height is above finish lot grade
and/or is otherwise considered to be a half-story. Areas excluded from the definition of GFA
include any space devoted to off-street parking or loading, areas of basements (except as
provided above), breezeways, porches, or attached garages.
(j) FOR SALE/FOR LEASE SIGN. A sign indicating the sale, rental, or lease of a
structure or property.
(k) FOUNDATION CLADDING. An aesthetic enhancement to the foundation
concealing exposed portions with an approved material.
(l) FREESTANDING SIGN. See GROUND SIGN.
(m) FRIEZE BOARD. A decorated band along the upper part of an exterior wall. In
house construction a horizontal member connecting the top of the siding with the soffit of the
cornice.
(n) FRONTAGE. The orientation of a lot line or building façade along, and typically
parallel to, a street, block face or open space type. This term may also refer to the orientation
of an open space type along a street.
(o) FRONT FAÇADE. Any building face generally oriented along a front property line,
either within the front required building zone (RBZ) or behind the front setback.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
20
(p) FRONT PROPERTY LINE (FPL). The boundary of a lot within a BSC district
abutting the street right-of-way, from which the front required building zone (RBZ) or front
setback, as applicable, is measured.
(q) FURNISHINGS ZONE. A hardscape area that extends to the sidewalk from the
back of curb, edge of pavement or edge of a cycletrack, in which street trees in tree wells,
street furniture, lighting, and street signs may be located. Furnishings zones are typically used
adjacent to commercial buildings. (See also, PLANTING ZONE).
(7) General definitions - G
(a) GABLE. The vertical triangular end of a building from cornice or eaves to ridge; the
similar end of a gambrel roof; the end wall of a building; and/or a triangular part of a structure.
(b) GARAGE. An accessory building or part of a principal structure used primarily for
the storage of passenger vehicles as an accessory use.
1. ALLEY-LOADED GARAGE. A garage with vehicular access from a public or
private alley or drive typically from the rear of the property.
2. COURTYARD-STYLE GARAGE. A garage with vehicular access through an
enclosed or partially enclosed pavement area that is located to the front of a principal structure
typically providing access to a side-loaded garage.
3. FRONT-LOADED GARAGE. A garage with vehicular access doors primarily
oriented toward the same street right-of-way or private street as the front façade of the
principal structure.
4. SIDE-LOADED GARAGE. A garage with vehicular access doors primarily oriented
toward one of the side lot lines or a secondary public right-of-way or private street.
(c) GAS-INFLATABLE SIGN/DEVICE. Any device which is capable of being
expanded by any gas and used on a permanent or temporary basis to attract attention to a
product or event. This definition includes both hot and cold-air balloons tethered or otherwise
anchored to the ground.
(d) GATEWAY SIGN. A sign, typically placed along a major roadway at or near the
edge of a significant city attraction or land use, used to introduce the entry to the attraction.
(e) GOVERNMENTAL SIGN. A sign erected and maintained pursuant to and in
discharge of any government functions or required by law, ordinance, or other governmental
regulations.
(f) GREEN ROOF. A green roof, or 'living roof,' system is an extension of the existing
roof which involves a high quality water proofing and root repellant system, filter cloth, a
lightweight growing medium, and plants. Green roofs may be flat or low-slope and serve such
purposes as absorbing rainwater, providing insulation, creating a habitat for wildlife, urban
agriculture, as well as helping to lower urban air temperatures.
(g) GROUND SIGN. Any sign which is physically attached to a foundation. These are
commonly known as freestanding, pole, pylon, or monument signs.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
21
(8) General definitions - H
(a) HARD SURFACED OR PAVED AREA. Includes but is not limited to patios,
driveways, courtyards, tennis courts, basketball courts, volleyball courts, swimming pool decks
and walkways (water area excluded), and bicycle paths. Hard surfaced or paved areas may be
constructed of pervious or semi-pervious materials, which are typically not counted toward lot
coverage or are counted at a reduced percentage due to water absorption capabilities.
(b) HIGHLY TRANSPARENT LOW REFLECTANCE. Windows, doors, or other
openings in a structure allowing light and clear views between the interior and exterior of the
structure a majority of the time.
(c) HISTORIC DISTRICT. The portion of the Architectural Review District generally
referred to as Historic Dublin, and as defined by § 153.170.
(d) HISTORIC SITE. The location, structures, features or other integral part of a city,
state, or United States designated archaeological or historic site.
(e) HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT. A document providing a detailed
inventory and evaluation of relevant historic and cultural resources including the identification of
‘contributing’ and ‘non-contributing’ cultural resources. The assessment may also provide
strategies and recommendations for historic preservation.
(9) General definitions - I
(a) ILLUMINATED SIGN. Any sign lighted by or exposed to artificial lighting either by
light on or in the sign or directed toward the sign.
(b) IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. Any hard surface, man-made area that does not absorb
water, such as principal and accessory structure roofs, sidewalks, parking, driveways, and other
surfaces constructed with impermeable material.
(c) INCIDENTAL SALES. Sale of goods or services that are clearly secondary to the
principal use of the property, generally provided for the convenience of customers and
occupying less than 5% of the gross floor area of the principal use.
(d) INFORMATION SIGN. A sign displaying necessary information for the
convenience and safety of residents and visitors, and containing no advertising.
(e) INTERIOR LANDSCAPING. The use of landscape materials within the innermost
boundaries of the landscape buffer zone and perimeter landscaping.
(f) INTERIOR TREE LAWN. A continuous lawn area between rows of parking spaces.
(g) INTERRUPTING VERTICAL WALL. A wall used to define and break up vertical
building increments to reduce the overall scale of the building façade.
(10) General definitions - J
(a) JOINT IDENTIFICATION SIGN. A sign that identifies the name, through type,
graphics, or other symbols, of a shopping center, office park, industrial park, or other building
complex more than one use on the same lot or in the same structure, occasionally allowed in
addition to the permitted signs of the individual occupants.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
22
(11) General definitions - K
(12) General definitions - L
(a) LANDMARK. Any property or site which has special character, archaeological,
historical, aesthetic or architectural value as part of the heritage, development or cultural
characteristics of the city, state, or the United States designated as a landmark pursuant to the
provision of this chapter, and including all property located in the city listed on the National
Register of Historic Places.
(b) LANDSCAPED AREA. An area that is permanently devoted and maintained to the
growing of shrubbery, grass and other plant material.
(c) LANDSCAPING. The planning, installation and maintenance of a combination of
trees, shrubs, vines, ground covers, flowers (annuals/perennials), and turf. May include natural
features (e.g. stone, ponds, naturalized areas) and structural features, including fountains,
reflecting pools, sculptures/art work, walls (retaining/freestanding), fences, trellis/pergolas, and
seating areas (benches/tables/chairs). Exposed soil or other non-living organic material such as
mulch shall not constitute landscaping.
(d) LARGE FORMAT RETAIL. A retail or wholesale use of 20,000 square feet or more
of GFA.
(e) LARGE TREE. Any tree species which normally attains a full-grown height equal to
or greater than 50 feet.
(f) LIGHTING TRESPASS. A condition in which light is cast in a location that is not
permitted or at a level that is higher than permitted by this chapter.
(g) LIVABLE AREA. The total square footage of the livable area of a residential
principal use or structure for all rooms meeting Council of American Building Officials (CABO)
requirements for sleeping, living, cooking, or dining purposes, but excluding such places as
attics, basements (unless finished and meeting the aforementioned CABO requirements),
garages, and similar spaces.
(h) LIVING WALL. A hedge, hedgerow, or wall that is partially or completely covered
with vegetation.
(i) LOADING FACILITY. The portion of the building, structure, or site where access is
permitted for loading and unloading activities related to building uses.
(j) LOADING SPACE. A space dedicated for use by vehicles loading and unloading
within or adjacent to a building as required by this chapter.
(k) LOGO. See PRIMARY IMAGES and SECONDARY IMAGES.
(l) LOT. Includes the words "plot" and "parcel." A lot may or may not be specifically
designated as such on public records. A lot may also include a condominium unit and any
limited common element under and surrounding the condominium unit, which together meet
the minimum yard and area requirements of this chapter.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
23
(m) LOT, CORNER. A lot where the interior angle of two adjacent sides at the
intersection of two streets is less than 135 degrees. A lot abutting on a curved street shall be
considered a corner lot for the purposes of this chapter if the arc has a radius of less than 150
feet and the tangents to the curve form an interior angle of less than 135 degrees. The
tangents are measured at the two points where the lot lines meet the curve, or the straight
street line is extended.
(n) LOT COVERAGE. The part or percentage of the lot occupied by impervious
surfaces and semi-pervious surfaces.
(o) LOT DEPTH. The average horizontal distance between front and rear lot lines.
(p) LOT LINE.
1. GENERAL. A line bounding or demarcating a plot of land or ground as established
by a plat of record. Includes the words "property line."
2. FRONT LOT LINE. In the case of an interior lot, the front lot line separating the
lot from the street right-of-way. In the case of a corner lot, or double frontage lot, the front lot
line is the line separating the lot from either street, unless otherwise designated by a plat, PUD
or other lot line requirements of this chapter. (See also, FRONT PROPERTY LINE)
3. REAR LOT LINE. Typically, the rear lot line is the lot line opposite the front lot
line that separates the lot from an alley, rear lane, or from the rear of another lot. In the case
of a lot pointed at the rear, the rear lot line, for purposes of measuring the rear yard setback,
shall be an imaginary line parallel to the front lot line that is not less than ten feet long and lies
farthest from the front lot line and wholly within the lot.
4. SIDE LOT LINE. Any lot line other than the front lot line or rear lot line. A side lot
line separating a lot from another lot is an interior side lot line. (See also, CORNER SIDE
PROPERTY LINE).
(q) LOT, MINIMUM. A parcel of land occupied or to be occupied by a principal
structure or group of structures and accessory structures together with any yards, open spaces,
lot width and lot area required by this chapter.
(r) LOT WIDTH. In BSC districts only, the horizontal distance between side lot lines as
measured along the front property line. Lot widths meet the minimum distance required by the
building type(s) located on the lot. In all other districts, the horizontal distance between side lot
lines as measured at the two points where the building line or setback line intersects the side
lot lines. The lot widths meet the minimum distance required by the district in which the lot is
located, excluding easements for public or private streets.
(s) LUMEN. The amount of light equal to one footcandle of light falling on one square
foot of area.
(13) General definitions - M
(a) MAIN ENTRANCE. The primary door for pedestrians into the building that
provides access to the majority of the uses within the building. It is generally located on the
front façade.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
24
(b) MASONRY. Natural or natural-appearing stone or brick.
(c) MEDIUM TREE. Any tree species which normally attains a full-grown height of
between 30 and 50 feet.
(d) MID-BLOCK. The portion of the block located approximately within the middle
third of the block length.
(e) MID-BLOCK PEDESTRIANWAY. A defined pathway, dedicated to pedestrians
and separated from vehicles, that extends through a block from a street to a parallel or nearly
parallel street or alley.
(f) MID-BUILDING PEDESTRIANWAY. A pathway, dedicated to pedestrians,
intended to provide safe, well-lit, and convenient access through buildings from the public
sidewalk to the rear or side of a building. Mid-building pedestrianways may coincide with mid-
block pedestrianways.
(g) MONUMENT SIGN. A ground sign attached to a wall or a base constructed
specifically for the display of the sign. A common example is a permanent subdivision sign.
(h) MULTI-TENANT BUILDING. A building consisting of multiple tenant spaces,
typically separated by common walls within a fully enclosed portion of the building, and which
may or may not share a corridor, lobby area or other internal common space.
(14) General definitions - N
(a) NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. A list of properties by the
National Park Service that includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are
significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture.
(b) NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION. A private, nonprofit
membership organization dedicated to saving historic places and revitalizing America's
communities.
(c) NO-BUILD ZONE (NBZ). An open area where construction is prohibited. All
structures including, but not limited to buildings, parking, driveways, sidewalks, sheds,
swimming pools, patios, decks or other accessory structures, fences, antennae and basketball
courts or other sport courts are prohibited in order to preserve open space.
(d) NO DISTURB ZONE (NDZ). An area designated on a subdivision plat required to
remain free of any structures including, but not limited to, drives, walks, buildings and
outbuildings, sheds, fences, swimming pools, decks, swing sets/play structures, satellite dish
antennae, basketball courts, etc., and an area with existing natural features that cannot be
disturbed, removed, or physically altered.
(e) NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. A structure or portion thereof lawfully existing
at the effective date of this chapter or amendments thereto, which does not conform to the
provisions of this chapter for the district in which it is located.
(f) NONCONFORMING SIGN. A sign lawfully existing at the effective date of this
chapter or amendments thereto which does not conform to the requirements set forth in this
chapter for the district in which it is located.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
25
(g) NONCONFORMING USE. A use of land or a structure lawfully existing at the
effective date of this chapter or amendments thereto which does not conform to the use
requirements set forth in this chapter for the district in which it is located of a building.
(h) NONCONTRIBUTING. The status assigned to buildings and other cultural
resources that do not add to the historic architectural qualities, historic associations, or
archaeological values for which a property is significant. An assignment of “non-contributing”
status to a resource may be because the building or resource lacks historic integrity, or the
resource does not individually meet the National Register criteria.
(i) NON-STREET FAÇADE. Any building face not fronted along a street or open space
type.
(15) General definitions - O
(a) OCCUPANCY. The use or intended use of a building or structure.
(b) OCCUPIED SPACE. Interior building space regularly occupied by the building
users. It does not include storage areas, utility space, or parking.
(c) OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE. A cubical area for parking one commercial
vehicle for pickups and deliveries, located in a building or in the open on the same lot as the
use the space is intended to serve.
(d) OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE. A quadrangular area for parking one motor
vehicle, which is located in a structure or in the open, which has access to a public street and is
exclusive of the right-of-way of any public or private street or any driveway, aisle, circulation
drive or off-street loading space.
(e) OHIO HISTORIC INVENTORY. A program of the State of Ohio developed to
serve as an accurate and continuing record of the architectural and historic properties existing
in the state.
(f) OPACITY. An imaginary vertical plane extending from the established grade to a
required height in which a required percent of the vertical plane acts as a visual screen from
adjacent property use.
(g) OPAQUENESS. The degree to which a wall, fence, structure or landscaping is solid
or impenetrable to light or vision in a generally uniform pattern over its surface, usually
expressed in terms of percentage of area.
(h) OPEN HOUSE. A temporary public showing of a structure available for sale, rental,
or lease.
(i) OPEN SPACE TYPE. A park or open space as required by § 153.064.
(j) OPEN SPACE TYPE FRONTAGE. The orientation of a lot line, building façade or
block face directly adjacent to an open space type, with no intervening public or private street.
(k) ORDINARY MAINTENANCE. Exterior work which does not involve any change in
material, texture or color, design, or arrangement. Examples include repainting a house with
the same color; residing a wood building with wood-siding and painting the same color.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
26
(l) OWNER. The legal person(s) of record having ownership of or valid legal interest in
a property.
(16) General definitions - P
(a) PARALLEL RIDGE LINE. A main roof ridge line parallel to an adjacent street.
(b) PARAPET ROOF. A roof type with a low vertical wall projecting above the building
roof line along the perimeter of the building.
(c) PARKING SETBACK LINE. A line specifically established by the city, zoning
district, or subdivision plat which determines the minimum distance that parking, loading or
maneuvering may be located from a street right-of-way line.
(d) PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PLAN. A detailed plan showing the location of all
site access points, sidewalks, walkways, bicycle facilities, and travel routes expected to be used
by pedestrians.
(e) PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES. All amenities or elements including sidewalks,
walkways, benches, pedestrian lighting, and other similar facilities intended to assist or be used
by pedestrians.
(f) PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING. Lighting that improves walkway illumination for
pedestrianways.
(g) PEDESTRIAN PATH. A sidewalk, path, walkway or other similar facility that is
intended for ordinary use by pedestrians.
(h) PEDESTRIAN REALM. That portion of the street right-of-way typically comprised
of the streetscape, including pedestrian facilities, such as a sidewalk, path/trail, or off-street
bicycle facility, and a street buffer such as a planting zone or furnishings zone.
(i) PEDESTRIANWAY. A pathway designed for use by pedestrians, located mid-block
or within the middle-third of a building or structure, allowing pedestrian movement from one
street to another without traveling along the block's perimeter.
(j) PENNANT. A flag or banner often longer at one end then the other, usually
tapering to a point(s).
(k) PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONE. That area adjacent to any vehicular
use area or along common boundaries in which the perimeter landscape requirements of this
chapter are to be met.
(l) PERIMETER LANDSCAPING. The use of landscape materials within the perimeter
landscape buffer zone to achieve the required opacity.
(m) PERMANENT SIGN. Any sign permanently attached or affixed to a building or the
ground, as permitted by this chapter.
(n) PERMANENT STRUCTURE. Any structure that is not a temporary structure.
(o) PERSON. Includes any association, firm, partnership, trust, governmental body,
corporation, or organization, as well as an individual.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
27
(p) PERSONAL AUTOMOBILE. Any vehicle that seats fewer than ten passengers, is
registered as a passenger vehicle or a non-commercial truck, and is used for the sole purpose
of transporting resident(s) and guest(s) to and from daily activities.
(q) PERVIOUS SURFACE. A paved or non-paved area that allows water to filter into
the ground.
(r) PITCHED ROOF. A roof with a slope that includes, but is not limited to, hipped,
gable, mansard and gambrel roofs.
(s) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD). A form of a planned development that
includes one or more uses permitted by right or as conditional uses and which is established
according to the requirements of § 153.052, or was approved as a PUD prior to the adoption of
these regulations.
(t) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, or COMMISSION. The Planning and
Zoning Commission of the city.
(u) PLANTING ZONE. A landscape area that extends to the sidewalk from the back of
curb, edge of pavement or edge of a cycletrack, in which street trees, swales, lighting, and
street signs may be located. Sidewalks may cross the planting zone. Planting zones are typically
used adjacent to residential buildings. (See also, FURNISHINGS ZONE)
(v) PLINTH. A continuous, usually projecting course of stone or brick forming the base
or foundation of a wall.
(w) POLE SIGN. See GROUND SIGN.
(x) POLITICAL SIGN. A sign concerning candidates for elective office, public issues
and similar matters to be decided by the public at an election.
(y) PORTABLE SIGN. Any sign that is designed to be or capable of being moved or
transported, and not permanently affixed or attached to any building, structure, or grounds.
(z) PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN. A plan, submitted at the time of rezoning
to a PUD or BSD project, outlining permitted and conditional land uses, development sites,
major circulation patterns, critical natural areas to be preserved, open space areas and linkages,
buffer areas, entryways, and major utilities and their relationship with surrounding uses. For the
purposes of §§ 153.050 through 153.056, a preliminary development plan shall include a
composite plan and any other development plan adopted prior to effective date of these
regulations that are still in force.
(aa) PRESERVE or PRESERVATION. The process, including maintenance, of treating
an existing building to arrest or slow future deterioration, stabilizing the structure and providing
structural safety without changing or adversely affecting the character or appearance of the
structure.
(bb) PRIMARY FAÇADE MATERIAL. The permitted building material or materials
used for the majority of the façades of a building.
(cc) PRIMARY IMAGE. The name of the use or business identified on a sign. (See
also SECONDARY IMAGE)
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
28
(dd) PRINCIPAL FRONTAGE STREET. A street designated to establish the street
frontage orientation of lots and building façades. Principal frontage streets are intended to
create pedestrian-oriented block faces by establishing continuous street-facing façades with
limited driveway interruptions. Front lot lines and front façades are oriented along principal
frontage streets, and the building address is typically designated along these frontages.
(ee) PRINCIPAL ENTRANCE. The primary door into the building for pedestrians for
which access is available to the majority of the uses within the building. It is generally located
on the front façade.
(ff) PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. Any building or structure in which the principal use of
the lot or parcel takes place.
(gg) PRINCIPAL USE. The main or primary use of a property, building, or site.
(hh) PRODUCT SIGN. A sign typically located in a window, advertising a product or
service offered by a business.
(ii) PROJECTED IMAGE. An image projected onto a building, structure, or sign.
(jj) PROJECTING SIGN. A sign that is wholly or partly dependent upon a building for
support or suspended from a pole attached to a building and extending 14 inches or more from
the building or structure. Projecting signs are typically installed perpendicular lo the building
face upon which they are attached.
(kk) PROJECTION. Any component of a structure that extends out from the principal
structure.
(ll) PROMOTIONAL SIGNS. A temporary sign that provides information regarding
time, place, and the like of a special event, community activity or similar activity.
(mm) PROTECTED TREE. Any tree having a diameter of six inches DBH or larger or
having an aggregate diameter of 15 inches DBH or larger or a tree which has been designated
by the city to be of high value or interest to the city because of its location or historic
association, or other professional criteria.
(nn) PYLON SIGN. See GROUND SIGN.
(17) General definitions - Q
(a) QUOIN. Corner stones that anchor the edge of the building wall or decorative
feature to imitate corner stones, which wrap around the corner of an elevation and join two
abutting walls.
(18) General definitions - R
(a) RACEWAY. An elongated metal enclosure used to mount individual channel
lettering and to conceal related transformers and wiring.
(b) RAIN BARREL. An above-ground prefabricated storage receptacle with an
automatic overflow diversion system that collects and stores storm water runoff from the roof
of a structure that would have been otherwise routed into a storm drain.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
29
(c) RECREATIONAL VEHICLE. Any motorized vehicle and/or associated non-
motorized equipment used for camping, traveling, boating, or other leisure activities including,
but not limited to campers, boats, travel trailers, motor buses (more than nine passengers),
motor homes, snow mobiles, wave runners, and other vehicles designed for traveling on water
(motorized and non-motorized). Trailers used for transporting this type of vehicle are also
included within this definition.
(d) REFACING. Any alteration to the face of a sign involving the replacement of
materials or parts. REFACING does not refer to replacing the entire sign structure or the
removal of the sign.
(e) REMOVE or REMOVAL (TREES). The causing or accomplishing of the actual
physical removal of a tree, or the effective removal through damaging, poisoning, or other
direct or indirect action resulting in, or likely to result in, the death of a tree.
(f) REQUIRED BUILDING ZONE (RBZ). An area in which the front or corner façade
of a building is required to be placed. The zone dictates the minimum and maximum distance a
structure may be placed from a property line.
(g) REQUIRED REVIEWING BODY. The Administrative Review Team, City Council,
Planning and Zoning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or Board of Zoning Appeals when
required by § 153.066 to render a final decision on any application required for development
within the BSC districts.
(h) ROOF.
1. PRINCIPAL ROOF. The roofed area of a building enclosed by the main rafters,
as opposed to the common rafters.
2. ROOF DECK. In a typical roof system, the roof deck is the roofing material layer
between the primary structural components (trusses & joists) and either insulative layers or
weatherproofing layers.
3. ROOF HEIGHT. The height of a roof as required to be measured by this chapter.
4. ROOF LINE. The uppermost line or point of the façade or parapet of a flat roof
structure, or the lower edge of an eave, gable or rake of a sloped roof structure.
(i) ROOF SIGN. Any sign erected on or above the roof line of a building.
(19) General definitions - S
(a) SANDWICH BOARD SIGN. A sign with two hinged boards which is intended to
be placed on the ground.
(b) SEATS. The number of seating units installed or indicated on plans, or each 30
lineal inches of stands, benches or pews. Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, it is
assumed that a seating unit occupies seven square feet of floor area for fixed seating and 15
square feet of floor area for uses without fixed seating, exclusive of aisles and assembly areas.
(c) SECONDARY FAÇADE MATERIAL. The permitted material or materials used to
accent a building's primary façade materials.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
30
(d) SECONDARY IMAGE. Any and all text, graphics, or images displayed on a sign in
addition to the name of the use or business, including but not limited to registered/copyrighted
images or text, pictorial representations, tag lines, products and phone numbers.
(e) SECTION. In the text, the term SECTION refers to the numeral under which it
appears in this subchapter.
(f) SECURED. A building which has all points of entry into the structure closed by use
of windows and doors which are in proper working order, intact, without holes, broken
elements, and are locked.
(g) SEMI-PERVIOUS SURFACE. A material that allows for absorption of water into
the ground or plant material, such as pervious pavers, permeable asphalt and concrete, or
gravel.
(h) SERVICE STRUCTURES. Structures including, but not limited to, loading docks,
storage tanks, dumpsters, electrical transformers, utility vaults which extend above the surface,
cooling towers, roof top units and other equipment or elements providing service to a building
or a site.
(i) SETBACK. The minimum distance required by this chapter from the property line
and/or right-of-way line to the nearest part of the applicable building, structure, or sign,
measured perpendicularly to the property line and/or right-of-way line. May also be referred to
as the building line.
(j) SHADOW LINE. A decorative, three dimensional, linear architectural element,
horizontal or vertical, protruding or indented from the exterior façade of a building enough to
create a shadow. It is typically utilized to delineate stories of a building.
(k) SHALL. Is mandatory.
(l) SHOPPING CORRIDOR. Continuous mixed use street frontage with retail uses
occupying the ground floor of buildings located on streets with a highly articulated pedestrian
realm.
(m) SIGN. A sign is defined as any name, number, symbol, identification, description,
display, illustration, object, graphic, sign structure, or part thereof, whether permanent or
temporary, which is affixed to, painted on, represented directly or indirectly upon, or projected
onto a building, structure, lot, or other device, whether mobile or affixed to the ground, and
which directs attention to any object, product, place, activity, person, institution, organization,
or business. Signs regulated by this chapter includes all signs visible from any public right-of-
way or adjacent property, including interior signs oriented towards the exterior façade of any
building or structure as well as back-lighted translucent panels or strip lighting affixed to any
wall or roof which serves to identify and attract attention rather than illuminate space for
human activity.
(n) SIGN FACE. The surface intended for the display of information on the sign.
(o) SIGN STRUCTURE. The supporting unit of a sign face, including, but not limited
to, frames, braces and poles.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
31
(p) SITE. Any defined space or ground, including ground occupied by buildings,
parking areas, service areas, undeveloped lands, and ground adjacent to structures.
(q) SITE PLAN. Includes the documents and drawings required by this chapter to
ensure that a proposed land use or activity is in compliance with city requirements and state
and federal statutes.
(r) SMALL TREE. Tree species which normally attains a full-grown height of under 30
feet.
(s) SOFFIT. The exposed undersurface of any overhead component of a building.
(t) STACKING SPACE. A space designed to be occupied by a vehicle while waiting to
order or to be served at a drive-through window or drive-up ATMs, or while waiting to enter a
parking lot, parking structure, fuel station, dispensing station, or loading area.
(u) STOREFRONT. The portion of a building façade serving as the front elevation of
an individual tenant space, including an entrance and windows providing physical and visual
access into the tenant space, typically limited to the ground story and located along a street-
facing façade.
(v) STORY. A habitable level within a building measured from finished floor to finished
floor.
1. GROUND STORY. The first floor of a building that is level to or elevated above
the finished grade on the front and corner façades, excluding basements or cellars, accessible
from the established grade through the use of a ramp or steps.
2. HALF STORY. A story either in the base of the building, partially below and
partially above grade (visible basement), or a story fully within the roof structure with
transparency facing the street.
3. UPPER STORY. The floors located above the ground story of a building, including
any half-stories within the roof structure.
(w) STREAMER. A ribbon-shaped or cord-like rope which may have pennants and/or
banners attached and which is stretched or hung between two or more supports.
(x) STREET FAÇADE. A building face with frontage along and typically parallel to a
public street. Street façades are designated as either front or corner façades, and are oriented
in relation to the front or corner side property lines.
(y) STREET FRONTAGE. The orientation of a lot line, building façade, block face or
open space type along, and typically parallel to, a public street. A building façade oriented
along a street frontage is also referred to as the street façade.
(z) STREETSCAPE. The various components that make up the pedestrian realm, both
in the right-of-way and along private lot frontages within required building zones, including tree
lawns, pavement, parking spaces, planting areas, street furniture, street trees, streetlights,
sidewalks, front yard fences, etc.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
32
(aa) STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY. The public or private right-of-way permitting
associated streetscape elements and typically consisting of both a vehicular and pedestrian
realm.
(bb) STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE. A line that separates the street right-of-way
from a contiguous property.
(cc) STREET TERMINATION. The point at which a street ends, requiring vehicles,
bicycles, and pedestrians to turn the corner of a block.
(dd) STREET TYPE. Required street configurations with specific combinations of right-
of-way, pavement width, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, travel lanes, and parking lanes
intended to result in a desired street character.
(ee) STREET WALL. An opaque, freestanding wall or an opaque combination of
landscaping and fencing, built along the frontage line, or along the same building line as the
building façade, typically intended to screen vehicular use areas or service areas and/or to
define the pedestrian realm.
(ff) STRUCTURE. Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires
permanent location on the ground, or attachment to something having permanent location on
the ground, including advertising signs, billboards, mobile homes (located for occupancy on a
permanent foundation) and other construction or erection with special function or form, except
fences or walks. Includes the word "building."
(gg) STRUCTURE, PRINCIPAL. A structure in which is conducted the principal use of
the lot on which it is situated.
(hh) STUCCO. A coarse plaster composed of Portland or masonry cement, sand, and
hydrated lime mixed with water and applied in a plastic state to form a hard exterior covering.
(ii) SUBORDINATE. A building or structure that is secondary or incidental to the
primary building, structure, or use on a lot.
(20) General definitions - T
(a) TENANT SPACE. A designated area within a building dedicated to an individual
tenant, whether by condominium ownership or a contractual relationship between an owner
and renter or lessee, where the renter or lessee is considered a primary tenant. Typically, a
tenant space is not directly accessible to other tenant spaces through an internal doorway, but
may be accessible via a common corridor or lobby area.
(b) TERMINAL VISTA. The result of a "T", "L", or "Y" shaped street intersection or a
change in street alignment or topography where the views down a street terminate at a lot or
parcel instead of continuing down the street.
(c) THROUGH LOT. A lot, with the exception of a corner lot, that has frontage on two
public streets, not including alleys or service lanes.
(d) TOWER. A vertical element of a building or structure, generally rectilinear or
cylindrical in plan, which extends above the rest of the building or structure. Communication
towers and wireless communication structures are not included in this definition.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
33
(e) TRAILBLAZER SIGN. A government sign typically within the public right-of-way
identifying company logos for lodging, gasoline stations, restaurants and other such
establishments.
(f) TRAILER SIGN. Any sign which is attached to, supported by, or part of a structure
which is designed to move on trailer wheels, skids, or other similar devices, or transported,
pushed, or pulled by a motor vehicle.
(g) TRANSPARENCY. The ability to see through with clarity. An opening in the
building wall allowing light and views between interior and exterior for a majority of the
time. Measured as glass area for buildings and as open area for parking structures.
(h) TREE. Any self-supporting woody plant together with its root system, growing upon
the earth usually with one trunk, or multi-stemmed trunk system, supporting a definitely formed
crown.
(i) TREE LAWN. That part of a street not covered by sidewalk, bikepath, or other
paving, lying between the property line and that portion of the street right-of-way that is paved
and usually used for vehicular traffic.
(j) TREE PRESERVATION AREA. The area of a parcel of land in which all trees shall
be protected during all phases of construction.
(k) TREE PRESERVATION PLAN. A proposal which includes a tree survey and a
written plan with text and/or graphic illustrations indicating the methods which are to be used
to preserve existing trees during construction, and methods for ongoing maintenance, including
fertilizing and pruning.
(l) TREE PRESERVATION ZONE. An area designated on a subdivision plat with
restrictions noted regarding the removal of trees.
(m) TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. The permit required by this chapter to be issued in
order to remove any protected tree within the corporate limits of the city.
(n) TREE SURVEY. A graphic display drawn to scale, not to exceed 1" = 50', showing
all existing trees on a site with a six-inch DBH or greater, species, conditions, and outline of the
critical root zones.
(o) TREE WELL. An opening in a sidewalk to accommodate street trees and other
understory plantings such as perennials, groundcover, ornamental grass, and low growing
shrubs. Tree wells are typically covered by an approved grate or other covering.
(p) TRIM. The finished woodwork or similar architectural element used to enhance,
border or protect the edges of openings or surfaces, such as windows or doors.
(q) TURRET. A small tower, characteristically corbelled from a corner.
(21) General definitions - U
(a) USED OR OCCUPIED. As applied to any land or structure intended, arranged or
designed to be used or occupied.
(22) General definitions - V
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
34
(a) VACANT STRUCTURE. Any building or structure, in whole or in part, including an
accessory building, which has become vacant or abandoned for a period of at least thirty (30)
consecutive days and which also meet at least one of the following conditions:
(1) Is open to casual entry or trespass;
(2) Is damaged to an extent which prohibits safe human occupancy;
(3) Demonstrates a lack of property maintenance and upkeep;
(4) Is under notice for being in violation of City ordinances;
(5) Has been secured or boarded up for at least thirty days;
(6) Has utilities disconnected or not in use;
(7) Is under a condemnation notice or legal order to vacate; or
(8) Is structurally unsound.
(b) VEHICULAR REALM. That portion of the street right-of-way comprised of vehicle
travel lanes, on-street bicycle facilities, and on-street parking lanes.
(c) VEHICULAR USE AREA. Any open or unenclosed area containing more than 1,800
square feet of area and/or used by six or more vehicles of any type, whether moving or at rest,
including, but not limited to, driveways, parking lots, loading and unloading areas, parking and
maneuvering areas within manufactured home parks, and sales and service areas.
(d) VERTICAL GARDEN. See LIVING WALL.
(e) VINYL SIDING ACCESSORIES. Exterior secondary design elements that serve to
provide more visual interest and complement the primary home design.
(f) VISIBLE BASEMENT. A half story partially below grade and partially exposed
above grade with required transparency provided on the street façade.
(g) VISION REPORT. The Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report adopted by City Council
and as amended.
(23) General definitions - W
(a) WALL LIGHTING. Accent, emergency, or safety lights intended to illuminate
portions of a building façade.
(b) WALL SIGN. Any sign attached to or erected against the inside or outside wall of a
building or structure, with the exposed display surface of the sign in a plane parallel to the
plane of the building or structure and extending less than 14 inches from the building or
structure.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
35
(c) WATER TABLE. A projecting brick or stone stringcourse, molding or ledge placed
to divert rainwater from a building.
(d) WINDOW SIGN. Any signs, posters, symbols and other types of identification or
information about the use or premises directly attached to the window of a building or erected
on the inside of the building and visible from any public area or adjacent property.
(24) General definitions - X
(25) General definitions -Y
(a) YARD.
1. FRONT YARD. An area extending the full width of the lot, the depth of which is
the minimum horizontal distance between the front lot line and the nearest point of a principal
structure.
2. REAR YARD. An area extending the full width of the lot the depth of which is the
minimum horizontal distance between the rear lot line and the nearest point of the principal
structure.
3. SIDE YARD. An area between the side line of the lot and the principal structure
extending from the front lot line to the rear lot line.
(26) General definitions - Z
(a) ZONING DISTRICT. A portion of the city within which certain uses of land and/or
structures are permitted and within which certain regulations and requirements apply under the
provisions of this chapter.
1. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. The Restricted Suburban Residential District, the
Limited Suburban Residential District, the Suburban Residential District (R-3), the Suburban
Residential District (R-4). The Two-Family Residential District, the Urban Residential District, the
BSC Residential district, the BSC Historic Residential district and all Planned Districts with
predominantly residential uses.
2. NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. All districts not listed under RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT.
(b) ZONING ORDINANCE, or ZONING CODE, or CODE. This chapter.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
36
153.058(B)(5) BSD Historic Core
This district applies to the historic center of Dublin and reinforces the character of this area as
the 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.
153.058(B)(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 support a highly walkable setting, as listed in Table 153.059-A.
153.058(B)(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.
153.058(B)(8)(5) BSD Sawmill Center Neighborhood
153.058(B)(9)(6) BSD Historic Transition Neighborhood
This district complements the BSD HD 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 HD Historic Core district, as listed in
Table 153.059-A. Development allows an extension of the walkable mixed use character of the
BSD HD 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 HD Historic Code
district.
153.058(B)(10)(7) BSD Indian Run Neighborhood
153.058(B)(11) (8) BSD Scioto River Neighborhood
153.058(B)(12) (9) BSD Vertical Mixed Use
153.058(B)(13) (10) BSD Public
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
37
Table 153.059-A: Permitted and Conditional Uses in BSD Districts
Delete columns: Historic Core, Historic South, Historic Residential
153.059(C)(1)(a) 5. Single-family dwellings in the BSD Historic Residential District shall meet
the requirements of §153.063(B) and shall not be required to meet the standards of
§153.062(O)(1).
153.059(C)(3)(c)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 Historic South, BSD Office, BSD
Office Residential, and BSD Residential districts, unless otherwise permitted as a conditional
use.
153.059(C)(3)(e)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.
153.059(C)(3)(j)1. 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.
153.059(C)(4)(f) 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.
153.059(C)(4)(j) 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. 1. Ground-mounted equipment for the collection of geothermal energy is permitted only to
the rear of and within five feet of the principal structure.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
38
3. 2. 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. 3. Building-mounted renewable energy equipment shall be integrated into the architectural
character of the principal structure.
5. 4. 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.
TABLE 153.060-A. MAXIMUM BLOCK DIMENSIONS
Delete rows: Historic Core, Historic South, Historic Residential
153.062 (B)(2)(f)
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.
TABLE 153.062-A. PERMITTED BUILDING TYPES IN EACH BSD ZONING DISTRICT
Delete columns: Historic Core, Historic South, Historic Residential
153.062(D)(2)(f) Roof Heights
1. In the BSD Historic Core district, roofs without occupied space and/or dormers shall have a
maximum height on street-facing elevations equal to the maximum floor height permitted for
the building type, or as otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board.
2. 1. In all other districts, rRoofs without occupied space and/or dormers shall be a maximum of
one and a half times the maximum floor height permitted for the building type on street-facing
façades, unless otherwise appropriate to the building type and location.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
39
153.062(D)(3) Flat Roof
(a) Flat roofs are permitted in all districts. except the BSD Historic Core district, unless
otherwise determined by the required reviewing body to be architecturally appropriate.
153.062(E)(1) Materials
(f) EIFS and architectural metal panels and cladding shall not be used in the Historic Core
district.
153.062 (O)(11)(b) Height: Maximum Height: 5 stories; 3 stories in BSD Historic Core District
153.062 (O)(1)
Notes: 1 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.
2 1 Garage doors shall be no taller than nine feet. No single garage door shall be wider than 18
feet.
3 2 Where alley/service street access is not feasible at the determination of the City Engineer,
driveways for single-family detached buildings shall meet the requirements of §153.210, except
that driveways shall be limited to 10 feet in width at the right-of-way.
153.063(A)(3) The BSD Historic Transition Neighborhood District serves as a bridge between
the existing historic scale of the BSD HD Historic Core District and the more contemporary,
larger scale of the BSD Indian Run Neighborhood District.
153.063(B) BSD HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(1) Development Intent
While included as part of the Neighborhood Standards, it is the intent of this district to maintain
the existing conditions of this important neighborhood. The BSD Historic Residential
neighborhood represents a snapshot in time that should be maintained, preserved, and
protected.
(2) The following standards for arrangement and development of land and buildings are
required.
(a) Lot Area
For each dwelling unit, there shall be a lot area not less than 8,712 square feet (0.2-acre).
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
40
(b) Lot Width
Lots shall be a minimum of 60 feet in width with a minimum frontage of 60 feet along a
public street.
(c) Height
No residential structure shall exceed 35 feet in height. Maximum height for other
structures shall not exceed a safe height as determined by the Fire Chief and as reviewed
and accepted by the Architectural Review Board.
(d) Lot Coverage
Combined square footage of all principal and accessory structures and impervious surfaces
shall not exceed 50% of the lot area, unless otherwise approved by the Architectural
Review Board.
(e) Front, Side, and Rear Yards
All lots shall have minimum setbacks as noted in Table 153.063-A.
153.063(C)(B)BSD SAWMILL CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
153.063(D)(C)BSD HISTORIC TRANSITION NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
1. Development Intent
The Historic Transition Neighborhood presents a unique opportunity within the Bridge Street
District. Transitional elements include building on the BSD HD Historic Core District’s strong
gridded pedestrian and street network and providing appropriate connections to the BSD Indian
Run Neighborhood. A balance of land uses will be important to support the smaller scale retail,
service, and entertainment uses in the BSD HD Historic Core. Other limited areas of BSD
Historic Transition Neighborhood border the Historic District and require sensitive treatment to
maintain complementary relationships to adjacent districts.
153.063(E)(D)BSD INDIAN RUN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
153.063(F)(E)BSD SCIOTO RIVER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
153.063(D)(4)(b) Building Height
Buildings located across a street from or adjacent to the BSD HD Historic Core District shall be
limited to two and a half stories.
153.063(D)(5)(a) Historic Sites and Structures
Historic sites and structures listed on the National Register and/or the Ohio Historic Inventory
shall be preserved to the extent practicable with redevelopment unless otherwise approved by
the Architectural Review Board pursuant to §153.171 Planning and Zoning Commission.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
41
153.063(D)(6)(b) Open Space Character
1. The BSD Historic Transition Neighborhood District is intended to complement the BSD HD
Historic Core District by accommodating a variety of building types within a finer grained street
and block network and uses consistent with the district. Development shall be planned to allow
an extension of the walkable mixed use character of the BSD HD Historic Core District.
153.065(D)(4)(a)
2. With the exception of the BSD HD Historic Core district, when a non-residential land use is
adjacent to a parcel containing only single-family detached building types (regardless of
whether there is an intervening street, alley, or driveway).
153.065(E)(2)(b)
3. Street walls in the BSD Historic Core shall be constructed as stacked stone walls, unless
otherwise approved by the required reviewing body.
4. 3. Street walls shall be a minimum of 22 inches where seating is intended; all other street
walls shall be a minimum of 30 inches. No street wall shall exceed 36 inches in height.
5.4. Street walls are prohibited in required sight visibility triangles for site access points as
defined in Appendix C and are prohibited in required sight visibility triangles for street
intersections as determined by the City Engineer.
153.065 (H)(1)(d) BSD Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood Districts
The purpose of signs in these this districts is to provide for pedestrian-oriented signs that match
the general character and scale of Dublin’s original village commercial center. Signs should
provide business identification in a manner consistent with the historic appearance and
character of the districts, while encouraging a more interesting streetscape.
153.065 (H)(3)(d) BSD Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood Districts
1. Signs in these districts shall be subject to the requirements of §153.065(H)(4) through (7) as
applicable, unless a master sign plan is approved by the required reviewing body Architectural
Review Board (ARB) (refer to §153.065(H)(2)(b)6).
2. All new ground and building-mounted signs in those parts of the BSD Historic Core and
Historic Transition districts that fall within the Architectural Review District boundaries shall be
subject to review and approval by the required reviewing body Architectural Review Board.
DRAFT HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT
1/7/21 – Clean Version
42
153.065 (H)(6) Number of Permitted Signs
Refer to §153.065(H)(6)(d) for the number of signs permitted in the BSD Historic Core and
Historic Transition Neighborhood Districts and to §§153.150 through 153.163 for the BSD
Historic Residential district. For all other BSD zoning districts, the number of permitted signs
shall be in accordance with subsections §153.065(H)(6)(a)-(c). Refer to Table 153.065-G, Sign
Types Permitted in BSD zoning districts, for the list of permitted signs and the intent of each
sign type.
153.065(H)(7)(c)1. In addition to any other permitted signs, one building identification sign is
permitted per street frontage for buildings with three or more stories. Building identification
signs are not permitted in the BSD Historic Residential, Historic Core, or portions of the Historic
Transition Neighborhood districts that fall within the Architectural Review District boundaries
unless approved by the required reviewing body Architectural Review Board through a master
sign plan (refer to §153.065(H)(2)(b)6).
TABLES 153.065-H, 153.065-I, 153.065-J, and 153.065-K
Modify Headers: BSD Historic Core District; and BSD Public and Historic Transition
Neighborhood Districts within the Architectural Review District Boundaries
153.066 (N) (6) Architectural Review Board Authority
Until otherwise amended, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) shall be the required reviewing
body for the following districts: BSC Historic Core, Historic Residential, Historic South, and
Historic Transition Neighborhood, as outlined in §153.170 through 153.180 in the Codified
Ordinances. The ARB shall be sole authority for Waivers and Master Sign Plans in the above
noted zoning districts, pursuant to the standards and criteria in §153.066.
153.066 (N) (7) (6) Single-Family Detached Homes
Proposed Appendix F Architectural Review DistrictARB: Recommendation of approval to PZC - November 18, 2020
PROPOSED APPENDIX G
Properties Outside Architectural Review District
ARB: Recommendation of approval to PZC - November 18, 2020
1.Brand, Asher Residence – 5281 Brand Road
2.Coffman, Fletcher House – 6659 Coffman Road
3.Cramer Homestead – 5927 Rings Road
4.Davis, James Barn & Farm – 5707 Dublin Road
5.Dun, John Homestead – 8055 Dublin-Bellepoint
6.Gelpi Residence (Dublin Arts Council) – 7125 Riverside Drive
7.Holder-Wright Earthworks – 6985 Emerald Parkway
8.Llewellyn Farms Barn – 4845 Belfield Drive
9.Maroa Wilcox Memorial – Norn Street & Woerner-Temple (PID 273-009779)
10. Mitchell Barn (Earlington Park) – 5585 Brand Road
11. Mitchell Cemetery (on Cardinal Health Campus) – Emerald Parkway (PID
273011174)
12. Mt. Zion Cemetery – Kinross Court and Memorial Drive (PID 273000448)
13. Rings Farm – 6665 Shier Rings Road
14. St. John’s Lutheran Cemetery – Avery Road (PID 274000024)
15. St. John’s Lutheran Church & Sandy Corners Cemetery – Rings Road (PID
274000155 and 274000031)
16. Summit View Farm – 8115 Conine Drive
17. Tuller Barn – Brand and Ashbaugh Road
18. Washington Township School (Graham Residence) – 4915 Brand Road
19. Brown-Harris Cemetery - Lot 6 - University Boulevard, Phase II
20. Ferris Cemetery - SR 257 (Riverside Drive) at Bright Road
21. 5436 Dublin Road (House and Cabin)
22. 5051 Brand Road (Home)
T u l l e r R i d g e D r
N o r t h S t B a n k e r D rP in n e y h il l L nFra
nkl
i
n StMi
l
l
LnJ o h n W r i g h t L n S Blacksmith LnDarby StN Riv
ervie
w St
Karrer Pl
S h o r t S t
Waterford Dr
R o c k C r e s s P k w y
C l o v e r C t Longshore StOld Spring Ln St
onefence LnS Ri
vervi
ew StMonterey DrRivervie
w St
Indian Run Dr
H i g h S c h o o l R d
Dublin RdW B r i d g e S t
S High StN High StE B r i d g e S t UV33 UV161
UV33
UV257
UV33
UV745
UV257
UV33
UV257
0 250125Feet F
Existing Historic Dublin Zoning Map
Zoning Districts
BSD-HTN
BSD-P
R-2
BSD-HR
BSD-HC
BSD-HS
Proposed Historic Dublin Zoning Map
ARB: Recommendation of approval with conditions to PZC - November 18, 2020
Zoning Districts D HD-HR
: -HD-HS
-HD-HC
' -HD-P
R-2
Proposed Rezoning Parcel List
ARB: Recommendation of approval with conditions to PZC - November 18, 2020
Bridge Street District – Public (BSD-P) to Historic Public (HP)
273000001, 273010936, 273000057, 273000044, 273000025, 273000122, 273000113,
273000096, 273000124, 273000137, 273011235, 273000170, 273000077, 273005566,
273003513, 273000143
Bridge Street District – Historic Transition Neighborhood (BSD-HTN) to Historic Public (HP)
273005564, 273005565, 273012538, 273012539, 273000049
Bridge Street District – Historic Core (BSD-HC) to Historic Core (HC)
273000027, 273000028, 273004081, 273004080, 273012537, 273000003, 273000100,
273000099, 273000071, 273000016, 273000053, 273000069, 273000177, 273000138,
273000029, 273000050, 273000054, 273000112, 273000002, 273012261, 273012260,
273000023, 273000036, 273000084, 273003680, 273000310, 273000018, 273012160,
HOA380061, HOA379897, 273000088, 273012432, 273012158, 273012431, 273000022,
273009979, 273000037, 273000062, 273012387, 273012386, HOA380161, 273012388,
273012389, 273000111, 273000072, 273000089, 273000008, 273000056, 273000102,
273000040, 273000051
Bridge Street District – Historic South (BSD-HS) to Historic South (HS)
273000094, 273000093, 273000092, 273000087, 273000097, 273000259, 273000014,
273000074, 273000061, 273000086, 273000052, 273000035, 273000007, 273000005,
273000104, 273000070, 273000034, 273000075, 273002075, 273000043, 273000063,
273000085, 273000066, 273001978
Bridge Street District – Historic Residential (BSD-HR) to Historic Residential (HR)
273000047, 273000079, 273000080, 273000048, 273000045, 273000039, 273003410,
273000315, 273000262, 273001684, 273000033, 273000286, 273000060, 273000059,
273000091, 273000090, 273012745, 273012746, 273000139, 273000118, 273000078,
273000067, 273000141, 273009732, 273000144, 273009733, 273000081, 273009734,
273012300, 273012301, 273011175, 273000324, 273000101, 273000031, 273000415,
273000013, 273000256, 273000019, 273000083, 273000046, 273000106, 273000015,
273000135, 273000135, 273000131, 273000129, 273000127, 273000125, 273000136,
273000134, 273000132, 273000130, 273000128, 273000126, 273000123, 273000121,
273000109
Bridge Street District – Historic Core (BSD-HC) to Historic Residential (HR)
273000032, 273000042, 273000068, 273000073, 273000098, 273000107
Bridge Street District – Historic Transition Neighborhood (BSD-HTN) to remain Bridge Street
District – Historic Transition Neighborhood (BSD-HTN)
273013000, 273012999, 273012984, 273012983, 273012725, 273013025, 273012725,
273012724, 273012982
1
Nichole Martin
From:PZ - Public Comments <no-reply@wufoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 7, 2021 4:30 PM
To:Nichole Martin; Jennifer Rauch; Tammy Noble
Subject:Planning & Zoning Commission - Public Comments [#32]
⚠ This message is from an external source. Please exercise caution when opening attachments or opening
web links from external senders, especially if the message is unsolicited or unexpected. If you feel this
may be a phishing attempt, please forward the message to Support Services for assistance.
Name * Kathleen Bryan
Email * kathleenbryan1@gmail.com
Address *
84 S. Riverview St.
Dublin, OH 43017
United States
Phone Number (614) 306-2266
Case Number or Name * Code Review
Public Comment * Thank you for taking the time to consider the changes recommended by
the Architectural Review Board to the Code for Dublin. Great time and
care has been given to the changes before you tonight. The ARB held
several meetings throughout the past year, inviting and encouraging
public input. We feel the changes recommended will help preserve and
protect Historic Dublin while providing opportunities for home owners
to upgrade and enhance their properties.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Bryan, Chair
Architectural Review Board
1
Nichole Martin
From:PZ - Public Comments <no-reply@wufoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 6, 2021 10:15 AM
To:Nichole Martin; Claudia Husak; Jennifer Rauch
Subject:Planning & Zoning Commission - Public Comments [#31]
⚠ This message is from an external source. Please exercise caution when opening attachments or opening
web links from external senders, especially if the message is unsolicited or unexpected. If you feel this
may be a phishing attempt, please forward the message to Support Services for assistance.
Name * Denise King
Email * denisefranzking@yahoo.com
Address
*
170 S Riverview St
Dublin, OH 43017
United States
Phone
Number
(614) 561-9939
Case
Number
or
Name *
Historic District-Zoning Code Updates 19-007 ADMC & Rezoning 20-188Z
Public Comment *
As a resident of the Historic District and active member of the community, I want the P & Z Commission members to
know that the process for considering, negotiating and finalizing the Code updates and zoning for the HD has been
fulsome. From 2018 to now there have been about 18 meetings, some large, some small, on these issues and the HD
Guidelines. Anyone from anywhere in Dublin, residents and business owners have had ample opportunities for input.
The issues most important to the HD and Franklin residents are maintaining the character, scale, height, lot coverage,
setbacks and sightlines that make the HD what it is. There was a lot of give and take and a lot of buy-in to bring the
code and zoning to what is presented to you today. Please build on this comprehensive effort by adding your blessing
and forwarding them to City Council for adoption. We've talked and talked. Its time to act. Thank you. Denise Franz
King, 170 S Riverview St.