Resolution 28-21
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager
Date: May 18, 2021
Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
Re: Resolution 28-21 – Acceptance of Historic Design Guidelines replacing the
Historic Dublin Design Guidelines applicable to Historic Dublin and outlying
historic properties identified in Appendix G (Case #18-037ADM)
Summary
This is a request for acceptance of a Historic Design Guidelines replacing 2005 Historic Dublin
Design Guidelines that were originally adopted in 1999. The Guidelines are a companion
document to the Architectural Review District Zoning Code amendments (Ord. 03-21) and
Historic District Rezoning (Ord. 04-21), which were approved by City Council at the February
22, 2021 meeting and effective on March 23, 2021.
Case History
The Code, Rezoning, and Guidelines are the result of a multi-year stakeholder committee, public
engagement, and Board and Commission review process. The resulting documents align with
community values and address current challenges and opportunities facing the Historic District.
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 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. In detail, the ARB has conducted seven reviews of the documents on July
10, July 24, November 20, 2019, and June 17, July 29, November 18, 2020, and February 24,
2021. The PZC reviewed the documents and provided comments four times July 11, 2019,
September 5, 2019, March 4, 2021, and May 6, 2021. The ARB and PZC are recommending
acceptance of the document to City Council.
Details
The Guidelines provide direction on how to successfully apply the zoning regulations while the
Zoning Code establishes qualitative and quantitative standards for development. Both the
Zoning Code and Guidelines are of equal weight when modifications, rehabilitation, new
construction, and signs are under consideration within Historic Dublin and outlying historic
properties identified on Appendix G. The proposed Guidelines provide an overview of the
applicability, cultural landscape, neighborhood character, and building types and architectural
styles. This information is intended to be a foundation for Staff, Board members, and the
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo
Memo – Resolution 28-21 – Historic Design Guidelines
May 18, 2021
Page 2 of 2
community when proposals are brought forward. The overview is followed by directions on how
to apply the Guidelines (Chapter 3). The substance of the Guidelines are provided in Chapters
4-7, which includes: rehabilitation, new construction, site design, and sign design
recommendation. The intent of the updates is to ensure that the review process within the
Architectural Review District as user-friendly.
Recommendation of the Architectural Review Board
At the February 24, 2021 meeting, the Architectural Review Board reviewed and recommended
acceptance of the Historic Design Guidelines to Planning and Zoning Commission.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
At the May 6, 2021 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended
acceptance of the Historic Design Guidelines to City Council.
City Council Recommendation
Recommendation of acceptance of Resolution 28-21 for the Historic Design Guidelines.
Historic Design
Guidelines
DRAFT
May 2021
ARB: February 24, 2021
PZC: May 6, 2021
CC: May 24, 2021
Department of Development
Planning Division
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO2
DRAFT - May 2021
Acknowledgments
Dublin City Council
Chris Amorose-Groomes, Mayor, At-Large
Cathy De Rosa, Vice Mayor, Ward 4
Greg Peterson, Ward 1
Jane Fox, Ward 2
John Reiner, Ward 3
Christina Alutto, At-Large
Andrew Keeler, At-Large
2020 Dublin Architectural Review Board
Kathleen Bryan, Chair
Gary Alexander, Vice Chair
Sean Cotter
Frank Kownacki
Amy Kramb
2019 Dublin Architectural Review Board
Shannon Stenberg, Chair
Gary Alexander, Vice Chair
Rob Bailey
Kathleen Bryan
Andrew Keeler
2018 Stakeholder Committee
Jay Eggspuehler, Commercial Property Owner
Rick Gerber, Historic Dublin Business Association
Tom Holton, Dublin Historical Society
Kathy Lannan, Residential Property Owner
Victoria Newell, Dublin Planning and Zoning Board Chair
David Rinaldi, Dublin Architectural Review Board Chair
Julie Seel, Residential Property Owner
Richard Taylor, Business Owner
Alex Vesha, Commercial Property Owner
Planning Division
Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
Mike Kettler, Planning Technician
Julia Brooks, Planning Assistant
Kenneth Ganter, Planning Assistant
Richard Hansen, Planning Assistant
Jimmy Hoppel, Planning Assistant
Landplan Studios
Daniel Phillabaum, AICP, RLA, Principal
McBride Dale Clarion
Greg Dale, FAICP, Principal
Preservation Designs
Christine Trebellas, AICP, LEED Green Associate, Principal
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 3
DRAFT - May 2021
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction
Overview
Background
Historic District Map
Outlying Historic Properties (Appendix G) Map
Chapter 2: Context & Character
Cultural Landscape
Neighborhood Character
Building Types and Architectural Styles
Chapter 3: Guidelines - Users Guide
Using the Guidelines
Contributing vs. Non-Contributing
Application of Guidelines
Chapter 4: Guidelines - Rehabilitation
General
Maintenance and Construction
Exterior Materials
Architectural Details
Foundations
Building Colors
Doors and Entrances
Windows
Porches
Roof, Gutter, and Downspout
Canopy and Awning
Building Additions
Outbuildings
Retrofitted Access for ADA
Energy Efficiency and Sustainability
Commercial Storefront Design
Chapter 5: Guidelines - New Construction
General
Building Placement
Form and Mass
Building Width
Façade
Doors and Windows
Architectural Details
Materials and Color
Outbuildings
Energy Efficiency and Sustainability
Chapter 6: Guidelines - Site Design
General
Natural Features
Landscaping
Walls and Fences
Access and Parking
Decks and Patios
Lighting
Mechanical Equipment and Waste Screening
Chapter 7: Guidelines - Signs
General
Color and Relief
Materials and Lighting
Avoid
Context Sensitive
Quality and Character
Ground Signs
Wall Signs
Window Signs
Projecting Signs
Awning Signs
Sandwich Board Signs
6
8
10
11
14
18
24
36
36
37
40
40
40
40
40
41
41
42
42
42
43
43
44
44
44
45
46
46
47
48
48
48
48
49
49
49
54
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
59
59
59
59
59
5
Chapter 1Introduction
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO6
DRAFT - May 2021
Historic Map of Dublin, 1872
1.0 Applicability
The Historic Design Guidelines (Guidelines) apply to all land
within the Historic District as outlined in Appendix F, as well
as other outlying historic properties as specified in Appendix
G of the City of Dublin’s Zoning Code. All properties located
within either of these designated areas require approval by
the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for certain activities
related to renovation, rehabilitation, or new construction,
as provided in the Zoning Code §153.170. The Guidelines
supplement the review standards contained in the code and
will guide the ARB in determining if requests for approvals by
the ARB will be granted in accordance with the code.
1.1 Overview
The City of Dublin is a thriving community located in
northwest Franklin County, southwest Delaware County,
and southeast Union County, Ohio. Dublin has undergone
tremendous growth in the last five decades, with the
population increasing from a village of approximately 700 in
1970 to 48,647 in 2018 (Quick Facts, US Census Bureau). Still,
Historic Dublin largely retains the character, scale, and feel of
a traditional village.
The history of Dublin and the surrounding Washington
Township are closely intertwined. Before Ohio became a state
in 1803, land was purchased in the area, along the Scioto River,
that was to become the Village of Dublin. Peter and Benjamin
Sells traveled from Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, to
purchase land for their father, three brothers and themselves.
The 400 acres purchased for their brother, John Sells, were
located on the high west bank of the Scioto where Historic
Dublin now stands. The brothers also purchased land north
and south of the original village boundaries.
The settlement of Dublin started slowly, with John Sells and
his family settling in 1808 and his establishment of the first
tavern in the area in 1809. By 1810, Sells began to survey
lots to establish a town. He conferred the honor of naming
the new town to his surveyor, John Shields. Shields named
the future village after his birthplace, Dublin, Ireland. By
1818, Sells advertised 200 town lots for sale in the Columbus
newspaper. He listed the excellent building stone, clay
for brick and pottery, and an offer of three years’ credit as
inducements to purchase lots in the new town. Settlement
continued slowly as the community gained residences, a
gristmill, a distillery, sawmills and other businesses that
served the local population, as well as farmers from the
surrounding area. As evidence of Dublin’s permanence as a
settlement, a post office was established in 1820.
As the community and the township grew, better
transportation became a necessity. Lacking a railroad,
INTRODUCTION
Overview
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 7
DRAFT - May 2021
INTRODUCTION
Overview
which spurred development in many Ohio communities in
the 19th century, Dublin was dependent on its system of
roads. The need for a bridge to span the Scioto River became
critical for Dublin so that it could be physically connected to
Worthington and Columbus to the east. The first bridge in
1840 was a wooden covered bridge. It was later replaced with
a steel span bridge in 1880, and the present Works Progress
Administration (WPA) concrete arch bridge was completed in
1935.
An effort was made in 1855 to incorporate the village and
establish a local government, but the idea was rejected.
The issue was revisited in 1881, and in September of that
year the Village of Dublin was incorporated. With local
government, public improvements became possible. Among
those undertaken in the late 19th and early 20th centuries
were the installation of gas street lamps in 1888, followed by
carbide lights in 1907 and finally electric lights in 1920. By
the early 20th century, the local economy was largely based
on agriculture and quarrying, and Dublin businesses were
largely dependent on the local population.
Dublin maintained a relatively stable population, with very
little growth during the first seven decades of the 20th
century. This changed abruptly in the early 1970s with the
construction of Interstate 270 around Columbus and the
development of Muirfield Golf Club and Muirfield Village
by golf champion Jack Nicklaus. This innovative planned
community was located about four miles north of the village
core. During the last five decades, the City has grown to fill
in the land between the historic center of Dublin and
Muirfield Village, as well as expanding to the south, east
and west. The current boundaries of Dublin encompass
approximately 26 square miles.
In spite of the tremendous growth that has taken place
in recent decades, the physical form of Historic Dublin
is distinctive and clearly reflects the early history of the
community. The form is still very much in evidence today.
The major north-south road, High Street (also known as SR
745), runs parallel to the river on a high bluff with another
parallel road, Riverview Street, running along the Scioto
River. The main intersection is High and Bridge Streets, as
it was historically, and the bridge crossing the Scioto still
connects east and west Dublin.
Dublin residents and public officials have long appreciated
the special character of Historic Dublin. A part of the district
and individual properties, as well as other historic properties
in Washington Township, were listed in the National Register
of Historic Places in 1979, based on both architectural and
historic significance. The City of Dublin took further steps
to protect and preserve the historic core of the community
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO8
DRAFT - May 2021
INTRODUCTION
Background
as well as other historic sites throughout the community
in 1970 through the establishment of the ARB. Credit for
the preservation of Historic Dublin’s special character must
also be given to the stewardship of generations of Dublin
property owners who have maintained and improved the
buildings and their physical environment.
Historic Dublin continues as the historic heart of
the community and a walkable, thriving mixed-use
neighborhood with residences concentrated along Riverview
and Franklin Streets and retail, cultural/civic, and residential
uses intermingled along High and Bridge Streets. Outlying
historic properties exist throughout Dublin as examples of
the City’s rich agricultural history.
1.2 Background
There are significant economic and social benefits in
preserving historic areas and properties. Dublin’s efforts
to promote the preservation of Dublin, while promoting
historically appropriate development and investment began
over 50 years ago. Success requires a partnership among
the City, land owners, residents, business owners, and
stakeholders.
Dublin has recognized the importance of preservation
in a number of policy documents, including the City’s
Community Plan, which details the unique character of
Historic Dublin and many outlying historic properties. The
plan provides many recommendations about preservation
and enhancement of the historic district’s character. The Plan
also recommends further efforts to identify and recognize
historic properties outside the district.
In 2016, the City conducted a Historic and Cultural Assessment
of the built resources, landscape features, and archaeological
sites throughout Dublin. The goal of the assessment was to
gain a greater understanding of the historic resources that
exist and how those resources contribute to the City’s sense
of place. The assessment produced a detailed inventory of
over 900 properties considered to be relevant, an assessment
of the contributing and non-contributing status, strategies
and recommendations to encourage and fund historic
preservation efforts.
Additionally, the City has taken the initiative to revise and
update the Zoning Code on a series of occasions to ensure
new development and redevelopment meet the desired
character by the community and its stakeholders. The Zoning
Code requirements, these Guidelines, and the applicable
policy documents collectively contribute to protecting the
character of Dublin’s historic places.
Dublin Community Church, 81 West Bridge Street, 1930s (Constructed
in 1877)
Home of Isaac Walter, 37 South Riverview Street, 1842
Dublin Firehouse, 37 West Bridge Street, 1945
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 9
DRAFT - May 2021
Mansfield Buggy Co. & Post Office, SW Corner - Bridge Street at High
Street, 1890s
Christie Methodist Church, South High Street, 1870s (Built in 1838 and
Destroyed by Tornado in 1912)
32 South High Street, 1932, (Built in 1830s and Operated until 1972)
NE Corner - Bridge Street at High Street, 1880s
Coffman’s Corner, SW Corner - Bridge Street at High Street, 1879
Washington Local School, 75 North High Street, 1871
INTRODUCTION
Background
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO10
DRAFT - May 2021
INTRODUCTION
Historic District Map
Architectural Review District
Boundary
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 11
DRAFT - May 2021
INTRODUCTION
Outlying Historic Properties (Appendix G) Map
Appendix G Properties
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 Road
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 Road (PID 273009779)
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 Roads
18. Washington Township School (Graham Residence) –
4915 Brand Road
19. Brown-Harris Cemetery – Lot 6, University Boulevard -
Phase II Final Plat (Resolution 43-20)
20. Ferris Cemetery – SR 257 (Riverside Drive) and
Bright Road
1313
Chapter 2Context & Character
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO14
DRAFT - May 2021
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Cultural Landscape
2.1 Background
Historic Dublin possesses a strong sense of place. The
combination of its eclectic architecture, intimate village
scale, pedestrian scale streets, and natural features create
an authentic environment worth preserving, protecting, and
celebrating.
Historic Dublin’s unique character is in part due to the very
gradual growth of the community up until the late 20th
century. Much of what was built in the 19th century still
defines the physical environment today.
2.2 Cultural Landscape
The Historic District’s unique visual character is attributable
to the beauty of its extensive natural landscape including
the striking topography and cultural sites that have been
shaped by previous generations. The Dublin Community
Plan calls for the protection of these valued natural and
historic landscape assets within Dublin, which contribute to
the cultural landscape of Historic Dublin.
The character defining topography and the numerous
historic landscape assets within the historic district embody
a “soul and sense of place”, creating a legacy that reveals our
past and the people that shaped and lived on our land.
The extraordinary and extensive landscape within Dublin’s
Historic District provides scenic, economic, ecological,
social, recreational, and educational opportunities, and the
preservation and protection of these unique landforms
provides an enriched quality of life for the community.
Among the valued natural assets that require sensitive
protection are: the distinctive topography, the Scioto
River, the Indian Run Ravine and Falls, the Dublin Spring,
abundant view sheds and vistas, natural ravines, caves and
outcroppings, native flora and fauna, wetlands and vernal
pools, hardwood forests, and landmark trees and woodlands.
The distinctive historic cultural sites that have been influenced
by the imprint of past generations include among others: dry
laid stone walls, stone quarries, historic cemeteries, the West
Bridge Street Bridge, Native American archaeological sites,
and appurtenances such as hitching posts, stone carriage
steps, stone work and retaining walls, artwork and memorials.
These defining historic landscape assets are the canvas of our
past and require dedicated preservation and maintenance.
The following guidelines provide direction in protecting
Dublin’s historic cultural landscape for the benefit of our
community and future generations.
Scioto River Stone Bridge, 1935
Indian Run Falls, 1899
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 15
DRAFT - May 2021
Topography
One of the most dramatic feature is the topography of the
area. John Sells selected the area for the settlement of a
town, since it was on the high west bank of the Scioto River,
protected from flooding. The change in elevation between
High Street and Riverview Street is considerable, with a
further dramatic drop to the Scioto River. This change of
elevation leads to steep, sloping yards. Due to the varied
topography not all areas are easily suited to development,
which has led to the preservation of natural vistas and views
of the river and valley.
Scioto River
The Scioto River is the most prominent natural feature
providing a strong physical and visual connection to the
Dublin’s early history.
The Scioto River corridor is unique due to its a shallow river
bed with a wide floodway. In many locations the edge of
the floodplain is defined by small limestone outcroppings.
The wide floodway has an extensive native deciduous tree
canopy.
Seasonal flooding of the river often makes areas of the
floodway inaccessible. Due to its shallow depth, the river
water is typically brown. Several tributaries feed the Scioto
River as it flows through Dublin. Typically, these streams are
narrow slivers carving ravines down to the river.
Ravines and Springs
The wooded ravines, Indian Run to the north and Cosgray
Ditch to the south, in conjunction with the Scioto River form
natural boundaries for Historic Dublin. The Indian Run Falls,
located within the Indian Run Ravine, is a pristine waterfall
once home to members of the Wyandot tribe and later home
to settlers of Dublin. The Falls remain an important cultural
resource today.
Natural flows of fresh water throughout the area form springs.
The Dublin Spring is located along the Scioto River where
Dublin’s founders drew clean drinking water. In the winter,
the weeps from underground springs leak water through the
stone and create beautiful ice patterns along the riverbanks.
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Cultural Landscape
1900s Historic Stone Wall, 2000
Scioto River, 2015
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO16
DRAFT - May 2021
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Flora and Fauna
Dublin is ecologically diverse particularly along the
river corridor. Native plant species include Rock Cress,
Drummond’s Aster, Rattlesnake Fern, and Marsh Marigold.
Historically, Rock Cress has been found growing along the
Scioto River although can be overtaken by invasive plants
such as Honeysuckle and Garlic Mustard. Sycamore trees,
know for their large stature, white bark, and long life, are
prominent along the riverbanks. A number of animals thrive
in the area including birds, beavers, bats, chipmunks, deer,
ducks, geese, skunks, squirrels, turtles, and woodchucks.
Earthworks
Archaeological resources impress on the Dublin’s landscape
today. The Holder-Wright Earthworks, located within
Ferris-Wright Park, are significant to the Hopewell people.
Earthworks were places for ceremony, marriages, to honor
relatives and neighbors who died, to make alliances, for
celebration, feasting, and sacred games. Three earthworks
exist at the site, two circles and a square, and five burial
mounds. The tallest mound once stood five feet tall and the
others were approximately three feet tall. The earthworks at
Ferris-Wright Park are the northernmost earthworks in the
Scioto Valley. Many tribes are represented at this site, with
the oldest dating back to Clovis times, or about 12,000 years
ago.
Quarries
At the southern end of Historic Dublin adjacent to the Scioto
River is a former stone quarry, which played an important
role in the physical development of Dublin and Washington
Township as evidenced by the extensive use of limestone
for building purposes. The limestone in this region is
characterized by a prevalence of Devonian Period fossils.
The limestone, known as Columbus Limestone, is highly
fossilized, which gives it a rough texture that is distinctive
when used either in its natural state or as cut and finished
building stone. The extensive use of limestone in the
construction of dry-laid low stone walls, foundations, stoops,
and entire buildings is a distinguishing feature of Historic
Dublin and many other central Ohio communities.
Stone Walls
Similar to other central Ohio communities, due to the ready
supply of limestone, Dublin possesses an abundance of
limestone in various applications including a number of low,
dry-laid stone walls. Many date from the early 19th century,
although even the more recent examples contribute to the
character of the area. These walls are a significant historic
Butterflyweed (Asclepias Tuberosa) at Dublin Cemetery, 2017
Holder-Wright Earthworks 2020
Cultural Landscape
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 17
DRAFT - May 2021
Daily Chores by Michael Tizzano, 2012
Indian Run Cemetery, 2015
element in the community’s past and present physical
environment.
Cemeteries
Historic Dublin contains two cemeteries, the Indian Run
Cemetery and the Dublin Cemetery. The Indian Run
Cemetery, established in 1814, was the first burial ground in
Dublin. It is located in the northern portion of the Historic
District, along the Indian Run ravine, adjacent to the Grounds
of Remembrance. The Indian Run Cemetery was active for
over 40 years, until the Dublin Cemetery was established in
1858. The Dublin Cemetery is located at the western entrance
into the Historic District and remains active today. Both
cemeteries are located within a park-like setting where the
community can visit and pay their respects to those interned,
which include a number of Dublin’s historic families.
Historic Details
Remnants of historic life remain today as a reminder of the
past and can be seen throughout Historic Dublin. Hitching
posts and carriage stones are located along High Street and
provide a reminder of the way of life in years past.
Public Art
Art in public spaces contribute to the sense of place. Art may
invoke an emotion, a question or an interaction. A number of
art pieces are located within the Historic District and provide
a lens into the past. Dublin’s historic water pump, originally
located at the intersection of High and Bridge Streets,
inspired Michael Tizzano’s ‘Daily Chores” bronze sculpture in
2012. The Grounds of Remembrance located within Dublin
Veterans Park at the northern end of the Historic District
provides recognition to Dublin’s veterans.
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Cultural Landscape
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO18
DRAFT - May 2021
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Neighborhood Character
2.3 Neighborhood Character
Historic Dublin contains a series of neighborhood areas that
coincide with the Historic Zoning Districts outlined in the Zoning
Code §153.170. While Historic Dublin is a relatively small district,
it contains distinct neighborhood areas defined by historic
character, architectural design, primary uses and development
pattern. The historic street grid and the pattern of the blocks
contribute to the established character of Historic Dublin. This
development pattern results in a smaller lot size with buildings
located along the street edge and vehicular access through alleys
at the rear of the properties.
Each neighborhood area utilizes the development pattern
in various ways depending on the uses and layout of each
property. The neighborhood descriptions outlined below provide
background and guidance regarding the desired character for
each of these distinct areas.
Construction Materials
Brick masonry and wood siding appear extensively throughout
Historic Dublin. Brick is used as a building material as well as a
paving material. Wood siding appears in a number of applications,
including horizontal, vertical, shake, and shiplap siding. Wood is
also used for fencing, porches, and decorative ornamentation
on buildings. Wrought iron and stone fences are prevalent in
landscape design.
Scale and Form
Perhaps the most defining characteristic of Historic Dublin is
its intimate, small village scale. The buildings are located close
together with shallow front yard setbacks and generally range
from one to two stories in height. A majority of the buildings
have a residential quality, in contrast to the centers of many other
historic Ohio communities that have a continuous streetscape of
commercial buildings with storefronts, cornices and shared party
walls. The spaces between the buildings offer owners and tenants
opportunities to create small gardens, seating areas, and open
space.
Street Character
The streetscape character and street design are another integral
element of preserving the visual character of Historic Dublin.
The tight street pattern coupled with the size and scale of the
buildings and their relationship to the street define Historic
Dublin’s pedestrian-scaled environment. Narrower street widths,
on-street parking, buildings facing the street, sidewalks and
mature street trees contribute to the character of the area. The
cohesive design of these elements contribute to the success of the
District, connecting the commercial and the residential uses and South Riverview Street, Historic Residential Neighborhood, 2019
South High Street, Historic South Neighborhood, 2010
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 19
DRAFT - May 2021
providing inviting environment for residents
and visitors.
2.4 Historic Core
The Historic Core applies to the historic center
of Dublin at the intersection of West Bridge
and North High Streets. The Historic Core
contains largely commercial uses within historic
buildings, along with a number of new, more
contemporary buildings. The area serves as a
major gateway into the Historic District, setting
the tone for the neighborhood character. The
neighborhood layout promotes a walkable
environment, while accommodating vehicular
access given its proximity to a major intersection.
A challenge for this neighborhood is balancing
the preservation of historic buildings while
providing the opportunity for infill that is
sensitive to the existing scale and character of
the surrounding area.
General design principles for the Historic Core
neighborhood include:
X Connecting and enhancing the historic grid
street pattern.
X Promoting a walkable environment through
quality streetscape design.
X Preserving and rehabilitating contributing
structures to maintain the historic fabric of
Historic Dublin.
X Allowing sensitive redevelopment consistent
with surrounding character.
X Providing opportunities to enhance the street
edge and reinforce the building envelope.
X Requiring architectural design and scale,
and building materials that complement the
existing historic character.
X Locating buildings along the street edge with
parking and access to the rear.
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Neighborhood Character
N High StN High StW Bridge StW Bridge St
SS High St High St
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO20
DRAFT - May 2021
X Creating opportunities for connectivity
throughout Historic Dublin and to adjacent
development, civic uses and open space.
2.5 Historic South
The Historic South district contains smaller,
cottage-scale buildings located along South
High Street, south of the Historic Core and
surrounded by the Historic Residential
neighborhood to the south, east, and west.
The area contains the majority of the historic
structures and sites found within Historic Dublin
with a fewer number of new structures. The area
includes a mix of commercial and residential
uses. The buildings are consistent with the
historic development pattern and support a
highly walkable setting because of the proximity
of buildings located close together.
General design principles for the Historic South
neighborhood include:
X Maintaining the historic grid street pattern.
X Promoting a walkable environment through
quality streetscape design.
X Preserving and rehabilitating contributing
structures to maintain the historic fabric of
Historic Dublin.
X Allowing sensitive redevelopment consistent
with surrounding character.
X Requiring architectural design and scale,
and building materials that complement the
existing historic character.
X Maintaining a smaller building scale and mass
consistent with the development pattern of the
area.
X Retaining open areas at the rear of the
properties, particularly adjacent to residential
properties. S High StS High StPinney Hill LnPinney Hill Ln
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Neighborhood Character
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 21
DRAFT - May 2021
2.6 Historic Residential
The Historic Residential neighborhood
surrounds the Historic South area to the east
along South Riverview Street and west along
Franklin Street, and south along High Street.
This area supports the preservation and
development of houses on existing or new lots
that are comparable in size, mass, and scale,
while maintaining and promoting traditional
residential character of Historic Dublin.
General design principles for the Historic
Residential neighborhood include:
X Preserving and rehabilitating contributing
structures to maintain the historic fabric of
Historic Dublin.
X Allowing for development of new residential
structures that complement the scale, mass and
design of the surrounding historic residential.
X Encouraging comparable building height
and lot coverages, similar to the surrounding
historic structures.
X Encouraging new residential structures to have
consistent setbacks and similar lot coverage to
surrounding residential development.
X Promoting rear accessed lots where feasible.
X Encouraging outbuildings and detached
buildings be to located at the rear of a property.
X Promoting preservation of open rear yards,
green space corridors, and river views
throughout the neighborhood.S Riverview StS Riverview StCONTEXT & CHARACTER
Neighborhood Character
Franklin SFranklin SttDublin RdDublin Rd
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO22
DRAFT - May 2021
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Neighborhood Character
2.7 Public
The Historic Public neighborhood
contains a series of civic spaces and
natural areas located throughout
Historic Dublin, including Riverside
Crossing Park – West, Indian Run
Falls, Indian Run Cemetery, Dublin
Veterans Park, Dublin Cemetery,
Karrer Barn, and Dublin Springs Park.
These spaces preserve the historic
character and natural environment
found throughout the District and
serve as an amenity to residents and
visitors.
General design principles for the
Historic Public neighborhood
include:
X Continuing efforts to preserve the
sites and amenities.
X Ensuring connectivity and access
to these areas.
X Providing greenway connections
and access to the Scioto River.
X Increasing public access to the
natural amenities.
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 23
DRAFT - May 2021
2.8 Outlying Properties and Historic
Farmsteads
A series of sites and structures located outside of Historic
Dublin contribute to the history of Dublin. These properties
identified on Appendix G of the Zoning Code include historic
farmsteads, barns, churches and former schoolhouses. The
character of each of these sites is unique, but help tell the
story of the history of Dublin.
225 South High Street, Karrer Family Barn
5600 Bristol Parkway
5623 Dublinshire Drive
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Neighborhood Character
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO24
DRAFT - May 2021
2.9 Overview
The architecture of Historic Dublin spans a period of over
two centuries, which contributes to the architectural variety
of the district. Some of the buildings possess characteristics
of a specific architectural style; however the vast majority are
vernacular in character and are best identified by building
type. Vernacular architecture is defined as “a mode of
building based on regional forms and materials” (Harris, Cyril
M. Historic Architecture Sourcebook. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1977).
Building type is based on form, function, floor plan,
configuration (shape), and stories (height). Architectural style
is based on design details and ornamentation. Building type
does not determine architectural style. Some architectural
styles have a predominate building type; although
architectural styles can include a number of building types
over time. Buildings may include elements of more than one
architectural style.
Dublin’s historic buildings often demonstrate the original
owner’s personal tastes, availability and affordability of
materials, and design influences at the time of construction.
While many of the same building types and architectural styles
can be found elsewhere in Central Ohio, the combination of
building materials, physical setting, and spatial relationships
create the unique historic character of Historic Dublin.
Identified as part of the Historical and Cultural Assessment, a
series of building types and architectural styles are present
in Dublin. The characteristics of the predominate building
types and architectural styles, identified herein, are based
on the A Field Guide to American Houses (McAlester, Virginia,
A. Lee McAlester, Lauren Jarrett, and Juan Rodriguez-Arnaiz.
A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1993); and, How to Complete the Ohio Historic Inventory
(Gordon, Stephen C., et al. How to Complete the Ohio Historic
Inventory. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Historic Preservation Office,
Ohio Historical Society, 1992.)
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) identifies 19
building types under ‘House Types’ and 35 architectural
styles found in Ohio. Many structures in Historic Dublin were
constructed as residential homes. Therefore most of the
building types in Dublin are represented under the ‘House
Types’ category recognized by SHPO. Not all building types
are present in Dublin. Similarly, many architectural styles
are not found in Dublin. Many of the historic structures in
Dublin are of No Academic Style – Vernacular. Academic
styles are considered high style, which exemplify a particular
architectural movement. Only the building types and
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Building Types & Architectural Styles
109 South Riverview Street, built ca. 1827, is an example of Federal architecture.
Note the Federal-style elements such as the two-story height, rectilinear form,
five-bay façade composition with symmetrical window and door placement,
and a side-gable roof.
The Washington Township Centralized School at 150 West Bridge Street, built in
1919 in the Art Deco style. Elements of the style include the smooth wall surface
and decorative concrete panels with stylized or geometric motifs.
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 25
DRAFT - May 2021
architectural styles present in Historic Dublin and the
outlying historic properties (Appendix G) are included.
The building types and architectural styles are arranged
chronologically. Each building type and architectural style
includes a general description, typical design characteristics,
and a graphic example.
Building Types
X Hall and Parlor
X I-House
X Saltbox
X Gabled Ell
X Bungalow
X Cape Cod Cottage
X Ranch/Split-Level
Architectural Styles
X No Academic Style - Vernacular
X Federal
X Greek Revival
X Gothic Revival
X Romanesque Revival
X Italianate
X Queen Anne
X Colonial Revival
X Craftsman/Arts and Crafts
X French Colonial/Norman Revival
X Art Deco
X Modern Movements
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Building Types & Architectural Styles
167 South High Street, built 1897 in the Queen Anne style. Elements of the
style include the asymmetrical massing, irregular floor plan, bay windows,
decorative gable ends, wrap-around front porch with decorative spindle work,
and decorative shingles in the roof.
St. John Lutheran Church at 6135 (6115) Rings Road, built ca. 1860, is an
example of Romanesque Revival architecture. Note the Romanesque Revival-
style elements such as the masonry construction, round arches, brick corbeling,
and square tower.
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO26
DRAFT - May 2021
2.10 Hall and Parlor
A rectangular, two room floor plan with a side gable roof
form, the Hall and Parlor building type was popular between
1800-1870. Additional characteristics include:
X 1 to 1.5-stories in height
X 1-room deep
X Symmetrical, 3-bay wide façade
X Central entry
X One or two chimneys, central or at both ends
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Building Types
2.11 I-House
A rectangular, two room floor plan with a side gable roof
form, less commonly a flat or hipped roof, the I-House
building type was popular between 1820-1890. Additional
characteristics include:
X 2-stories in height
X 1-room deep
X Symmetrical, 3 or 5-bay wide façades; select 4-bay examples
X Central entry
X Front porch, 1 or 2-stories in height
X One or two chimneys, central or at both ends
2.12 Saltbox
A rectangular floor plan with an asymmetrical sloping
roofline, mimicking a ‘saltbox’, the Saltbox building type
was popular between 1830-1900. Additional characteristics
include:
X 1.5 to 2-stories in height
X 3 or 4-bay wide façades
X One or two chimneys, central or at both ends
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 27
DRAFT - May 2021
Caption
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Building Types
2.13 Gabled Ell
An irregular ‘L’ or ‘T’ floor plan with intersecting gable roof
forms at the same height, the Gabled Ell building type was
popular between 1865-1885. Additional characteristics
include:
X 1 to 2-stories in height
X 1 or 2-bays wide, wing and block
X Front facing entry
X Front porch, 1-story in height
2.14 Bungalow
A rectangular floor plan with a gabled or hipped roof form,
with or without a front dormer, the Bungalow building
type was popular between 1905-1930. Characteristics for a
Dormer Front Bungalow include:
X 1-1.5, and 2-stories in height
X 3-bay wide façade
X Central entry
X Overhanging eaves
X Full-width front porch, 1-story in height with columns
X Interior or exterior chimney
2.15 Cape Cod Cottage
A rectangular floor plan sometimes with an attached one-
car garage. Typified by a side gable roof form, the Cape Cod
Cottage building type was popular between 1925-1950
Additional characteristics include:
X 1 to 1.5-stories in height
X Dormer windows
X Symmetrical, 3 or 5-bay wide façades
X Central entry
X One central chimney
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO28
DRAFT - May 2021
2.16 Ranch/Split-Level
An elongated irregular floor plan with a low gabled or hipped
roof and overhanging eaves, the Ranch building type was
most popular between 1940-1970, although still remains
relevant today. Additional characteristics include:
X 1 to 1.5-stories in height
X Symmetrical or asymmetrical façade
X Attached garage or carport
X Off-center entry, may be hidden
X Large picture window
The Split-Level building type, having multiple stories with at
least a half story below grade, was most popular between
1940-1970. Additional characteristics include:
X 1 to 2-stories in height
X Symmetrical or asymmetrical façade
X Attached garage
X Off-center entry
X Large picture window
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Building Types
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 29
DRAFT - May 2021
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Architectural Styles
2.17 No Academic Style - Vernacular
No Academic Style - Vernacular is by far the most prevalent
style of architecture in Historic Dublin. Vernacular
buildings are “influenced by the local climate, available
building materials, ethnic building traditions rather than by
contemporary architectural fashions and styles” (Gorden,
76).
2.18 Federal
Federal architecture is a post-Colonial style that sought
to stress independence from England, rejecting earlier
English-based Georgian architecture, by establishing a new
national style. Federal style buildings retain the symmetry
of earlier architecture, stress dignity, restraint, and simple
ornamentation (Walker, 96-97). Since Dublin was just being
settled in the early 19th century, this is one of the first
architectural styles to appear in the area.
2.19 Greek Revival
Greek Revival architecture rose as a response to the Greek
War of Independence from Turkey. The style became popular
in public and private contexts. The style is typified by a Greek
temple aesthetic with Greek columns that were carefully
detailed. Everything was usually painted white to simulate
the color of a Greek temple (Walker, 106-109). Regional
variants of this style exist with farmhouses incorporating
elements of Greek Revival style. Architectural details such
as cornices with returns, moulding beneath the cornice,
and front doors with rectangular transom and sidelights are
common.
119 South High Street
109 South Riverview Street
63 South High Street
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO30
DRAFT - May 2021
75 South High Street
6659 Coffman Road
St. John Lutheran Church, 6115/6135 Rings Road
2.20 Gothic Revival
Gothic Revival architecture began in England as a revolt
against classical styles and symmetry in favor of picturesque
and irregular shapes. In the United States, the style is visible
in rural, domestic architecture from 1840-1880. Gothic
Revival style homes are often stone or brick construction
transitioning to wood framing in the later 19th century.
Variants of the style include Cottage Gothic, Carpenter
Gothic, and Steamboat Gothic (Walker, 120-131). Fanciful or
decorative ornamentation, barge boards under the gables,
and pointed arches, and window crowns define the style. The
Gothic Revival style can be seen in Dublin in steeply pitched
gable roofs and pointed arch windows.
2.21 Romanesque Revival
Romanesque Revival architecture rose in popularity in
Ohio during the mid-19th century. The style is most often
applied to churches, public buildings, and institutional
buildings. Inspired by James Renwick’s Smithsonian
Castle in Washington, DC., these buildings typically have
monochromatic brick or stone walls with round-arch window
and door openings and square or polygonal towers with
brick corbelling (Gordon, 81).
2.22 Italianate
Italianate style began in England as a revolt against classical
styles and symmetry in favor of the picturesque and irregular
shapes. The style emphasized rural, rambling, informal Italian
farmhouses and dominated American house construction
from 1850 to 1880. In Ohio, the Italianate style was among
the most popular Romantic style of the 19th century, gaining
favor as the state’s population nearly doubled in this time
period. Early examples are square or rectangular box-shaped
homes with three visual bays and tall windows, usually topped
with a segmental arch or window hood. Large overhanging
eaves with decorative brackets were also common (Gordon,
85). Italianate architecture in Dublin followed this trend.
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Architectural Styles
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 31
DRAFT - May 2021
25 South Riverview Street
114 South High Street
56-58 North High Street
2.23 Queen Anne
Queen Anne architecture first appeared in England and
subsequently adapted in the United States. Blumenson’s
Identifying American Architecture describes the style as the
“most varied and decoratively rich style. The asymmetrical
composition consists of a variety of forms, textures, materials,
and colors. Architectural parts include towers, turrets, tall
chimneys, projecting pavilions, porches, bays and encircling
verandas. The textured wall surfaces occasionally are
complimented by colored glass panels in the windows” (63).
In Ohio, Queen Anne architecture was the dominant style of
house construction from 1880 to 1900 (Gordon, 91). As such,
there are several examples of this style in Dublin.
2.24 Colonial Revival
Colonial Revival style is strictly an American movement
inspired by nostalgia for the past. It started around the turn
of the 20th century and includes tremendous variety in
terms of scale, details, and application. Later examples, from
the mid-20th century, are usually side-gable buildings with
simple stylized door surrounds, cornices, or other details that
allude to colonial architecture rather than replicate it. Dublin
has a variety of Colonial Revival style homes ranging from
the traditional Colonial Revival to Dutch Colonial Revival
architecture.
2.25 Craftsman/Arts and Crafts
Craftsman/Arts and Crafts architectural style was inspired
by the English Arts and Crafts movement and subsequently
became popular in the United States. In the United States,
Craftsman-style first appeared in California at the turn of the
20th century. Craftsman homes emphasize low, horizontal
lines and a design that becomes part of its natural setting.
Wide projecting eaves, overhanging gables with exposed
rafters, open porches with heavy square porch piers (often
on top of masonry bases) give these homes a sense of solid
construction.
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Architectural Styles
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO32
DRAFT - May 2021
150 West Bridge Street
7125 Riverside Drive
2.27 French Colonial/Norman Revival
French Colonial/Norman Revival architecture is a category of
Colonial Revival architecture based on 16th and 17th century
French countryside style growing in popularity post World
War I (Gorden, 110). The style is typified by steeply pitched
roofs, round towers with turrets, and asymmetrical entrance.
2.28 Art Deco
Art Deco architecture is common in public and commercial
buildings built in the 1920s and early 1930s (McAlester, 464-
466). The style rejected historical precedent in favor of modern
materials and industrial-inspired design. Buildings designed
in this style usually had rectilinear massing, futuristic images,
stylized ornament, and polychromatic effects. Walls tended
to have smooth, polychromatic surfaces of brick or concrete
with rounded or angular corner windows. While Art Deco was
popular among skyscrapers built in this period, the design
was also applied to low-scale buildings such as schools, post
offices, and apartments buildings (Gordon, 112). In Dublin,
this style appears in commercial and institutional buildings
such as the Washington Township Centralized School at 150
West Bridge Street, built circa 1919.
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Architectural Styles
170 South Riverview Street
2.29 Modern
Post World War II brings the advent of Modern architecture.
The first post-war house styles to emerge were the Cape
Cod and Minimal Tradition, which were based on earlier
house styles of the 20th century, but with new materials and
building methods developed during the war. By the1950s,
these house styles were replaced by the Ranch house, which
dominated American residential architecture throughout
the 1960s and is still popular today. The Split-Level house
style followed the ranch and retained the low-pitched roof
and broad, rambling façade of the period. Less common
in this period was the Mid-Century Modern architecture,
which rejected traditional forms in favor of a more modern
expression with wide overhanging eaves, flat or low-pitched
roofs with broad, low front-facing gables, and exposed
structural members such as beams or slender metal columns
(McAlester, 447). All of these building styles can be seen in
Dublin’s sprawling residential areas, and even in some of its
commercial and institutional structures.
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 33
DRAFT - May 2021
CONTEXT & CHARACTER
Building Types & Architectural Styles
83 South Riverview Street, built in1824, is an example of an I-House building
type with Federal architectural style elements. The building is of stone
construction with a standing seam metal roof.
The former Post Office at 38 West Bridge Street, built in 1965 is in a Modernist
Movement architectural style. The one-story brick and stone building has a
rectilinear footprint with flat roof and a large glazed storefront window.
87 South High Street, built ca. 1840, in a Greek Revival architectural style
has a rectilinear footprint with stone foundation, front gable façade clad in
horizontal siding accented by a decorative frieze.
55 South Riverview Street, built ca. 1900, is an example of the Gabled Ell
building type with No Academic Style. The front block and wing are identifying
forms with the spindle work suggesting an increased accessibility of millwork
at the turn of the century.
3535
Chapter 3Users Guide
GUIDELINES
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO36
DRAFT - May 2021
3.1 Intent
The Guidelines help protect the overall character of Dublin
by emphasizing preservation of architectural styles, details,
and streetscape elements that define the community’s
unique character. They help guide appropriate rehabilitation
work and alterations of existing buildings. For additions,
new construction and site work, the Guidelines emphasize
compatibility of new buildings or features with the district’s
historic character.
3.2 Using the Guidelines
The intent of the Guidelines is preservation and rehabilitation:
retaining and stabilizing the significant buildings and features
that define a historic building or streetscape. That is why
terms such as repair, retain, maintain, and preserve are used
throughout the Guidelines. Repairing, retaining, maintaining,
and preserving the original or historic architectural features
of a contributing structure is preferred to replacement or
modification. For that reason, the rehabilitation Guidelines
always begin with the most conservative approach (repair)
and then move to other more intrusive treatments.
The Guidelines also offer guidance to ensure new buildings
align with the character of the District and building additions
are compatible, and use appropriate design elements.
The Guidelines are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards (U.S. Department of the Interior).
The purpose of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing
Historic Buildings is to provide guidance to historic building
owners and building managers, preservation consultants,
architects, contractors, and project reviewers prior to
beginning work. It is always recommended that preservation
professionals be consulted early in any project.
3.3 Contributing vs. Non-Contributing
Buildings
Buildings within the City have been classified as either
“contributing” or “noncontributing” to the historic character
of the district in the Historic and Cultural Resources Assessment
(2017). This distinction is pertinent for the following reasons:
X The emphasis for contributing buildings is preservation
and rehabilitation. These are buildings that contribute to
the historic value of the district and in fact, were important
to the Federal designation of the National Register district
and/or individual property listings. Maintaining or restoring
the historic integrity of contributing buildings is the highest
policy objective of these Guidelines.
GUIDELINES
Users Guide
Contributing
Non-Contributing
Historic District Structures
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 37
DRAFT - May 2021
X Contributing buildings and cultural resources within
the Historic District are defined as adding to the historic
associations, historic architectural qualities, or archaeological
value of the area as expressed in the Historic and Cultural
Assessment. Buildings and resources are designated
contributing for a variety of reasons including National
Register eligibility, period of significance, and sufficient
integrity.
X Noncontributing buildings and cultural resources within
the Historic District are those that do not add to the historic
associations, historic architectural qualities, or archaeological
value of the area as expressed in the Historic and Cultural
Assessment. Buildings and resources are designated
noncontributing for a variety of reasons including National
Register ineligibility, irrelevance to the period of significance,
and insufficient integrity.
3.4 Application of Guidelines
Overview
These Guidelines provide the ARB with guidance in reviewing
applications for approvals related to modifications of existing
buildings or structures and the construction of new buildings
or structures. They are intended to communicate either a
desired or undesired outcome or preference. As Guidelines,
interpretation is discretionary on the part of the ARB within
the parameters of the regulations that establish and govern
the Board.
The terms “should”, “should not”, and “avoid” used in the
Guidelines signify a desired or undesired outcome or
preference. For the purpose of applying these Guidelines
by the Board, the terms “should”, “should not”, and “avoid”
will include consideration by the Board of feasibility and
practicality, guided by consideration of factors such as
the context of the proposed improvements, availability of
materials, site conditions, building conditions, and other
applicable city policies and plans. In exercising discretion in
applying the Guidelines the Board will consider and weigh
these and other factors as circumstances require. Each
project is reviewed on an individual, case-by-case basis, and
there are times when more flexibility or creative solutions are
needed in applying the Guidelines. When those situations
occur, the Board will be clear in stating the reasons for its
decision.
Zoning Regulations
The Design Guidelines supplement the regulations contained
in the Dublin Zoning Code. In the event of a conflict between
these Guidelines and zoning regulations, the zoning
regulations will apply unless specifically modified through
approval by the ARB as authorized by the Zoning Code.
The Guidelines illustrate how the Zoning Code may be
successfully applied to existing historic structures and new
infill development.
GUIDELINES
Users Guide
N o r t h S t
B r i d g e P a r k A v e
S p r i n g H i l l
E b e r l y H i l l
P i n n e y h i l l L nFra
nklin StMill LnJ o h n W r i g h t L n S Blacksmith LnDarby StN Blacksmith LnT u l l e r R i d g e D r
Monterey DrClover Ln
S h o r t S t
Waterford Dr
Rock Cre s s P k w y
Clover Ct Longshore StOld Spring LnStonef
ence LnS Riverview StN Riverview StIndian Run Dr
High School Rd
W Bridge St
Dublin RdE B r i d g e St
S High StN High StRi
ver
si
de Dr
UV33
UV745 UV257
¯
Proposed Zoning Districts and Boundary Changes
Historic District Zoning
HD-Historic Core
HD-Historic South
HD-Historic Residential
HD-Public
R-2
3939
Chapter 4Rehabilitation
GUIDELINES
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO40
DRAFT - May 2021
4.0 Applicability
The following Guidelines are applicable to both residential
and commercial properties, except where otherwise noted,
as well as are applicable to properties located in Historic
Dublin and outlying historic properties.
4.1 General
A. Preservation of original architectural features and
materials are the first preference in rehabilitation. Such
features and materials should be retained in place and/
or repaired.
B. Repair of existing features (or replacement when
supported by the Board) should be based on an
accurate replication of the materials or features, and
where possible substantiated by historic, physical or
pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or
the availability of different architectural elements from
other buildings or structures.
C. If it is not practical to retain the original materials or
features due to the condition, unavailability, safety,
or energy efficiency of original materials, then quality
contemporary substitute materials, when approved by
the Board, should replicate the material being replaced
in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual
qualities. Contemporary materials may be used if it
is demonstrated that they have the same quality and
character as historic materials.
4.2 Maintenance and Construction
Following are common considerations regarding property
maintenance and construction. The recommendations are
not comprehensive in nature.
A. Brick and stone masonry should be tuckpointed every
20 to 30 years, or when holes, gaps, or cracks form in the
mortar. Pointing of masonry should be done in a way
that duplicates the color, texture, and joint tooling of
the building’s historic pointing.
B. Foundations should be kept free of moisture retaining
materials such as excess mulch, firewood, and
overgrown plantings to ensure longevity.
C. Avoid abrasive cleaning of historic masonry and siding
specifically power washing, sandblasting, and harsh
detergents.
D. Flashing, gutters, and downspouts should be in good
repair. Aging roofs should be replaced if there are
significant bulges, dips, or gaps.
GUIDELINES
Rehabilitation
4.3 Exterior Materials
A. Original wood siding should not be covered over.
B. Wood siding should be used in one of the traditional
forms as found on the building (e.g. shingle, Board-and-
batten, shiplap, or beveled siding).
C. Masonry walls that have not previously been painted
should remain unpainted. Masonry which has been
painted in the past should remain painted.
D. Pointing of masonry should match the color, texture,
joint tooling, and physical composition of the building’s
historic pointing.
E. Historically stuccoed surfaces should remain stuccoed.
Stucco should not be applied to a wall which has not
been previously stuccoed.
4.4 Architectural Details
A. Significant architectural elements that have
deteriorated should be repaired rather than replaced.
B. Avoid adding cornice or frieze elements as extra
ornamentation on a building if not originally present
on the building.
C. Original architectural elements should not be covered,
especially when located on a front elevation.
4.5 Foundations
A. Avoid cutting openings in foundation walls to create
basement windows or doors on elevations visible from
a street.
B. Avoid painting or stuccoing the exterior of a foundation.
C. Previously-painted or stuccoed foundations should be
kept that way, as long as they do not show evidence of
moisture retention.
Original architectural details, 138 South High Street
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 41
DRAFT - May 2021
D. If original basement windows are to be covered, avoid
filling them permanently.
4.6 Building Colors
A. Colors should be selected based on documented
research of a building’s original paint colors.
B. If original colors cannot be identified or are
unacceptable to the applicant, alternate colors should
be selected according to the time-period of building
construction.
C. Late 19th century buildings should have a maximum
of three different colors (the body color and one trim
and one accent color); those from earlier and later
periods should have no more than two, unless historic
precedent suggests otherwise.
D. The Architectural Review Board may delegate approval
of colors to staff based upon a color palette approved
by the Board.
Original stone foundation, 167 South High Street
GUIDELINES
Rehabilitation
4.7 Doors and Entrances
A. The functional, proportional, and decorative features of
a primary entrance should be preserved.
B. If interior alterations make an existing entrance
redundant, the door and entrance should be left intact
on the exterior.
C. Color should be compatible with historically appropriate
colors already on the building.
D. Avoid treatments that attempt to “dress up” a door or
entrance or give it a character that was never original.
E. Surviving original storm doors should be retained.
Original storm door, 63 South High Street
Historic building color, 76-78 South High Street
Historic building color, 113 South High Street
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO42
DRAFT - May 2021
G. Windows that have an original storm sash should be
repaired and retained.
4.9 Porches
A. Wrought or cast-iron supports should not be used
to replace original porch columns unless such iron
elements were part of the original design; the same is
true for wrought iron railings.
B. Avoid enclosing porches to create permanent interior
space, particularly on front elevations.
C. If a porch is proposed to replace an original, missing
porch, the characteristics of original porches on similar
buildings such as height, materials, roof slope, and
width of original porches are preferred.
D. If a porch is to be added where a porch never existed, a
simple design should be used.
E. Avoid ornamentation such as spindles and scrollwork
unless they were traditionally used on the porches of
similar buildings.
4.10 Roof, Gutter, and Downspout
A. Re-roofing a building that currently has asphalt shingles
should be simple in design.
B. Avoid staggered-butt or other shingle patterns that try
to create an older look.
C. If a building does not have gutters and downspouts and
is to have them installed, design and color should be
compatible with the design and color of the building.
D. On existing structures, avoid roofline additions such
as dormers, skylights, or penthouses. However, these
features may be appropriate on a new addition. If such
elements are proposed, they should be placed toward
F. New storm doors should be of simple design. The
design should be a full-height glass section that permits
viewing the main door.
G. Avoid storm doors with decorative features such as
scalloped window edges, strap hinges, or “crossbuck”
designs.
4.8 Windows
A. The position, number, and arrangement of original
windows in a building should be preserved.
B. If original windows are extensively deteriorated, only
the deteriorated windows should be replaced. Avoid
removing any that are still repairable.
C. Avoid enlarging or downsizing window openings to
accommodate stock replacement window sizes.
D. Replacement windows should match the appearance
of the historic originals in number of panes, dimensions
of sash members, and profile of sash members and
muntins. Windows should simulate the operating
characteristics of the originals. The same material, as
the original windows, usually wood, should be used.
E. Real through-the-glass exterior and interior muntins
with spacer bar (simulated divided lite) should be used.
Windows should not use sandwiched, applied, or snap-
in artificial muntins.
F. Interior or exterior storm windows may be used to
increase energy efficiency of existing windows. These
should be either a single pane or, if they have an upper
and a lower pane, the division between the two should
be at the meeting rails of the original exterior windows.
Storm windows should match the color of the existing
window trim.
Original porch, 83 South High Street
Real divided lite window, 31-33 South High Street
GUIDELINES
Rehabilitation
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 43
DRAFT - May 2021
Figure 4.1: Appropriate Additions.
Figure 4.2: Inappropriate Additions.
Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more
of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and
do not represent the only or preferred solution to meet the
Guidelines.
the rear or along a rear slope where visibility is minimal.
Skylights should be flat and low in profile.
4.11 Canopy and Awning
A. Fabric awnings should have a matte rather than a glossy
surface.
B. Avoid fixed, permanent canopies unless it can be
documented through research that a building had one
in the past and that the canopy design is compatible
with the original character of the building and the
district.
C. Each window or door should have its own awning,
rather than a single full-width awning covering an
entire façade.
D. A traditional flat, sloped awning design should be used.
Selection of open-end versus closed-end awnings
should be historically based.
E. Awning color(s) should complement the building and
be compatible with historically appropriate colors used
on the building but avoid overly ornate patterns and
too many colors. A simple pattern using no more than
two colors is preferred.
4.12 Building Additions
A. Additions should be clearly distinguishable from
the original structure by designing additions to be
subordinate and secondary to the primary structure. If
the additions or alterations were removed the essential
form and integrity of the original structure should be
unimpaired.
B. Additions should be located to the rear of the original
building so that the most significant and visible faces
(e.g. front elevations) of historic properties are given
priority. If space needs or lot conditions require that the
addition be placed farther forward, the façade of the
addition should be set back from the original façade.
C. A break or reveal should be provided between the
original building and the addition, so it is apparent that
they are two separate structures.
D. The design for additions to existing properties should
not destroy significant historical, architectural or
cultural materials. The design should be compatible
with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the
property, neighborhood or environment.
E. Avoid duplicating the original building’s architecture
and design in the addition. The addition should take its
major design cues such as form, massing, roof shape,
Rehabilitation
GUIDELINES
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO44
DRAFT - May 2021
4.14 Retrofitted Access for People with
Disabilities (ADA)
A. Designs should be kept simple and unobtrusive within
the requirements of compliance with ADA standards.
B. Ramps or lifts should be located at side or rear entrances
to minimize impact on the main façade.
C. The design of ramps and handrails should be simple
and contemporary and should not try to mimic existing
handrails.
D. Materials should be the same as or similar to those used
in the building. Avoid exposed treated wood that is
unpainted.
E. If providing access to a building’s front entrance is only a
matter of overcoming a few inches difference between
sidewalk and entrance, a portion of the sidewalk should
be designed so that it is sloped upward to overcome
the height difference to avoid a handrail. If the building
entrance or sidewalk is located within the right-of-way,
Engineering approval may be required.
4.15 Energy Efficiency and Sustainability
A. The visual impacts of equipment as seen from the street
should be minimized.
B. The smallest and least obtrusive equipment necessary
and available should be used.
C. The equipment should be located in an area where it is
not be visible along any street frontage.
D. Equipment should be installed in a manner that is
reversible and does not permanently alter or damage
original building materials.
window proportions and spacing, door types, and level
and kind of ornamentation from the original building,
but it should be a simplified structure.
F. Materials for additions should be consistent with those
identified in 4.1.C and complementary to the district,
but need not match those of the original structure to
which the addition is attached. Avoid materials that are
not typically from the mid-19th to the early 20th century
(e.g. concrete block, rough-sawn siding, or logs). Brick,
stucco, and beveled siding or Board-and-batten all may
be appropriate, depending upon the materials in the
original building.
G. Roofline additions should be placed and designed to
have the least amount of visual impact. Refer to 4.9.D
H. The height and roofline of the addition should be below
those of the original building.
4.13 Outbuildings
A. Original outbuildings such as garages, sheds, outhouses,
and barns should be repaired and retained.
B. When outbuildings need repair or replacement of
deteriorated elements, new materials should match the
old.
Outbuilding repurposed for commercial use, 109 South High Street
(Rear)
Rear ADA ramp with masonry wall, 129 South High Street
GUIDELINES
Rehabilitation
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 45
DRAFT - May 2021
Commercial storefront, 14 South High Street
4.16 Commercial Storefront Design
A. Designs should be consistent with the historic storefront
character including window sizes and architectural
features.
B. Storefronts should retain ornamentation and trim
consistent with the historic architectural style of the
building.
C. Avoid “theme” restorations (e.g. Colonial, Bavarian, Art
Deco, Post Modern, etc.) unless historically true to the
building.
D. Materials should be consistent with the historic
architectural style of the building. In appropriate
designs and materials should be avoided such as
diagonal wood siding, vinyl or aluminum siding,
mansard roofs, and fixed metal canopies.
Recessed entry and bulkheads, 52 South High Street
Figure 4.3: Commercial Storefront Design Elements.
Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or
preferred solution to meet the Guidelines.
Rehabilitation
GUIDELINES
474747
Chapter 5New Construction
GUIDELINES
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO48
DRAFT - May 2021
5.0 Applicability
The following Guidelines are applicable to residential
and commercial properties as well as to outlying historic
properties. New construction differs from the construction
of new additions to historic structures. New construction
includes primary and accessory structures like houses,
commercial buildings, garages, sheds, and other similar
structures.
5.1 General
A. New construction should not be a replica of historic
buildings, but also should not be taken to the extreme
of modern architecture. There are places in the City
of Dublin where modern architecture is appropriate
and desired, but within historic districts it is important
to provide a sense of continuity and compatibility so
that both a sense of historic place and historic time
is respected. Continuity and compatibility are more
valued than making a bold design statement.
B. New construction should be similar to existing
contributing buildings in the district. New buildings
should be obviously new to the observer, but
GUIDELINES
New Construction
there should be continuity and compatibility with
surrounding historic structures. They should share
underlying principles of design, form, mass, height,
scale and lot coverage as prevails on adjacent lots.
5.2 Building Placement
A. Building should be sited sensitively to the varying
topography of the District and established grade of the
site.
B. The site should be designed to be consistent with the
original block, street, and site patterns of the district in
which the building is located.
C. The placement of the building should be similar to the
placement, orientation, and setbacks of surrounding
structures. The placement should reinforce the street
wall.
D. The building should be sited similar to the development
pattern of surrounding properties. Lot coverage should
be similar to surrounding properties.
Figure 5.1: Commercial Infill Development Pattern.
Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or
preferred solution to meet the Guidelines.
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 49
DRAFT - May 2021
GUIDELINES
New Construction
5.3 Form and Mass
A. The building should be similar in form, mass, and
lot coverage; and, in proportion and scale to other
surrounding buildings.
B. Roof pitch and form should be similar to surrounding
buildings.
C. The building should reinforce a sense of human scale
through the design of pedestrian entrances, porches,
door and window openings, and façades.
D. The form and mass of the building should be responsive
to the site topography and similar in overall height to
surrounding buildings. Buildings should step-down
following the topography of the site.
Figure 5.2: Building Height Scale and Proportion.
Figure 5.3: Residential Infill Development Pattern.
Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not represent the only or
preferred solution to meet the Guidelines.
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO50
DRAFT - May 2021
5.4 Building Width
A. The building width should be similar to other buildings
in the district.
B. If a building is wider than other structures in the district,
the façade should be divided into subordinate sizes
that are similar to the width of other structures in the
district. Sections of the wall should be stepped to
further reinforce the visual impression of widths similar
to other structures in the district.
5.5 Façade
A. Façade proportions, including width to height ratio,
should be similar to other buildings in the district.
B. The primary entrance to the building should front the
street.
C. Avoid blank façades and monotony of materials. Avoid
large surfaces of glass.
D. Avoid concrete block foundations or exposed poured
concrete. Foundations should be clad with brick or
stone.
E. Where multi-story buildings are permitted, the façade
should incorporate a three-part composition including
a base, a middle, and a top.
5.6 Doors and Windows
A. The pattern and proportions of window and door
openings should be proportional to the building façade
and reflect the pattern of other buildings in the District.
B. The window-to-wall ratios should be similar to other
buildings in the district.
C. Windows and doors should be framed in materials that
are similar in scale and character with other buildings
in the district.
5.7 Architectural Details
A. Architectural elements such as eaves, window design
and moldings, door surrounds, porches, soffits, should
be modern interpretations of historic details, not
replications of historic styles.
B. Skylights should be flat and low in profile and placed
toward the rear where visibility is minimal.
Figure 5.4: Pattern and Proportions of Window/Door Openings.
Finished foundation, 73 South Riverview Street
Modern interpretation of historic details, not replication of historic
styles/details, 113 South High Street
GUIDELINES
New Construction
Note: Graphic figures are intended to illustrate one or more of
the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not
represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines.
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 51
DRAFT - May 2021
5.8 Materials and Color
A. The building should use materials traditional to historic
Dublin: wood, brick, and stone; although may use
contemporary materials with characteristics similar to
historic materials, as approved by the ARB.
B. Materials that have a proven durability for the Central
Ohio climate should be used.
C. Colors should be similar to other buildings in the
district.
5.9 Canopy and Awning
A. Fabric awnings should have a matte rather than a glossy
surface.
B. Each window or door should have its own awning,
rather than a single full-width awning covering an
entire façade.
C. A traditional flat, sloped awning design should be used.
D. Awning color(s) should complement the building and
be compatible with historically appropriate colors used
on the building but avoid overly ornate patterns and
too many colors. A simple pattern using no more than
two colors is preferred.
Materials and color traditional to the District, 31-33 South High Street
5.10 Outbuildings
A. Detached garages are encouraged and should be
located to the rear and side of the primary structure.
B. Newly-constructed outbuildings should be compatible
and subordinate in scale to the main building using
design cues from contributing outbuildings and nearby
structures, but especially the principal building on the
site.
C. Forms, massing, roof shape, roof pitch and height,
materials, window and door types, and detailing
similar to those found on nearby historic or traditional
outbuildings should be used.
5.11 Energy Efficiency and Sustainability
A. Energy generating devices, such as solar collectors
should remain visually subordinate to the character of
the building, and should not be visible along any street
frontage.
B. Buildings should incorporate elements such as operable
windows for natural ventilation and light.
Historic outbuilding, 83 South Riverview Street
GUIDELINES
New Construction
5353
Chapter 6Site Design
GUIDELINES
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO54
DRAFT - May 2021
C. Foundation plantings should be provided to soften the
appearance of buildings along the street.
6.4 Walls and Fences
A. Original stone walls and fences should be maintained,
retained, and not be modified in any way.
B. Historic stone walls should be preserved on private
property and City owned property.
C. Where possible, degraded stone walls should be
rehabilitated without compromising the integrity and
character.
D. Replacement of historic stone walls with new stone
walls is discouraged.
E. If replacement is necessary due to the condition, or a
new fence is proposed, traditional fence and wall types
are preferred. These should include low stone walls in
the traditional and distinctive Dublin design, low picket
fences, iron fences or, in backyard areas, Board fences
with straight or “dog-eared” top edges, or rows of trees
and shrubs.
F. The design of landscaping, including walls and fences
should address the public rights-of-way in a similar
manner to surrounding properties in the district.
G. Non-traditional materials such as concrete or “cyclone”
fencing and composite wood fencing, and non-
traditional wood fencing designs like basket-weave,
shadow-box, or stockade fences are not appropriate.
H. For fences, paint or an opaque stain should be applied
to wood fencing, rather than leaving it natural.
6.5 Access and Parking
A. Vehicular access should be visually complementary to
the site and building design; it should be secondary
to the visual appearance of the building and not
dominating its design.
B. Pedestrian and bicycle access and storage should be
incorporated into the site design.
C. Parking should be accessed from a side street or an
alley rather than from the main street. Parking lots or
curb cuts in front of a building at the sidewalk should
be avoided.
6.0 Applicability
The following Guidelines are applicable to residential
and commercial properties as well as to outlying historic
properties.
6.1 General
A. Site design should be sensitive to the surrounding
context particularly to natural features and cultural
resources.
B. Sites should be designed to preserve elements that
contribute to the historic character of the site and
District.
6.2 Natural Features
A. Site topography should be preserved. Buildings should
be sited in a manner that is respective to the existing
topography. Regrading of sites should be limited.
B. Landmark trees (over 24 caliper inches) on commercial
and residential properties should be maintained in
good health and preserved from harm. All trees should
be preserved, whenever practicable.
C. Buildings, accessory structures, and patios should be
sited outside of the critical root zone of mature trees.
6.3 Landscaping
A. Open green space, including landscape areas, should
be preserved free of buildings, accessory structures,
and patios.
B. Landscape designs should provide year round interest.
Plant materials should be species native to Central Ohio.
Commercial landscaping, 35-39 South High Street
GUIDELINES
Site Design
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 55
DRAFT - May 2021
Wood fence, 35-39 South High Street
Hairpin wrought iron fence, 91 South High Street
GUIDELINES
Site Design
D. The visual impacts of service and loading areas should
be minimized. They should be located to the rear of
the building and screened from public rights-of-way
consistent with code screening requirements.
6.6 Decks and Patios
A. Decks and patios should be located to the rear or side
of the building.
B. Decks should be architecturally integrated and treated
with paint or an opaque stain to match the color of the
building or its trim.
C. Railings should be traditional in character constructed
of wood, metal or other similar material. Vinyl, PVC, and
polyurethane should not be used as a deck or railing
material.
6.7 Lighting
A. Lighting should enhance the site and building design
in a manner that is sensitive to surrounding properties.
Light fixtures should be scaled appropriately based on
the use and character of surrounding properties.
B. Light fixtures should be simple in design. Subdued,
soft, warm lighting should be used. Avoid large, ornate
light fixtures.
6.8 Mechanical Equipment and Waste
Screening
A. Mechanical equipment, utility equipment, and waste
facilities should be screened from view of any public
right-of-way or adjacent property, and located to
the rear of the building. Such equipment should be
screened from view with landscaping or screen walls.
B. For buildings with rooftop equipment or ventilation,
the equipment should be centrally located and fully
screened from view using a primary building material.
Roof penetrations should be painted to match the roof.
Eberly Hill Lane and South Riverview Street stone wall
5757
Chapter 7Signs
GUIDELINES
HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO58
DRAFT - May 2021
7.1 General
A. Signs should have a minimal visual impact on the site
and the district in which the building is located.
B. Signs should be subordinate and complementary to
the building.
C. Graphics and messages should be simple.
D. New signs should be pedestrian in scale (see the Zoning
Code). Signs should relate more to the sidewalk than
to the street and should be intended for viewing by
people who are walking rather than driving.
7.2 Color and Relief
A. The color scheme should be simple and unobtrusive.
Accent colors or corporate identity colors or logos
should be used with restraint, and such colors should
not dominate a sign.
B. Letter sizes and styles should be easily readable. One
letter size and one type style is preferred.
C. Signs should be dimensionally routed.
7.3 Materials and Lighting
A. Signs should be constructed of durable natural
materials consistent with material used for other signs
in the district in which the building is located.
B. Signs should be externally illuminated in a way that is
subordinate to the design of the building.
7.4 Avoid
A. Avoid many bright colors, intended to draw attention
rather than add visual interest to the tenant space.
B. Thin, flat signs that appear flimsy and temporary.
C. Clunky “off the shelf” sign cabinets with no architectural
character.
D. Homemade signs and designs without professional
guidance.
E. Using a sign contractor that is not registered with the
City of Dublin.
7.5 Context Sensitive
7.6 Quality and Character
A. Signs should coordinate with the architectural character
of the building and of the district.
A. Signs should contribute to the character of the district
by providing interest to the pedestrian realm.
B. Signs should be constructed of high-quality materials
and finished with attention to design details.
7.7 Ground Signs
A. Ground signs should be compact and highly
coordinated with their surroundings in terms of
materials, architectural character, color, and details.
B. Signs should have three-dimensional elements. Flat
designs are discouraged.
C. Sign bases should be structurally integrated and
coordinate with the overall design of the sign.
GUIDELINES
Signs
Note: Sign images are intended to illustrate one or more of
the recommendations identified in the Guidelines and do not
represent the only or preferred solution to meet the Guidelines.
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 59
DRAFT - May 2021
7.10 Projecting Signs
A. Three-dimensional elements are strongly encouraged,
along with the creative use of textures and shadows to
give the sign dimensionality and interest.
B. The bracket or attachment device should be
architecturally appropriate to the building design. Only
use traditional brackets with traditional architecture.
7.11 Awning Signs
A. Awning sign designs should be coordinated with
the architectural character of the storefront. The use
of stripes and scalloped edges should be minimized
unless there is substantial evidence that the detail is
historically appropriate.
B. Awning signs should include simple text and logos on
subdued backgrounds.
7.12 Sandwich Board Signs
A. Sandwich Board signs should be constructed of a high-
quality wood frame with chalkboard and white-board
elements. The frame should not be constructed of
plastic.
B. Signs should have a clean, simple frame without a
handle or additional ornamentation.
C. Signs should incorporate whimsical, one-of-a-kind,
artistic designs that cater to pedestrians. Graphics
should be simple, bold, and symbolic.
D. Sandwich Board signs should be maintained in good,
working condition. Signs should be brought inside at
night and during inclement weather.
7.8 Wall Signs
A. Wall signs in pedestrian environments should
be interesting to look at, adding vibrancy to the
streetscape.
B. Wall signs should be three dimensional, with routed
letters.
C. Letters should be individually pin-mounted or
incorporated into a sign panel. Internally illuminated
channel letters should be avoided.
D. Signs should be illuminated in a way that is subordinate
to the design of the building. External illumination is
preferred.
7.9 Window Signs
A. Permanent window signs should ensure visibility
through the window into the tenant space beyond.
B. Doors and windows should not be obscured by signs.
C. Minimal colors and simple graphics are recommended.
Dimensionally routed wall sign, 39 West Bridge Street
Projecting and awning sign , 55 West Bridge Street
Window sign, 48 South High Street
GUIDELINES
Signs
Council Adopted Resolution XX-21
Month, Day, 2021
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, May 6, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
4. Historic Design Guidelines
18-037ADM Administrative Request
Proposal: New Historic Design Guidelines applicable to properties locat ed within the
Architectural Review District and its outlying historic properties.
Request: Review and recommendation to City Council for new Historic Design
Guidelines under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066.
Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/18-037
MOTION: Mr. Fishman moved, Mr. Grimes seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for an
Administrative Request for new Historic Design Guidelines applicable to properties located
within the Architectural Review District and its outlying historic properties.
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The Administrative Request for new Historic Guidelines was recommended for approval and
forwarded to City Council.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
To: Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
Date: May 6, 2021
Re: Historic Design Guidelines Update (18-037ADM)
Update
The Historic Design Guidelines were reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 4,
2021. The Commission tabled the request to allow for rev isions and additions to Chapter 2 regarding
cultural landscapes and natural resources, and new construction materials; Chapter 4 regarding
commercial storefronts ; Chapter 5 regarding new construction; Chapter 6 regarding additional of
language to various site design standards; and Chapter 7 regarding signs.
The proposed modifications include the following revisions within the document:
Cultural landscape and natural resources – Include a more robust background section, as well
as more detailed language regarding topography, ravines and springs, flora and fauna,
earthworks, cemeteries, historic features, and public art.
Commercial storefronts - Provide additional clarity for design and m aterials for rehabilitation.
New construction – Clarify the applicability standards, as well as building mass and scale and
placement.
Site design – Clarify the applicability standards, as well as natural features, landscaping, walls
and fences, decks and patios, lighting, and mechanical equipment.
Signs – Include minor change to the sandwich board sign section.
Summary
The Historic Design Guideline s are proposed in conjunction with the Architectural Review District
Zoning Code amendments (Ord. 03-21) and Historic District Rezoning (Ord. 04 -21), which the
Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended approval to City Council of at the
January 7, 2021 meeting. Council has since adopted the Code amendments and Rezoning. The
effective date of the Code and Rezoning are March 23, 2021
On February 24, 2021, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed and recommended approval
to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) for the proposed Historic Design Guidelines (HDG). A
summary of the proposed Guidelines are provided below.
Case History
The Code, Rezoning, and Guidelines 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
Division of Planning
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017
Phone: 614.410.4600 • Fax: 614.410.4747 Memo
Memo re. Historic Design Guidelines Update (18-037ADM)
May 6, 2021
Page 2 of 2
for revisions to the Historic District Zoning Code and Guidelines. In detail, the ARB has conducted six
reviews of the document s 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.
Details
The Historic Design Guideline s document is a companion document to the Architectural Review
District Zoning Code. The documents have been updated in tandem to ensure alignment. The Code
establishes qualitative and quantitative standards for development while the Guidelines provide
direction on how to successfully apply the zoning regulations. Both the Zoning Code and Guidelines
are of equal weight when modifications, rehabilitation, new construction, and signs are under
consideration within the Architectural Review District and outlying historic properties identified on
Appendix G. The proposed Guidelines provide an overview of the applicability, natural features,
neighborhood character, and building types and architectural styles. This infor mation is intended to
be foundational for Staff, Board members, and the community when proposal are brought forward.
The overview is followed by directions on how to apply the Guidelines. The substance of the
Guidelines is provided in Chapters 3-7, which includes: rehabilitation, new construction, site design,
and sign design recommendation. When the Code and Guidelines are administered in unison, it is
anticipated that the review process within the Architectural Review District will be more user -friendly
as recommendations align with current community values and address current challenges and
opportunities facing the District.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission make a recommendation of approval to City
Council with the proposed amendments .
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, March 4, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
1. Historic Design Guidelines
18-037ADM Administrative Request
Proposal: New Historic Design Guidelines applicable to properties located within the
Architectural Review District and its outlying historic properties.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council on the proposed
Administrative Request under the provisions of Zoning Code Section
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/pzc/18-037
MOTION: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Fishman seconded a request to table the proposed Historic Design
Guidelines amendment pending incorporation of the Commission’s recommendations.
VOTE: 6 – 0.
RESULT: The Administrative Request for new Historic Design Guidelines was tabled.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Kristina Kennedy Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Absent
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2021
Page 2 of 8
CONSENT CASE
2. Bridge Street District - Amended Final Development Plan, 20-177ADMC, Administrative
Request - Code Amendment
Request for review and recommendation to City Council to amend Zoning Code Section 153.066 to add
an Amended Final Development Plan review process for the Bridge Street District in alignment with
other review processes.
Public Comments
No public comments were received for this case.
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded a recommendation of approval to City Council for the addition of an
Amended Final Development Plan (AFDP) review process for the Bridge Street District.
Vote: Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Supelak,
yes.
[Motion passed 6-0]
NEW CASES
1. Historic Design Guidelines, 18-037ADMC, Administrative Request - Code Amendment
Request for review and recommendation to City Council for new Historic Design Guidelines applicable
to properties located within the Architectural Review District and its outlying historic properties.
Case Presentation
Ms. Martin stated that this is an administrative request for a recommendation of approval to City Council. The
Historic District Code amendment, Historic District area rezoning and revised Historic Design Guidelines are
the result of the work of a 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 potential revisions to the Historic District Zoning Code and Guidelines.
Opportunities for public input were provided at two public meetings held on October 9, 2018 and August 15,
2019, as well as two-hour office hours on each Wednesday in August 2019 (August 7, 14, 21 and 28). The
Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) reviewed draft revisions on July 11 and September 5, 2019. The
Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted six reviews of draft documents on July 10, July 24 and November
20, 2019, and on June 17, July 29, and November 18, 2020. On February 24, 2021, the ARB approved a
recommendation to the Planning Commission for its subsequent recommendation of approval to City Council.
Overview
The Historic Design Guidelines is a companion document that has been updated in alignment with a recent
Code amendment approved by City Council on February 22, 2021. Ordinance 03-21 approved an amendment
to the Architectural Review Board Development Requirements and Procedures and a revision to the Historic
District boundaries. The boundaries of Historic Dublin would be the area of applicability for the proposed
Design Guidelines, as well as any historic properties listed in Appendix G of the Zoning Code. Council also
approved Ordinance 04-21, an area rezoning removing Historic Dublin from the Bridge Street District. The
intent was to differentiate the regulations in the two districts. The purpose of the legislation related to the
Historic District was to ensure that current community values were reflected. The primary difference between
Code and Guidelines is that the Code provides regulations regarding what “shall” be applied; the Guidelines
provide recommendations and best practices, which “should” be applied in conjunction with the Code.
Chapters 1–3 provide an introduction, set the context and character for the District, and identify building types
and predominant architectural styles in Historic Dublin. Chapters 4-7 address rehabilitation, new construction,
site design, and sign design recommendations. When the Code and Guidelines are administered in unison, it
is anticipated that the review process within the Architectural Review District will be more user-friendly. Staff
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2021
Page 3 of 8
and the ARB recommend that the Commission review and subsequently recommend City Council approval of
the updated Historic Design Guidelines at their March 22, 2021 meeting.
Commission Questions/Discussion
Mr. Schneier pointed out the following items of concern:
1. On p. 46, the statement is made that, “New construction should be differentiated from existing
buildings but should be compatible with the established character of the District.” Unfortunately, that
statement could be interpreted in various ways; therefore, it should either be amended or eliminated.
2. On p. 48, Item 5.6d, “Doors and Windows,” indicates the “window to wall ratio should be similar to
other buildings within the District.” However, on p. 49, Item 5.11a states that, “buildings should
maximize window design to provide daylight.” Those two items would seem to be incompatible.
3. On p. 52, “Site Design - Applicability,” the language, which concerns landscaping, states that the
Guidelines “are applicable to both residential and commercial properties…,” but Section 6.3 indicates
that City Code Section 153.173-C3 states that the ARB has no jurisdiction over residential landscaping.
He would recommend the above language be tightened/clarified.
Ms. Martin responded that re. the third item (above), it was the intent that Section 6.3, “Landscaping,” would
be recommendations for both residential and commercial properti es, specifically in regard to tree preservation.
Although ARB has no jurisdiction to require that trees be preserved on residential properties, it is the Board’s
desire to encourage residential property owners to preserve trees to the extent possible in order to preserve
the established cultural landscaping in the District.
Ms. Fox suggested that the language be modified also to clarify that the applicant is not required to submit a
Landscape Design for Board review. These are simply landscape recommendations for the District.
Ms. Martin referred to item two (above). The intent of Item 5.11 was to allow some flexibility, recognizing that
new construction would want to employ energy-efficient and sustainable building methods, while also
attempting to be sensitive to the established character of the neighborhood. Her recommendation would be
to retain the Items in 5.6, Doors and Windows, and modify or eliminate Item 5.11.
Ms. Fox inquired about window replacements in historic homes.
Ms. Martin noted that this topic is covered in the “Rehabilitation” section, p. 40, which states, “replacement
windows should match the appearan ce of historic originals in number of panes, dimension…..” The implication
is that replacement should simulate the operating characteristics of the originals, but would not need to be
original.
Ms. Martin requested clarification of the concern in item one (above) re. new construction windows, in regard
to sustainability versus character.
Mr. Schneier stated that the issue is not point of view as much as it is the language/verbiage.
Ms. Martin stated that she is in agreement with Mr. Schneier’s comment regarding p. 46, Section 5.1a. That
phrase is not necessary, as the subject is addressed more directly in items b and c.
Ms. Fox stated that the Lancaster, Ohio Historic Design Guidelines provide more definition on the items Mr.
Schneier mentioned.
Mr. Schneier responded that the language should not be arbitrary. If helpful language has been crafted by
another entity, that could be considered.
Ms. Fox read the Lancaster language related to new construction that complements the Historic District.
[Discussion continued regarding new construction that complements but does not copy historic architecture.]
Mr. Fishman indicated the need to discourage the use of existing architecture that was not done well as a
justification for doing something similar. The language referring to “other houses” should be tightened.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2021
Page 4 of 8
Mr. Boggs suggested that the application of precedence be narrowed to require that context not be related to
buildings two blocks away, but to those within the immediate vicinity.
Ms. Fox suggested the following language, “New structures should look new but also take design cues from
surrounding existing buildings so as to relate to historic setting. One should not attempt to replicate or mimic
the historic building but work to achieve compatibility.”
Mr. Schneier stated that he liked that language without the last sentence.
Ms. Rauch stated that per ARB direction, the language was revised from “adjacent” to “surrounding.” Perhaps
“surrounding” could be clarified. If the Board should experience difficulty with the language proposed in the
Guidelines, the document can be revised again later.
Mr. Supelak stated that he was supportive of the modifications suggested by Mr. Boggs and Ms. Fox.
Public Comment
No public comments on the case were received.
Mr. Fishman noted that it is important to revise the language so that new construction does not result in
another 1950s ranch.
Ms. Fox stated that there is a variety of architecture on S. Riverview Street, some are considered contributing
and some non-contributing, including 3 or 4 ranches. If the non-contributing structures were to be demolished,
do we want to change the character of the street? The question should be if the eclectic nature of the District
that has evolved is preferred, or if a certain period of history, such as 1860 to 1910, is preferred. She believes
ARB is interested in leniency in their ability to allow new construction to complement without being prohibited.
Mr. Fishman stated the 1950s ranches should not be demolished if they are in good shape, as they are part
of the eclectic character. However, putting a 1950s ranch in the middle of S. High Street or other areas might
not be appropriate.
Ms. Martin noted that Franklin Street is part of Historic Dublin, and it is important to encourage preservation,
not redevelopment with a mid-19ths century aesthetic. The District is eclectic, non-homogenous. Preserving
that character, particularly south of Bridge Street, would be important.
Mr. Fishman stated that his intent is not to encourage removal of the 1950s ranches, but to ensure that new
construction blends with the surrounding character and is harmonious to the Historic District.
Ms. Martin responded that staff would take another look at the document and attempt to ensure that the
reference to “surrounding” is capturing the Commission’s guidance.
Ms. Fox referred to Site Design - Landscaping, p. 62. She is concerned about protecting the cultural landscape.
Topography is considered a protected asset. Because the Historic District is on the riverfront, there is a severe
grade change from High Street to the river. The landscape along the riverfront is considered a historic asset.
That area once held two stone quarries, contains historic stonewalls along the edges, and [along its northern
boundary] the Indian Run Ravine with beautiful waterfalls. The National Parks Service considers old
cemeteries, ponds, lakes, rivers, waterways, particular contours, and archaeological land masses, such as
Indian mounds, to be cultural landscape assets. A significant amount of land mass within the Historic District
falls within this category. The Guidelines provide no applications to protect this asset. She would like to see
this historic element added to the Historic Guidelines. There is existing verbiage that could be used.
Ms. Kennedy inquired if, at any point, this particular item was discussed as part of the review process.
Ms. Martin responded that the topic of cultural landscapes and resources was raised previously. It was
incorporated in a limited manner, within the Overview section, p. 16. There is an opportunity to make that
section more robust in regard to meaning, and to include specific recommendations related to the treatment
of Dublin’s resources.
Ms. Fox stated that ARB struggles with the applications that provide one story at the street level and 4-5
stories at the rear due to the grade drop, instead of terracing the building down the side of the hill, which
would provide a more attractive view from the rear. No site design guidance with respect to topography is
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2021
Page 5 of 8
provided in the Guidelines. New construction has resulted in the removal of stonewalls and older landscape
features along the riverfront. If the schools on Bridge Street were ever to be moved, there are inadequate
protections in place for the Indian Run Ravine. No regulations exist that prohibit the construction of a
condominium along the ravine. She would like staff to look for opportunities to provide ARB with some ability
to protect the cultural landscape in the District.
Commission consensus was to include this ability within the Design Guidelines.
Ms. Fox suggested that in the Appendix G list of historic buildings located outside the District, bold text be
used for those that are City-owned to provide differentiation.
Staff indicated that distinction would be made.
Ms. Fox stated that in regard to Historic Storefront Rehabilitation (p. 43), the word “avoid” is used in the
subpoints. She has suggested language be used that would indicate what is expected, rather than what should
be avoided.
Ms. Martin displayed revised language, consistent with Ms. Fox’s requests related to Storefront Rehabilitation,
and in Site Design, the siting of new development related to the topography. The intent is that it refer to the
surrounding buildings within the Architectural Review District.
Ms. Kennedy noted that, due to the requested revisions, the document is not ready for approval at this time.
Ms. Martin inquired if there would be two Commission members who would be willing to collaborate with staff
and review proposed revisions prior to formal review. This approach was used successfully with the ARB
review.
Mr. Schneier and Ms. Fox indicated their willingness to provide collaboration.
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Fishman seconded a request to table the proposed Historic Design Guidelines
amendment pending incorporation of the Commission’s recommendations.
Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes,
yes.
[Motion to table passed 6-0]
3. Dublin City Hall, 5555 Perimeter Drive, 21-015Z-PDP, Rezoning/Preliminary Development
Plan
Request for review and recommendation to City Council to rezone a ±5.03-acre site, located west of the
intersection of Perimeter Drive and Emerald Parkway, from Suburban Office and Institutional District to
Planned Unit Development District – Coffman Park.
Case Presentation
Ms. Martin stated that this is a request for review and a recommendation of approval of a rezoning and
Preliminary Development Plan for the new City Hall building, located at 5555 Perimeter Drive, from SO,
Suburban Office and Institutional District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District – Coffman Park, to
complete the Coffman Park municipal complex. The site is located west of Emerald Parkway, south of the
intersection with Perimeter Drive. The site is surrounded by other municipal facilities, including: the Justice
Center immediately to the west, and to the north -- Coffman Park, the Development Building, the Coffman
Homestead, and the Recreation Center.
Background
The Coffman Park PUD was originally established in 1994 (Ordinance 18-94), which incorporated 28 acres of
parkland zoned R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, with an additional 18 acres to facilitate
development of municipal facilities including the Dublin Recreation Center while also enhancing active and
passive parkland opportunities in the City. In 2007, Ordinance 91-07 rezoned four additional parcels, totaling
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 34B66058-426F-400E-83E1-3EACBBBE322C
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 one condition 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) That the properties proposed to be rezoned to BSD-Scioto River Neighborhood District remain
BSD-Historic Transition District.
VOTE: 4 – 0
RESULT: The area Rezoning from the Bridge Street District to Historic District was recommended for
approval with one condition 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 34B66058-426F-400E-83E1-3EACBBBE322C
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:
6. Historic Design Guidelines
18-037ADM Administrative Request
Proposal: New Historic Design Guidelines applicable to properties located within the
Architectural Review District and its outlying historic properties.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for the Administrative Request under the provisions of Zoning
Code Section 153.172
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/arb/18-037
MOTION: Ms. Kramb moved, Ms. Bryan seconded, to recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for the new Historic Design Guidelines applicable to properties located within the
Architectural Review District and its outlying historic properties.
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 34B66058-426F-400E-83E1-3EACBBBE322C
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 st ructures 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:
2. Historic Dublin Design Guidelines
Administrative Request
Proposal: Review (no vote) of revisions based on June 2020 feedback regarding
comprehensive updates to the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines to revise
design recommendations and address discrepancies with Zoning Code
requirements.
Request: Informal review, feedback, and recommendations for a future application
under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.066 and 153.171.
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/historic-dublin-guidelines-update/
RESULT: The Board reviewed and provided feedback on updates to the proposed Historic Dublin
Design Guidelines for the Historic Dublin area and outlying historic properties. The Board appreciated
revisions to the Neighborhood Character section and requested additional clarification on the Architectural
Styles section of the Guidelines. The Board identified minor technical revisions.
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
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
MEETING MINUTES
Architectural Review Board
Wednesday, July 29, 2020
CALL TO ORDER
Ms. Bryan, Chair, called the July 29, 2020 Special 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 Public Comment prior to Board review and
discussion. No vote will be taken on this evening’s agenda items. 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 and w elcome your comments on cases. Please use
a valid name and address when submitting your comments, and please 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. Cotter moved, Ms. Kramb seconded to accept the documents into the record.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Kownacki, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Bryan, yes; Mr. Cotter, yes.
[Motion carried 5-0]
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Kownacki moved, Mr. Alexander seconded to approve the June 4, 2020 joint ARB-PZC meeting minutes
and the June 17, 2020 Special Meeting minutes.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Bryan, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Cotter, yes; Mr. Kownacki, yes.
[Motion carried 5-0]
Ms. Bryan stated that the Architectural Review Board is responsible for review of construction, modification
or alteration to any site in the Review District or area subject to Architectural Board Review under the
provision of Zoning Code Section 153.177. The Board has the responsibility to review and make
recommendations on the following two Administrative Requests.
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.
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Special Meeting Minutes of July 29, 2020
Page 5 of 5
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Kathleen Bryan
Chair, Architectural Review Board
Judith K. Beal
Deputy Clerk of Council
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.