The URL can be used to link to this page

19-09 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES 19-09 Ordinance No. Passed 20 AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 0.18 ACRE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH HIGH STREET APPROXIMATELY 70 FEET SOUTH OF SPRING HILL FROM CB, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, TO HB, HISTORIC BUSINESS DISTRICT (54 SOUTH HIGH STREET -CASE NO. 08-0192) NOW, THEREF , BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of the elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit "A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned HB, Historic Business District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B," including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Exhibit "C," are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed thisQday of , 2009. Mayor -Presiding Officer Attest: of Council Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1090 CITY OF DUBLIN Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 M e m o To: Members of Dublin City Counci From: Terry Foegler, City Manager Date: April 16, 2009 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Ordinance 19-09 -Rezoning - 54 South High Street (Case 08-0192) Summary Ordinance 19-09, a request for a rezoning from CB, Central Business District, to HB, Historic Business District fora 0.18-acre parcel located in the Historic District, was introduced at the April 6, 2009 City Council meeting. Council members requested the site development plans that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed and approved as part of their packet materials including more legible site plans, elevations and a sample of the siding. The approved site development plan and elevations are attached and the sample of the siding will be available at the meeting. The request for a rezoning of this parcel is prompted by the site development proposal, which includes the demolition of an existing garage, the addition of a residential unit to both the existing building and a detached carnage house. The proposed mix of uses and development pattern can only be achieved on a site zoned HB, Historic Business District. The ARB's development approval history is summarized below and included in the packet along with the approved site development plans. The Code does not address whether or not the rezoning has to be approved in the Historic District prior to the ARB approving the site development plan. In this case, the applicant sought approval of their site development plan and completed the ARB process prior to the additional expenditure of the rezoning. It is important to note that, as with any Standard District zoning amendment, Council's purview is related to land use and does not include a review and approval of a specific site development plan, architectural style, or building materials. In the Historic District, those development details are reviewed and approved by the ARB as part of a site development proposal. Site Development Proposal Review and Approval by the ARB Planning informally presented the proposed site development plan for two alternative development schemes to add residential units on this site to the ARB for feedback on November 28, 2007 and December 19, 2007. The applicant revised the site development plan based on comments by Planning and by the ARB, which concerned the massing and scale of the proposed addition to the existing historic structure, the inadequate vehicular circulation, and other site Memo re. Ordinance 09-09 -Rezoning - 54 S. High Street April 16, 2009 Page 2 of 2 related issues. In May, June, and August 2008, the ARB reviewed the site development plan formally and Planning recommended disapproval each time due to continued concerns about massing, scale and circulation. The ARB postponed a decision on the site development plan at each of these meetings, requesting several revisions before reconsideration. At the August meeting, the applicant was directed to revise the site development proposal to separate the residential units, incorporate parking on the interior of the site between a smaller carnage house and the proposed addition to the existing historic structure. In December 2008, Planning again presented the site development plan to the ARB with significant revisions and a recommendation of approval with conditions. The ARB tabled the site development plan in order to allow the applicant to revise the height of the detached building to two stories or less, and to address the remaining conditions of approval as requested by Planning. These conditions included determining an appropriate location for refuse collection, resolving an area of vehicular conflict, and clarifying several aspects of the landscape plan and verifying that an existing easement will not impede this development. The site development plan as presented to ARB on January 21, 2009 incorporated the majority of these issues to the satisfaction of Planning and ARB and the proposal was approved. (See attached minutes) Rezoning Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission informally reviewed the rezoning request at the April 3, 2008 meeting, prior to review and approval of the site development plan by the ARB. Following the ARB approval of the proposed site development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning to City Council on March 5, 2009. Recommendation Planning recommends Council approval of Ordinance 19-09 at the Apri120, 2009 Council meeting. O$-~ ~ 9Z N City of Dublin Land Use and Rezoning Long Range Planning 54 South High Street o so ~o0 200eet Historic Dublin N Development Context Feei 0 75 150 300 January 2007 EXHIBIT "B" REZONING APPLICATION (Code Section 153.234) TO EXPIRE ORDINANCE NUMBER tit - o~ Land Use and Long Range Plonning 58Cb Shie!-Rings Rocs' Cuban, Ohio d?albl?3ti f hn~lF~l TD"?: ola-dli}d600 '-ax; 61 h ~J0 4/ V Wch Silt: www.dvhlin.on.us CITY COUNCIL (FIRST READING) ~ - 6 - o~ CITY COUNCIL (PUBLIC HEARING) CITY COUNCIL ACTION NOTE: All applications are reviewed by Land Use and Long Range Planning for completeness prior to being processed. Applications that are incomplete will not be accepted. Applicants are encouraged to contact Land Use and Long Range Planning for assistance and to discuss the rezoning process, and if needed, to make an appointment for apre-submittal review prior to submitting a formal application. I. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: ^ Preliminary Development Plan (Section 153.053) i~ Other (PleaseDescribe)_ ~~5~~a!`1d- !•J~y,n~c'_S5 V!s-~rtc.~ II. PROPERTY INFORMATION: This section must be completed. Property Address: 4,,r ~ I~ ~ I 5..~ Tax ID/Parcel Number(s): ~ ~ 3 _ ~~pC7q ~~ ._ O O Parcel Size (Acres}: ~ C Existing Land UselDevelopment: wi'j1 v~'Je/C! ~ L ~ IQe:>~WI L Proposed Land UselDevelopment: CUn'lin2r'G1K1~ 1~~~s~'~~sl~~+~~lt~. ~we~L1M~~5 Existing Zoning District: ~ /7 Requested Zoning District: N~ i Total Acres to be Rezoned: ~ ~ u III. REZONING STATEMENT: Please attach separate sheets (8.5 X 11) to the back of this application with your responses to the following sections. A. Please briefly explain the proposed rezoning and development: B. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the existing and potential future Land use character of the vicinity: C. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan and, if applicable, how the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for Planned Districts [Section 153.052(8)]: D. Briefly address how the proposed rezoning and development meet the review criteria for Preliminary e a a I by the Planning and Zoning Commission as stated in [Section 153.055(A)J (SEE ATTACHMENT A): ~ ©~ MaR ~ ~ zoos Page 1 of 5 LONG RA ~ Up1 ~` .' ~- ~ ~1N~fING Has a previous application to rezone the property been denied by City Council within the last twelve months? ^ Yes ~ No If yes, list when and state the basis for reconsideration as noted by Section 153,234(A)(3): IV. PLEASE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FOR INITIAL STAFF REVIEW: Please submit large (24X36) and small (11X17) sets of plans. Please make sure all plans are stapled and collated. Large plans should also be folded. Staff may later request plans that incorporate review comments. Fourteen (14) additional copies of revised submittals are required for the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS AND THIRTEEN (13) COPIES Please notarize agent authorization, if necessary. ^ FOURTEEN (i4) COPIES OF A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF TWE PROPERTY ^ FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A TAX PARCEL ID MAP indicating property owners and parcel numbers for all parcels within 500 FEET of the site (Maximum Size 11X17). Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance. ^ FOURTEEN {74) COPIES OF A LIST OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET of the perimeter of the property based on the County Auditor's current tax list, including parcel number, owner name (not Mortgage Company or Tax Service), and address (Maximum Size 11X17). It is the policy of the City of Dublin to notify surrounding property owners of pending applications under public review. Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance. ^ .FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF THE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT ^ FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF SCALED SITElSTAKING PLANS SHOWING: a. North arrow and bar scale. b. Location, size and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping, structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking). c. Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, number of dwellings, building/unit types, square footages, parking, open space, etc.). d. Size of the site in acres/square feet. . e. All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights-of-way, easements, and other information related to the site. f. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries. g. Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties. ^ IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING SCALED PLANS: a. Grading Plan. b. landscaping Plan. c. Lighting Pian, d. Utility and/or Stormwater Plan. e. Tree Survey, Tree Preservation and Tree Replacement Plans ^ IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) SCALED, ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS with proposed colors and materials noted. ^ IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN {14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF SCALED DRAWINGS SHOWING: a. Location of signs and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window). b. Sign dimensions, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grade. c. Copy layout and lettering styles (fonts) of signage. d. Materials and manufacturer to be used in fabrication. e. Total area of sign face (including frame) f. Type of illumination ^ MATERIAUCOLOR SAMPLES (swatches, photos, plans, or product specifications). Include manufacturer name and product number. Page 2 of 5 S/ r`I IRRGlUT PRf1PFRTY (IWNFR(R-• Thic cactinn must he rmm~leted- Please attach additional Sheets if needed, Name (Individual or Organization): K~~`~~~~ ,~ ~ ~iV L f i4 ~~~~ r~ Mailing Address: ~ _ (Street, City, State, Zip Code} P O ~ I,.~O ~ ~ ,~ S Q ~ e L/~;..~~a r ~ ~ Q 1., `-130 LS ___ __` ____ Daytime Telephone: ~ 7 0 ~. J7 ~7 ~ (.j g Fax: ~ 7 f7 -. ~ b ~ - ~j ~03 Email or Alternate Contact Information: ~ /'!'} eC-1 -'~ it~ ~ n e-~ h5 . L~ -~^ 1/I. APPLICANT: Please complete if applicable. This is the person(s) who is requesting the rezoning if different than the property nwner(sl_ Name: ~o bar ~ /~v~~5~ N Organization (Owner, Developer, Contradtor, etc.): KD~~~~ ~'~m r L~O~ j -- --------- --- --- L~--/----- __ _ _ - - -- MailingAddress: [ /~ J,, ~~/~/1p ) /~, 2 , i (Street, City, State, Zip Code) / ~~ ~ LJ /~ I ~C'M~ ~ l~~ ~'c ~ ~ ~'i~//yc /,J~ U r~ L~~ l./ ~l ~~ J Q `l Daytime Telephone: ~ ~ L! - 3 ~ ~/~ ~3 ~ ~ Fax: C~ 1 ~ ~ `! p ~ - ~ L1 / g Email or Alternate Contact Information: ~~ v/ ~p%,~ ~ ~~/~~~f L , Cb~ VII. REPRESENTATIVE{S) OF OWNER/APPLICANT: Please complete if applicable. This is the primary contact person who will receive correspondence regarding this application. If needed, attach additional sheets for multiple representatives. /t Name: ~w~~WLL ~ ~~~~! Organization: Mailing Address: ~ ~ l~ ~ ~% ~ ~ ~ V U D ~- l tL~ ~ lJ jam, ~", ~ ~ ~ ~ --- .. _ (Street, City, State, Zip Code) r 1, Daytime Telephone: /_ f LI _.3 3 ~ .., (1"-Q f Email or Alternate Contact Information: Fax: ~ ~ ~~ -- ~j~?j (~ -- 1 ~`~~~ ~~~ ®l~~-rraiC, Page 3 of 5 Vttl. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE(S): If the applicant is not the property owner, this seclion must be completed and notarized. in ail matters pertaining to the processing and approval of this applicatio representations and agreements made by the designated representative. Signature of Current Property Owner: ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ day of State of _~1-1___-______- _ County of .~Y~~.1,1_n------ - ------ . 20 _ ©LZ - Notary Public ~~ __ _ / ,2 ./~ IX. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City repre~ application. The Owner/Applicant, as notarized below, hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, property described in this application. TYLER J. PHEANIS Notary Public. Slate of Ohio My Commission Expires May 28.2Dt2 essential to process this and post a notice on the X. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The City of The OwnerlAppiicant acknowledges the approval of this request for rezoning by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission andlor Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said OwnerlApplicant. 11. Hr'r'LII.H+v + J Hf r1uHV+ +. ~ rns secuon rnusc oe cornp~e[ea anu nu+anceu. I / t Q"(>-rii1. ~ ~~~"~~ ,the owner or authorized representative, have read and understand the contents of this application. The information contained in this application, attached exhibits and other information submitted is complete and in all respects true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of applicant or authorized representative: ~,.~!~ ~~ f, ~ Datc: ~~/ Z/b g Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____/ o~' "' day of _f i• `^= , zo State of ~~ ~~_ /_ ____ County of _ f r~`"'"~''! r~ Notary Public v ~' 4~_~' Joan E. Shows Notary Public, State of Ohio My Commission Facpires 08-09-2010 NOTE: THE OWNER, OR NOTED REPRESENTATIVE IF APPLICABLE, WILL RECEIVE A FACSIMILE CONFIRMING RECEIPT OF THIS APPLICATION FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Amount ec ved• Application P&Z Date(s): P&Z Action: Receipt No: ~(~,~ MIS Fe:~er- Date Received: ` p Received By: Type of Request: , - --- - N, Circle) Side of: ~ _j_„c t ~'n L~~„ o-{-' Nearest Intersection: (~,~~ ~, C., --{'tl ` -- `.~~ - - - - -- Distance from Nearest Intersection: •~, I _ the owner, hereby authorize to act as my applicant representative(s) g the project. I agree to be bound by alf Date: ~ ~ ~ ~ . O Page 4 of 5 ATTACHMENT A: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA § 153.055 PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA. (A) Preliminary development plan. In the review of proposed planned developments, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall determine whether or not the preliminary development plan complies with the following criteria. In the event the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed preliminary development plan does not comply with a preponderance of these criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall disapprove the application: (1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Zoning Code; (2} The proposed development is in conformity with Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan, and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and wilt not unreasonably burden the existing street network; (3} The proposed development advances the general welfare of the city and immediate vicinity and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas; (4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the city so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded; (5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; (6} The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site; (7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; (8} Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on the sur- rounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non-conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedes- trians; (9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of this development within the PD and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; (10) The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and structures, yard space, design and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overall accept- ability of the development plans contribute to the orderly development of land within the city; (11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas; (12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed developmentjustity any deviation from the standard devel- opment regulations included in the Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; {13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the city; (14) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; (15) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements and not impair the existing public service system for the area; {16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. Page 5 of 5 A- Answer We will build two buildings, each a single family residence on the back of 54 South High Street. In doing so we will be taking down an existing concrete block garage. We will pave an existing parking area and landscape the lot. All exterio~° materials have been approved by and meet the ARB's requirements. The building's have been approved by the ARB. The current will be divided into 3 pal°cels. B- Historic Dublin is in need of housing for people who would like to live in Historic Downtown Dublin. The project fits with future plans of the histoi°ic district. G hi working with the Dublin ARB, we have desihned a project that fits with what the long range plans Ire for the district. D- In developing our- projecf, Dublin's ARB worked with us in designing housing units that would be an asset to the historic district. We have received the ARB's approva'1 for the project. lar 17 08 03:16p THE JEFFERS COngpANIES 7403633503 UII ~, p.1 ., LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY GRANTED FOR SPECIFIC Pt1RPOSES BY THIS DOCUMENT fT IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, that I/we, Richard H. Jeffers and Amelia Jeffers, of Delaware, Ohio, do hereby grant a limited and specific power of attorney to Larry Paglioni of Dublin, Ohio as my/our attorney-in-fact for the following described specific uses and purposes and for no other purpose: Said attomey-in-fact shall have authority and the power to undertake and perform only the following acts on my behalf: seek and apply for arezoning/zoning amendment of our real estate situated in the City of Dublin, Ohio for such commercial/retail/residential dwelling uses as my/our attomey-in-fact deems advisable, to seek and apply for such ancillary applications as may be needed or appropriate including, but not limited to, variances or conditional permits, and to appear before the public boards and bodies of the City of Dublin Ohio including, but not limited to, planning and zoning and other committees and Dublin City Council as to all pertinent and related issues pertaining to the use of our real estate situated at 34 South High St. Dublin, Ohio. This authority shall also include any incidental acts #hat are reasonably required to carry out and perfom~ the specific authorities herein granted. This power of attorney shall be effective upon execution. This power of attorney may be revoked by me at any time. This power of attorney shall automatically expire and terminate upon my/our death(s) or upon I~?rte 3 j 201Z~ By acceptance of delivery of this instrument, mylour attorney-in-fact accepts this appointment as my/our attorney-in-fact subject to the terms and conditions contained herein and further agrees to, at all times, act as my/our fiduciary and in my/our best interests, as he deems appropriate his sound and prudent discretion. Further, although my/our attomey-in-fact may, at his sole expense, engage an attomey at law, engineers or other advisers to assist in the process, my/our aftorney- in-fact shall have authority to, in any manner, de(egafe or assign any of the powers granted to him herein. Further, by acceptance of this instrument, my/our attorney-in- fact agrees to indemnify and hold me/us safe from all liability for monetary obligations incurred in the rezoning process which have not been specifically approved by me/us in writing. Signed by Richard H. Jeffers and Amelia Jeffers fihis ~~day of March, 2008. STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF DELAWARE, ss. Rafnra ma n nntarv nuhlic_ in and for said county and state, personally appeared the ~*~ Proximity Report Results Page 1 of 2 Proximity ReporE Results `~- ', _ ~ ', y _-_-____'....._ '~ ~ , ~ , The selection distance was 300 feet. The selected parcel was 273-0DD097. ~ ~ - ," To view a table showing the 35 parcels I '~ r within the displayed proximity, scroll down. ~ ~ _ - -~ --~ Get Report ~~ ~i . ~ ~'~ . ~ ~] (:': ; ;~ Print lNindow v Back to Proximity_Report - ~ ~ ~~ - - -. ~i` - l ,, - _: , _- . ,: _- ~I'~ !I ~ r:f~ ~~, 4 _ ~ ~...... C.~ _ _.. 'i~ - - 1- ,~ __ --- ~. i -- _ ~-.- I __.--.--^.. _ _ _ .. _~ ~ ;, _ Image Date: Wed Jan 9 16:25:06 2008 Disclaimer This map is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It is compiled from recorded deeds, survey plats, and other public records and data. Users of this map are notifed that the public primary information source should be consulted for verification of the information contained on this map. The county and the mapping companies assume no legal responsibilities for the information contained on this map. Please notify the Franklin County GIS Division of any discrepancies. Proximity Parcels Flint: To copy this report to another program: 1. Hold down the left mouse buttton over the top-left corner of the area you want to get. 2. Drag the mouse to the bottom-left corner of the desired area. 3. Let go of the mouse button. 4. Select I=dit dopy from the menu bar. You can then Paste the report into another application. Parcel Owner Name Address 273-000104 ALBERT LUANN E ALBERT JOHN C 91 S HIGH ST 273-000094 ALLESPACH SIEGBERT A TR ALLESPACH R S HIGH ST 273-000093 ALLESPACH SIEGBERT A TR ALLESPACH R 55 S HIGH ST 273-000039 ANDERSON KRISTIN L SNYDER ERICA 63 S RIVERVIEW ST 273-000048 BAILEY JONATHAN D BAILEY TASHA M 55 S RIVERVIEW ST 273-000035 BASSETT THOMAS L & VICKI E LYDEN 75 S HIGH ST 273-000012 BASSETT THOMAS L LYDEN VICKI E 35 S HIGH ST 273-000086 BENSON ROBERT E 86 S HIGH ST 273-000079 CASTRAY TIMOTHY E 25 5 RIVERVIEW ST ~ ~„ ~ ~~' 273-000062 CITY OF DUBLIN 27 S HIGH ST ~ "~ 273-000037 CITY OF DUBLIN 25 S HIGH ST Ml1R 1 ~ 2008 273-000089 CULLEN THOMAS 32 S HIGH ST t.i i Y ur ~~,,,.,,,~ 273-000008 CULLEN THOMAS 30 S HIGH ST ~-LNG RAN ~ PE NNING 273-000045 EDM0ND50N DIANE M 61 S RIVERVIEW ST 273-000013 FILBY RUTH V 73 S RIVERVIEW ST C~8 - ~~q~ ~I~ ~:"~ 1 http://209.51.193.89/scripts/mwSrer.pl 1 /9/2008 riap s=arcr, Real Estate Starch Audit r ~on,e Proximity Report Results Page 2 of 273-000072 G&S PROPERTIES & SANFORD J SOLOMON 38 S HIGH ST 273-001940 GRANT" DUNCAN M 83 S HIGH ST 273-000007 GRANT DUNCAN f~1 83 5 HIGH ST 273-000102 GUY INVESTMENT CO LTD 22 S HIGH ST 273-000040 GUY INVESTMENT CO LTD 14 S HIGH ST 273-000256 HARM DAVID E & DONNA L 83 5 RIVERVIEIN ST 273-000014 JACOBY BEN & BETTY J CO-TRS 58 S HIGH ST 273-000074 JACOBY BEN & BETTY J CO-TRS 66 S HIGH ST 273-000259 JACOBY BETTY) & BEN CO-TRS S HIGH ST 273-000080 JONES BRION D LANNAN KATHLEEN M 37 S RIVERVIEIN ST 273-000047 )ONES HERBERT \N 8 LEONA M 19 S RIVERVIEW ST 273-000061 MARSALKA MARY B 76 S HIGH ST 273-OOOOSZ MULTIPLEX REALTY LLC 90 S HIGH ST 273-000005 PLATINUM MANAGEMENT LLC 87 S HIGH ST 273-000056 PRICE JACK A 24 S HIGH ST 273-000087 RAY MICHAEL LTD 48 S HIGH ST 273-000092 RICHARDS JOYCE M TOD 63 S HIGH ST 273-000097 ROBBINS GLEN A 54 S HIGH ST 273-000105 SCHISLER ROBERT D SCHISLER ZOA M 82 S HIGH ST 273-000019 SMITH ROSELEA M 97 S RIVERVIEIJ ST *~ r~~ele4:g 7~ t~/„~;~1.1AP lrtth://209.51193.89/scripts/11~w5rer.hl I /9/2005 Proximity Report Results Proximity Report Results The selection dis~nce was 500 feet. The selected parcel was 273-000097. To view a table showing the 68 apar+ce! within the displayed probmity, scroll down. Get Report Print Window Back to Proxima Report Page 1 of 3 Disdaimer This map is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It is compiled from rernrded deeds, survey platr, and other public records and data. Users of this map are notified that the public primary information source should be consulted for verification of the information rnntained on this map. The county and the mapping companies assume no legal responsibili<ies for the information contained on this map. Please notify the Franklin County GIS Division of any disUepancies. Proximity Parcels Him To copy this report to another program: 1. Hold down the left mouse buttton over the top-left corner of fihe area you want to get. 2. Drag the mouse to the bottom-left corner of the desired area. 3. Let go of the mouse button. 4. Select Edit Copy from the menu bar. You can then Paste the report into another application. Parcel Owner !Name Address 273-000088 37 WEST BRIDGE STREET' LLC 37 BRIDGE ST 273-000104 ALBERT LUANN E ALBERT JOHN C 91 S HIGH ST 273-000094 ALLESPACH SIEGBERT A TR ALLESPACH R S HIGH ST 273-000093 ALLESPACH SIEGBERT A TR ALLESPACH R 55 S HIGH ST 273-000039 ANDERSON KRISTIN L SNYDER ERICA 63 S RIVERVIEW ST 273-000068 B E T INVESTMENTS I LLC 40 E BRIDGE ST 273-000048 BAILEY JONATHAN D BAILEY TASHA M 55 S RIVERVIEW ST 273-000035 BASSETT-il-10MAS L & VICKI E LYDEN 75 S HIGH ST 273-000024 BASSETT THOMAS L Er AL 41 W BRIDGE ST ~~~~ s . , ~,~ 273-000012 BASSETT THOMAS L LYDEN VICKI E 35 S HIGH ST R ~~~ 8 I>n ~VI 273-000086 BENSON ROBERT E 86 S HIGH ST 273-000123 BOLYARD JEFFREY P 60 FRANKLIN ST GI t Y UI' iUUuLiiV LAND USE & 273-000033 BRYAN KATHLEEN M 84 S RIVERVIEW ST ~•UNG RANGE ~'LI4iV~i1PvC 273-000109 CASSADY BETTY J 40 FRANKLIN ST 273-000079 CASTRAY lZMOTHY E 25 S RIVERVIEW ST ~~~~ ~~~~ httT.•/!7 (1Q G7 1QZ QQ/crrir+tc/m«rCrAr „1 I I/117(1(YI ~ S~rd1, n__, Estate Scar;.i Auditor Home Image Date: Thu Nov 1 15:29:56 2007 Proximity Report Results 273-000062 CITY OF DUBLIN 27 S HIGH ST 273-000037 CITY OF DUBLIN 26 S HIGH ST 273-009979 CITY OF DUBLIN 1 W BRIDGE ST 273-000111 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 34 FRANKLIN ST 273-000148 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 20 W BRIDGE ST 273-000052 CORY DONN A TR 90 5 HIGH ST 273-000089 CULIEN THOMAS 32 S HIGH ST 273-000008 CULI.EN THOMAS 30 S HIGH ST 273-000022 DUBLIN MARATHON SERVICE CO 9 S HIGH ST 273-000045 EDMONDSON DIANE M 61 S RNERVIEW ST 273-000034 EMSWELLER JOE 113 5 HIGH ST 273-000013 FILBY RUTH V 73 S RNERVIEW ST 273-000127 FLADT KIMBERLY F 86 FRANKLIN ST 273-000072 G&S PROPERTIES & SANFORD J SOLOMON 38 S HIGH ST 273-000060 GARCIA DAVID AGREEN-GARCIA JENNIFE 109 S RNERVIEW ST 273-000070 GRABILL & CO LLC 109 5 HIGH ST 273-001940 GRANT DUNCAN M 83 S HIGH Sl" 273-000007 GRANT DUNCAN M 83 S HIGH ST 273-000102 GUY INVESTMENT CO LTD 22 S HIGH ST 273-000040 GUY INVESTMENT CO LTD 14 S HIGH ST 273-000256 HAHM DAVID E & DONNA L 83 S RNERVIEW ST 273-000121 HAYDOCY KATHRYN H 56 FRANKLIN ST 273-000314 HAYES JOHN R HAYES SHERRY L S RIVERVIEW ST 273-000315 HAYES JOHN R HAYES SHERRY L 56 S RNERVIEW ST 273-000014 JACOBY BEN & BETTY ] CO-TT25 58 5 HIGH ST 273-000074 JACOBY BEN & BETTY J CO-TRS 66 S HIGH ST 273-000259 JACOBY BETTY ] & BEN CO-TRS 5 HIGH ST 273-000059 ]C LAND COMPANY LTD 110 S RNERVIEW ST 273-000051 JENKINS DUBLIN LLC 6 S HIGH ST 273-000080 JONES BRION D LANNAN KATHLEEN M 37 S RNERVIEW ST 273-000047 JONES HERBERT W & I_EONA M 19 S RIVERVIEW ST 273-001684 CARSON DAVID B & ELIZABETH \N 76 S RIVERVIEW ST 273-000129 LEVERING WILLIAM E & KATHRYN W 94 FRANKLIN ST 273-000138 MALOOF MICHAEL F & VANESSA G 16 E BRIDGE ST 273-000177 MALOOF MICHAEL F & VANESSA G 16 E BRIDGE ST 273-000061 MARSALKA MARY B 76 S HIGH 5T 273-000069 MCCORMICK CHERYL L 8 E BRIDGE ST 273-000075 MOFFITT DORTIIA M i/2 TR & 1/2 FEE 119 S HIGH 5T 273-000131 MOFFITT RUTii TR 100 FRANKLIN ST 273-001978 ODIG LTD 106 S HIGH ST 273-000005 PLATINUM MANAGEMENT LLC 87 S HIGH ST 273-000056 PRICE JACK A 24 S I1IGH ST 273-000087 RAY MICHAEL LiTJ 48 S HIGH ST 273-000092 RICIIARDS JOYCE M TOD 63 S HIGH ST 273-000262 RIG56Y ]OSEPH M RIGSBY JUDY L 64 S RNERVIEW ST 273-000097 RO66INS Gl-EN A 54 S HIGH ST 273-000105 SCHISLER ROBERT D SCI-iISLER ZOA M 82 5 HIGH ST 273-000286 SMlili ROSELEA M S RIVERVIEW ST 273-000019 SMITH ROSELEA M 97 S RIVERVIEW ST Page 2 of 3 Proximity Report Results 273-000066 STAUB ALLAN D LANTZ RONALD L 273-000125 SZUTER ALAN P SZU7ER MARY L 273-003411 VILLAGE OF DUBLiN 273-003410 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN ~MetaMAP 114 S HIGH ST 80 FRANKLIN St 19 S RIVERVIEW ST 56 S RNERVIEW ST Page 3 of 3 i....... iinnn ci ~ n~ nni__..:_._L_...c ___ _1 i i ii nnn~ Myer ~, Surveying Com~,any, Inc. 2740 East Main Street, Columbus 43209 (Bexley), Ohio 614-235-8677 FAX:614-235-4559 A Mortgage Localia; Survey prepared fur and certified lo: Lcgnl Ucscription: Situated ilTUhio,IComCyl)flFral klurt Ci(ylo[/DubGuf tlBc ; 6,1 Par~Lcri1120 TC~ Village of Dublin, Uhio Plal 13ouk 3, Pagc 199 Applicant:l•{obbins 1'usted Address: 54 5. High Slrcel, Dublin, Ohio F.L.YLA. Flood Zune llesignatiuu: Flood Zone "X" as per F.LR.M. 390(,73 01206 .Apparent L:ncroacLmeats: 1) Gravel Ovcr Properly Linc. 2) House Ovcr Properly Linc. 3) )raves and Gut(crs Uvcr Properly Line. A L LEY (Occup(~ed 20 ~ wide ) 48.0 I,B~plurJ JD' IS' 0 10 Date: 5- 20-2003 a ry a ~~ a~- ol„ Z ~ a ~ H ~ ~ y ~ c y ~' 3 m o > ~ m~ ~- > "' .c c t+. ( J48.5i s a s. To BRIDC `'f' O. V S. HIGH STREET 663 reby cerlily lhul the 1'orcgoing Nlorlgage Location survey was prepared fruw [icld measurements in accordance with Chapter 4733-38 Ohio Administrative and is not a boundary sw'vcy pursuant to Chapter 4733-37 of said code. NNURMA'I'IUN SHOWN HCIZLON IS NO'I"TO 13ls {J'I'1L1ZCU hO1Z'rlll: ~LLA'1'lUN Ul' 13UILll[NGS, h~NCIS, LANllSCAPING Olt O'I'tiGR PLI{MANLNT Myers Urdcr Nu. - 13-0.5/IG/p 3 I Ree . ~) L, O F O,S, ~..,, un`l; ~rYpNAI' 131~r; Myers Surveying Cu., Inc. y ~ Prafc.r.rronrr! Slawel or Field 1 ~ I DWG ' S I Ltr. \~ ~ I Ck~~" s : w: w.: ~f ~' i i 08-0192 54 S. High Street ' Larry Paglioni ~ Robert A. Kortsen 58 S. High Street 16235 River Birch Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Marysville, OH 43040 Glen Robbins Kristin Anderson & Jonathan & Tasha Bailey 54 S. High Street Eric Snyder 55 S. Riverview Street Dublin, OH 43017 63 S. Riverview Street Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Thomas Cullen Diane Edmondson G&S Properties & 32 S. High Street 61 S. Riverview Street Sanford J.Solomon Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 38 S. Riverview Street Dublin, OH 43017 Ben & Betty Jacoby Mary Marsalka Joyce & Todd Richards 58 S. High Street 76 S. High Street 63 S. High Street Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Luann & John Albert Siegbert & Renee Allespach Robert E. Benson 91 S. High Street 55 S. High Street 86 S. High Street Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Timothy Castray Ruth Filby Roselea M. Smith 25 S. Riverview Street 73 S. Riverview Street 97 S. Riverview Street Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Guy Investment Co. Ltd. David & Donna Hahm Richard & Amelia Jeffers 22 S. High Street 83 S. Riverview Street PO Box 1280 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Delaware, OH 43015 Brion Jones & Mary B Marsalka Multiplex Realty LLC Kathleen Lannan 76 S. Riverview Street 90 S. High Street 37 S. Riverview Street Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Platinum Management LLC Jack A Price Michael Ray Ltd 87 S. High Street 24 S. High Street 48 S. High Street Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Robert & Zoa Schisler 37 Darby Co. Ltd Thomas Bassett 82 S. High Street 20 N. High Street 75 S. High Street Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 RE: 14-18, 22 S. High St. Thomas Bassett and Vicki Lyden Jeffrey Bolyard Kathleen Bryan 5641 Glenbervie Ct. 60 Franklin St. 84 S. Riverview St. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 RE: 35-39 S. High St. Diane and Girls, LLC 4176 Stone Root Dr, Hilliard, OH 43026 RE: 76-78 S. High St. Dublin Marathon Service Co 7809 Olentangy River Rd. Columbus, OH 43235 RE: 1-19 W. Bridge St. Duncan Grant 83 S. High St Dublin, OH 43017 Kathryn Haydocy 56 Franklin St. Dublin, OH 43017 Lynne Jenkins 56 S. Riverview St. Dublin, OH 43017 Joseph and Judy Rigsby 64 S. Riverview St. Dublin, OH 43017 Ben and Betty Jacoby 66 S. High Street Dublin, OH 43017 Herbert and Leona Jones 19 S. Riverview St. Dublin, OH 43017 Alan and Mary Szuter 80 Franklin St. Dublin, OH 43017 Jenkins Dublin LLC 26566 Lake Rd. Bay Village, OH 44140 RE: 6-12 S. High Street David and Elizabeth Larson 76 S. Riverview St. Dublin, OH 43017 CITY OF DUBLIN_ Land Una and Long Rangs %anning 5300 Sh'.ar-Rings Road Dublin, Ohia 4301 ~'. 23G Phone/TDD:614-4144600 Fox: 614.4144747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.u.s Creating a Legacy PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION MARCH 5, 2009 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. 54 South High Street 08-0192 Proposal: Request: Applicant: Planning Contact: Contact Information: Rezoning Rezoning of a parcel from CB, Central Business District to HB, Historic Business District. The site is located on the east side of South High Street, approximately 75 feet south of Spring Hill. Review and recommendation of approval of a rezoning under the provisions of Code Section 153.234. Lawrence Paglioni; represented by Robert Kortsen. Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II. (614) 410-4675, chusak~dublin.oh.us. MOTION: To recommend approval to City Council of this Rezoning application to change the zoning from CB, Central Business District to HB, Historic Business District because it is in keeping with the objectives and goals of both the residents and businesses of the Historic District and the City of Dublin and meets the Community Plan. VOTE: 7 - 0. RESULT: This Rezoning application was approved. STAFF CI/RTIFICA"PION L~~~u ~~ ~ ~ . ~ a~C Claudia D. Husak, AICP Planner II Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2009 -Minutes ~~A Page 12 of 15 2. 54 South High Street 08-0192 Rezoning [This case was pulled from the cases eligible for the consent Agenda by Richard Taylor who indicated that a presentation was not necessary.] Mr. Taylor asl{ed to see renderings of the proposed architecture for context purposes. Claudia Husak explained that the Planning Report stated the final approval for the architecture and site modifications was made by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) in January 2009. She said the approval included an attached, two-story, 2,500-square-foot addition to the existing building and a 1,600-square-foot free-standing structure, a cottage/cahriage house arrangement with an improved parking lot, landscaping, and so forth. She said the change in topography was significant on the site and presented elevations of the existing building with that elevation on top. Mr. Taylor asked if there would be any significant re-building of the existing strl~cture. Ms. Husak said the addition was attached to the existing structure. Robert Kortsen, 16235 River Birch Drive, Marysville, representing the applicant Lawrence Paglioni said 11e thought they now had a plan that would work for the rest of that side of High Street. Mr. Zimmernlan asked if there was anyone who wished to make additional comments on this case. [There was no one.] 1Vlotion and Vote Mr. Zimmel~nan made the motion to recommend approval to City Council of this Rezoning application to change the zoning from CB, Central Business District to HB, Historic Business District because it is in keeping with the objectives and goals of both the residents and businesses of the Historic District and the City of Dublin, and meets the Community Plan. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Freimann, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Taylor, yes; and Mr. Zimmerman. (Approved 7 - 0.) PLANNING REPORT crr~ of Dt~~LI`- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION lend Use cnd long Ronge Planning MARCH 5 2009 5800 Shier•Rings Rood ~ Dublin, Ohio 43016.1236 Phone: 614.410-4600 Fax: 614-410-4147 Web Site: www.dublin.ah.us SECTION I -CASE INFORMATION: 2. 54 South High Street 08-0192 Rezoning Proposal: Rezoning of a parcel from CB, Central Business District to HB, Historic Business District. The site is located on the east side of South High Street, approximately 75 feet south of Spring Hill. Request: Review and recommendation of approval of a rezoning under the provisions of Code Section 153.234. Applicant: Lawrence Paglioni; represented by Robert Kortsen. Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (6I4) 410-4675, chusak@dublin.oh.us. Case Summary This is a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a change in zoning from CB, Central Business District, to HB, Historic Business District fora 0.18-acre parcel located in the Historic District. The site is currently developed with a commercial building fronting South High Street and all non-conforming uses and structures will be subject to the requirements of Section 153.004(C} of the Dublin Zoning Code. Planning recommends approval of this rezoning. Case Background The Planning and Zoning Commission informally reviewed this request at the April 3, 2008 meeting and had no concerns regarding the proposed rezoning and the applicant was instructed to work with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for its approval. A rezoning to HB, Historic Business District is required in order to develop the site with the uses proposed. Although the ARB history is summarized below and included in your packet, as with other rezonings to standard zoning districts the Commission's purview for this application is based solely on land use and does not include review and approvals for future development. The request to the ARB was to allow the construction of atwo-story, 2,517-square-foot addition to an existing 1,430-square-foot building, and a 1,653-square-foot two-story detached building and associated site modifications. The applicant has worked with Planning and the ARB throughout 2008 on the proposed site improvements. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Report -March 5, 2009 Application Number 08-0192 -Page 2 of 4 The ARB reviewed and tabled the application several times following revisions requested by Planning, Engineering, and the ARB. The application was tabled at the December 17, 2008 ARB meeting to allow the applicant to revise the height of the detached building to two stories or Less, find an appropriate location for refuse collection, resolve an area of vehicular conflict, clarify the landscape plan, and verify the existence and purpose of an existing easement. The applicant addressed these issues to the satisfaction of Planning and the AKB and the application was approved on January 21, 2009. (See attached ARB history) Historic District Zoning Districts: The Historic Residential and Historic Business Districts were adopted in October 2003 to permit the preservation and development of homes and businesses on lots that are comparable in size, mass and scale, while maintaining and promoting the traditional character of the Historic Dublin area. The districts were further designed to maintain the unique qualities of the historic community and ensure that those development patterns continue the intent and purpose of the original village. Site Description: Location The 0.18-acre site is located on the east side of South High Street, approximately 70 feet south of Spring Hill. The site is a 47.5-foot wide by 165-foot deep lot that has frontage on both South High Street and Blacksmith Lane. An existing building is located on the eastern property line, adjacent to the High Street public right-of--way. There is a detached garage located at the rear of the property, accessed from Blacksmith Lane. Character The site drops in elevation approximately 20 feet from west to east, and gradually continues down to the riverfront. The existing historic building is located on the western property line, adjacent to South High Street. A detached garage, proposed for demolition, is located at the rear of the property, facing South Blacksmith Lane. There is a gravel parking area between the existing structures, also with access from South Blacksmith Lane. Surrozsnding Zoning and Uses The site is currently zoned CB, Central Business District as are several businesses to the north, west, and south of this site. The current use of the property is as an event planning service, specializing in floral design, custom decorating, and stationery (Elegant Touch Events). Properties to the east of the site along South Riverview are zoned HR, Historic Residential District, and are part of the historic neighborhoods surrounding the business areas of the Historic District. Proposed Rezoning: The HB District allows a greater mix of uses and building locations that reflect the desired growth patterns in the Historic District and are consistent with the Community Plan for this area. Permitted uses include retail, restaurants, business and medical offices, residential, personal services, and institutional uses. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Report -March 5, 2009 Application Number 08-019L -Page 3 of 4 The development standards for the HB, Historic Business District are more conducive to infill residential units in appropriate locations, and allow for greater flexibility in replicating historic development patterns of commercial and residential uses on the same parcel, whereby a business owner can live above or adjacent to their business. A comparison of the districts follows: CB District Historic Business District Residential uses (1-4 dwellings including detached accessory structures such as carriage house units, Residential structures and residences in conjunction with structures containing not more than containing other permitted HB uses), retail uses, Uses four dwellings, retail stores, eating and drinking establishments, administrative administrative offices, offices, medical and dental offices, personal and personal and consumer consumer services, institutional uses, religious services. uses, child care, parks and public plazas, bed and breakfast establishments, outdoor patios and dance related studios. Lot Area No minimum lot area is No minimum lot area is required. required. Lot Width No minimum lot width is 60 feet minimum lot width and frontage re uired. re uired. Adjacent to residential district, the required side Side Yard Yard is one-fourth the sum Minimum side yard of 0 feet with a total side of the height and depth of yard of five feet. the building, no case less than 15 feet. Adjacent to residential district, the required rear yard is one-fourth the sum All lots shall have a minimum rear yard of five Rear Yard of the height and width of feet. the building, except when adjacent to a dedicated alley of not less than 20 feet. Hei ht No re uirement 35 feet Lot Coverage 80% Iot coverage of the 80% lot coverage unless otherwise permitted total lot area. by the Architectural Review Board. Evaluation and Recommendation based on the Community Plan Future Land Use: The adopted Future Land Use Map in the Community Plan depicts the existing commercial care of the Historic District, including this site, as a Mixed Use Pillage Center which is consistent with the uses contained in this rezoning application. The Pillage Centers include targeted areas near arterials or major collectors that are intended to provide daily retail, major grocers and other conveniences to serve the Dublin community within a 3 to S-mile radius. Village Centers incorporate moderately-sized nodes of commercial activity with a target size of 125, 000 square feet of gross leasable space. Integrated office uses are encouraged in a manner appropriate to the overall area. Medium to High Density Mixed Residential uses are Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Repvrt -March 5, 2009 Application Number 08-0192 -Page 4 of 4 encouraged and should be integrated to facilitate pedestrian activity and to provide support for commercial uses. Future Land Use met: The proposed rezoning coupled with the site modifications as approved by the ARB will allow a mix of uses (commercial and residential) for the site that are appropriately located and scaled in the Historic District. Area Plan: This site is part of the Historic Dublin Area Plan within the Community Plan. The main goal of this area plan is to enhance and revitalize Historic Dublin as an activity center within the Ciry that is vibrant, pedestrian-oriented and user.friendly with an integrated mix of uses that supports economic, civic, recreational and housing opportzznities for all segments of Dublin's population. Area Plan rnet: The future development of the site will aid the area plan goal of enhancing the District as an activity center by enhancing the mixed-use nature of the District, provide increased housing opportunities, and improve the streetseape character of South Blacksmith Lane. The uses permitted in the HB District continue to support these recommendations made by the Area Plan. SECTION II -REVIEW STANDARDS: The objective of this process is to rezone the commercial portions of Historic Dublin to a zoning classification that is more reflective of the type and size of development located within the Historic District. Planning is supportive of this process because it provides more appropriate standards to the parcels and allows development and redevelopment of the properties to occur in amore streamlined review process. After the Planning and Zoning Commission makes its recommendation, the case will be forwarded to City Council for a public hearing and final vote. With a positive recommendation from the Commission, a simple majority vote is required for passage. A negative Commission recommendation requires five votes for City Council passage. If the ordinance is approved, it will take effect in 30 days. SECTION III -PLANNING OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION: Approval The Historic Business District was adopted by the City in 2003 for the distinct purpose of providing a commercial district that took into account the lot size and development potential of this unique portion of Dublin. This request is in keeping with previous intentions of the City of Dublin to rezone portions of the Historic District to a zoning classification that are consistent with the development located found in this area. Planning is recommending approval of the request based on the fact that it is in keeping with these previous objectives and goals of both the residents and businesses of the Historic District and the City of Dublin. ~$-~ ~l 9Z N City of Dublin Land Use and Rezoning Long Range Planning 54 South High Street o so ~o0 200eet Historic Dublin N Development Context Feei 0 75 150 300 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS w W ~".~ x x ~~.' EXISTING STRUCTURE ( E~ ;.>oa / ~ L'%ISII\(iOAAA<1h "^'^•'••"'^"' ~. (~ ~ ~• ,.. ,. f~ . -~ _ .....~ ~ ~ - -- ..-......W..__ __-_ .. .. ..'I~.. APPROVED SITE PLAN V »' (~ ADJ.\CENT STAUCI'URti , ... .. .. ~.°!~ ~..I ... ...~~ ...~ .~ ~ .. .. .rw .......,,. ,~ ... .. / ....rn~ .... ; ,. a EXIS~'IN(i STRUCTURE. ~ `~"' . n,~ na..omcrnrtl ~evl. ~..., .r....... '~:.i"'"i. _`` =c%i^[~ I i nl ~!~ `~ . T A 1 ~~• ...~.~... -_ l 1111V1'fUtlE wawv. r~. r ~,~. • (/~J ~r. F~4 . ~. ^.. •. ....... .......... w ....... mew r.~r vr..usr«w.ur. f.~•rN~l%tl110:.O.Jiq nl ~+~•~ _ J -j„ ~ ...... l ntw srnix.~uae U •.Ie~Ece nu~es~ x7 ~ ~ l l I J r .. ~,~,>-L.~.z~,.~,.~...~.,~ .. .. l I AI»ACENT STRU(allRls _, /~\ . •,~ • ...., .. -. N T 0$-Ol9Z Rezoning 54 S. High Street DRAFT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CITY OF DUBLIN_ BOARD ORDER ~,. u,. aw ~~,•~ o~ °m.o~ ore, ~ January 21, 2009 Phone/ TOO: 614-! 104600 Fvx 6144!04747 Web Site: www.dubfn.oh.us The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 1. 54 S. High Street 54 S. High Street 08-018ARB Architectural Review Board Proposal: Major site modifications, including the demolition of an existing garage, a 2,517-square-foot, two-story addition to an existing 1,430-square-foot building and a 1,653-square-foot, two story detached building. The site is located on the east side of South I-Iigh Street, approximately 75 feet south of Spring Hill within the Historic District. Request: Review and approval of the proposal under the provisions of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. Applicant: Larry Paglioni; represented by Robert Kortsen. Planning Contact: Dan Phillabaum, AICP, ASLA Senior Planner. Contact Information: (614} 410-4662, dphillabaum@dublin.oh.us MOTION #1: Thomas Holton made a motion, seconded by William Souders, to approve the demolition of the existing garage with no conditions finding that the proposal meets the requirements. MOTION #2: Thomas Holton made a motion, seconded by William Souders, to approve this application with the following three conditions: 1} That if the applicant ascertains conclusive verification that the carnage house is permitted to encroach upon the existing ten-foot private easement along South Blacksmith Lane, this information be provided to Planning prior to submitting far building permits or any time thereafter; 2) That the landscape plan be modified to meet the tree replacement requirement or fees be paid in Lieu of meeting this requirement prior to submitting for building permits; and 3) That the dumpster enclosure meet the height requirements of the Code. * Robert Kortsen agreed to the above conditions. VOTE #1: 4 - 0. VOTE #2: 4 - 0. RESULT: This application was approved RECORDED VOTES #1: VOTE #2: Thomas Holton Yes Yes Clayton Bryan Absent Absent William Souders Yes Yes Linda Kick Yes Yes Tom Currie Yes Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Dan Phillabaum AICP, ASLA 08-0192 Rezoning Senior Planner 54 S. Hig11 Street Dublin Architectural Review Board January 21, 2009 -Minutes Page 3 of 8 DRAFT 1. 54 S. High Street 54 S. High Street 08-018ARB Architectural Review Board Dan Phillabaum presented this request for review and approval for atwo-story, 2,517-square- foot addition to an existing 1,430-square-foot historic structure and a 1,653-square-foot detached building and associated site modifications. The application was tabled at the December 17, 2008 Board meeting in order to allow the applicant to revise the height of the proposed detached building to two stories or less, and to address the remaining conditions of approval. He saki the applicant has addressed the majority of the issues to the satisfaction of Plaruling, and approval is recommended with two conditions as listed in the Planning Report. He said the 0.18-acre site, located in the southeast quadrant of Historic Dublin is on the east side of South High Street, approximately 75 feet south of Spring Hill. Mr. Phillabaum reviewed the revisions to the plan and outlined the remaining issues which are addressed as conditions. He said one condition related to the carriage house and the other related to how the tree replacement requirement of Code would be met with this proposal. Mr. Phillabaum said the majority of the revisions have occurred at the east end of the site. He said everything west of the vehicular circulation area is unchanged with the exception of one portion of the attached structure. He said the previous post-supported deck which presented a vehicular conflict has been revised to a cantilevered deck. He said the landscape plan has been revised to shift a previously proposed maple tree to the front of the site, add screening around the parking areas, and plant material substitutions. Mr. Phillabaum said the square footage and height of the carriage house have been significantly reduced, and a portion of it now extends over one of the parking spaces. He said previously, the height of the carriage house was just over 31 feet and it has dropped to 25 feet, four inches. He said a refuse agreement for this site has been reached with the owner of 58 South High Street to locate a dumpster on their site. He said the primary building mass is generally a saltbox shape with a cross gable that extends to the west. He said the east elevation of the carriage house has been revised consistent with some of the Board's discussion at the Iast meeting, including switching the roof gable orientation to a side gable, thereby deflecting the perceived height of the building away from South Blacksmith. He stated that the dormers have been incorporated to add some interior volume and the entrance remains in the same general location. Mr. Phillabaum said no changes have been made to t11e attached proposed unit on the west elevation. Mr. Phillabaum said the remaining issue conditioned in the report is related to the carriage house location. He stated a portion of this structure extends into an existing ten-foot easement and the applicant has provided documentation that they have exhausted all means of research and have been unable to identify the owner, or the purpose of the easement. He said therefore, Planning is satisfied with this documentation, but clearly advised the applicant that absent definitive documentation they are building this at risk. He said that at some point in the future, someone could come forward with documentation, presenting an issue for this developer. He said the condition states that if such documentation should be discovered, that the City be provided that prior to submitting for Building Permits, or at any time after constnlction. Mr. Phillabaum said previously, the vehicular use area screening requirements were not clearly depicted. He said the applicant has added a retaining wall on the north and a hedge along both sides, which satisfies the Code requirement. He said there were previous concerns about the 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architectural Review Board January 21, 2009 -Minutes DRAFT Page 4 of 8 plant selection of narrow strips of turf grass proposed along the north and south sides of the site. He said they had been switched to English Ivy, a ground cover which will require minimal maintenance. He said all the air conditioning units have been screened. Mr. Phillabaum said that Planning has recommended gravel be implemented underneath the portion of the carnage house extending over the parking area, due to the diff culty in growing anything in that location. Mr. Phillabaum said regarding the tree replacement condition, the 14-inch maple tree being removed has to be either replaced on an inch-per-inch basis or by paying fees in lieu. He said it is at the applicant's discretion as to which option they choose. He said Planning recommends Code could be met if the two Japanese maple trees shown were increased from 2-inches to 2%2- caliper inches. Mr. Phillabaum said in Planning's opinion, based on the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines relating to construction and design elements are met. He stated the site consideration guidelines may be met through the conditions listed in the Planning Report, and the demolition guidelines would be met with this proposal, as the garage at the rear of the site contains no features of architectural or historical significance and that no reasonable economic use exists for the structure currently or if restored. Mr. Souders asked if there was a Dublin Code as to the height of the dumpster enclosure above the dumpster itself. Mr. Phillabaum said Code requires the dumpster enclosure to be one-foot above the structure, but that the dumpster specifications have not been submitted. Mr. Souders asked if Dublin had a Code that stated a parking area underneath of the housing structure had to be concrete versus asphalt, since asphalt was combustible. Mr. Phillabaum said that such a requirement was not noted by Dublin's architectural plans examiner, but that this would be checked at the Building Permit stage. Mr. Currie was concerned with the west elevation of the carriage house and said the roofline seemed complex. He asked why there was not a roof over the porch and patio. Dave Johnson, the applicant's architect, said that in this area there were steps down to the lower level and the roofline follows that stairwell Mr. Currie reiterated that the roofline seemed awfully complex for a carnage house. He asked if the roofline could be extended over the deck. He said the deck extended away from the building facade and extending the roof at that pitch would bring the gutter line too low. Mr. Holton referred to the north elevation and said he thought the roofline concern was diminished effectively. Mr. Holton confirmed that the parking space underneath was public. Mr. Phillabaum said the plans indicate signs will be posted on the wall stating that they are commercial parking spaces to avoid any perception that they are private. Mr. Kortsen said they were also plaiuling to have a concrete bollard, a couple of feet away from the concrete pier to help prevent anyone from driving into it. 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architectural Review Board January 21, 2009 -Minutes DRAFT Page 5 of 8 Mr. Holton recalled a concern about the slight grade change at the alley that needed to be accommodated when the parking lot was set back. He said now, the build out seems to be right out to the alley. He asked if there was a grade change between the apron of the opening to the garage and the alley itself that is being allowed for. Mr. Johnson explained that the grade change would be accommodated by building the carriage house into the existing slope, thereby keeping the garage floor elevations very similar to the elevation of South Blacksmith Lane. Motion #1 and Vote Mr. Holton made a motion to approve the demolition of the existing garage with no conditions finding that the proposal meets the requirements. Mr. Souders seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: ivlr. Currie, yes; Ms. Kick, yes; Mr. Souders, yes; and Mr. Holton, yes. (Approved 4 - 0.) Motion #2 and Vote Robert Kortsen, 16235 Rivcrbrooks Drive, Marysville, representing the applicant, Larry Paglioni agreed to the conditions as listed below. Mr. Souders suggested a third condition, that the applicant would coordinate the dtunpster enclosure height with Planning since it was not specified on the drawing. Mr. Holton made a motion to approve this application with the following three conditions 1) That if the applicant ascertains conclusive verification that the carriage house is permitted to encroach upon the existing ten-foot private easement along South Blacksmith Lane, this information be provided to Platuling prior to submitting for building pernlits or any time thereafter; 2) That the landscape plan be modified to meet the tree replacement requirement or fees be paid in lieu of meeting this requirement prior io submitting for building permits; and 3) That the dumpster enclosure meet the height requirements of the Code. Mr. Souders seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Currie, yes; Ms. Kick, yes; Mr. Souders, yes; and Mr. Holton, yes. (Approved 4 - 0.) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BOARD ORDER CI1"~' t}F DUBLIV~ land Ufs and December 17, 2008 long Range Planning 5800 Shier-Rirys Rcea n 1./ ~~ Dublin. Ohio 4J01 X1236 shore/ TDD: 514-41 G4500 F:~x: 51 4-~ I x4747 WHb $Ile: WW W.CI J[`.il'1 C: h.111 The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 2. 54 S. High Street 54 S. High Street 08-018ARB Architectural Review Board Proposal: Major site modifications, including the demolition of an existing garage, a 2,517-square-foot, two-story addition to an existing 1,430-square-foot building and a 2,052-square-foot., two and one- halfstory detached building. The site is located on the east side of South High Street, approximately 75 feet south of Spring Hill within the Historic District. Request: Review and approval of the proposal under the provisions of the Historic Da~blin Design Guidelines. Applicant: Larry Paglioni; represented by Robert Kortsen. Planning Contact: Dan Phillabaum, AICP, ASLA Senior Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4662, dphillabaum@dublin.oh.us N10T10N: Thomas l-lolton made a motion, seconded by William Souders, to table this application. VOTE: 4 - 0. RESULT: This application was tabled. The Board recommended the applicant revise the carriage house design, resolve the refuse collection, and work out the other conditions as listed in the Planning Report. RECORDEll VOTES: Thomas Holton Yes Clayton Bryan Absent William Souders Yes Linda Kick Yes Tom Currie Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION /j r Dan Phillabaum, Senior Planner OS-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architectural Review Board December U, 2008 -Minutes Page 9 of 19 DRAFT' 2. 54 S. High Street 54 S. High Street 08-018ARB Architectural Review Board Dan Phillabaum presented this request for review and approval and approval of a 2,152-square foot addition, a 2,052-square foot detached building and associated site modifications. He said this application has been the subject of Architectural Review Board (A.RB) reviews informally in November and December 2007, and was tabled at meetings in May, June, and August of this year in order for the applicant to resolve various issues. He said the 0.18-acre site was located in the Historic District on the east side of South High Street, about 75 south of Spring Hill. Mr. Phillabaum described the historical background of the site and provided an overview of the existing site conditions. He said the main building faced South High Street and a gravel parking lot is located just to the east between the principal structure and an existing two-car garage. Mr. Phillabaum said the site has significant topographical features with approximately 20 feet of drop from west to east across the site. He said two significant trees exist on the site and there is additional vegetation along the northern property line, some of which maybe offsite. Mr. Phillabaum said two existing conditions that had not been indicated on the plans were an existing dumpster and enclosure located in the northeast portion of the site, and recently, Planning and Engineering identified aten-foot private easement that runs parallel to South Blacksmith Lane. He said this easement was depicted on engineering drawings for the storm sewer improvements completed along South Blacksmith Lane in 2003. He said. it was not an easement associated with a City of Dublin or a public utility. Mr. Phillabaum said more research needs to be conducted on who holds that easement and its purpose. Mr. Phillabaum said at the August meeting the proposal was tabled in order for the applicant to pursue a concept that physically separated the previous two attached units and located the commercial parking spaces in the area between in an effort to resolve the vehicular circulation and building massing issues that have previously been discussed. The square footage discussed for that revision was to be between 3,000 and 3,200 square feet, with the unit along South Blacksmith being the substantially smaller of the two, based on its proximity to that roadway. Mr. Phillabaum said this new proposal reflects that physical separation and has substantially reduced Planning's previous concerns as to the building mass. He said the four commercial parking spaces are located between the two new structures and meet Code dimensions. He stated they are accessed by an 11-foot wide driveway that is shared with the building addition. He said retaining walls are necessary with this proposal in order to take up some of the grade change on site and also keep the parking areas and driveways within acceptable slopes. Mr. Phillabaum said at a previous meeting, the Board requested afive-foot sidewalk connecting the commercial parking spaces to South High Street. He said it is currently shown as a four-foot sidewalk. He explained that the standard width for a commercial sidewalk is five feet and four feet is the standard residential sidewalk width. He said based on the walk being completely internal to the site, Planning and Engineering will accept afour-foot sidewalk at the direction of the Board. 08-01.92 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architecriiral Review Board December 17, 2008 -Minutes DRAFT Page 10 of 19 Mr. Phillabaum described the architecture of the new structures. He said the revised proposal is for atwo-stony structure attached to the historic stnzcture via a covered porch with atwo-car garage at the lower level. He said the carriage house is a 2 '/z-story structure, oriented towards South Blacksmith Lane with atwo-car garage at the lower level. Mr. Phillabaum said the previous proposal was for two units attached to the historic structure, and had two, two-car tandem-parked garages underneath. He said the garage doors have now been recessed under both new buildings. Mr. Phillabaum said the materials and finishes are the same as were previously proposed. He presented a material sample board showing the proposed materials. He said both roofs feature a cross gable design. Mr. Phillabaum reported that the ridgelines of the addition arc two feet lower than the existing structuz-e, which is consistent with the recommendations within the Guidelines that any additions be subordinate in height to a historic stz-ucture. He said the height above finished grade for the attached unit is approximately 29.5 feet, as measured to the ridgeline. Mr. Phillabaum said the height of the South Blacksmith Lane building is approximately 1.5 foot taller than the proposed addition and has a height from finished grade of 31 feet. He said the principle difference in the heights is due to the additional half stony of the carriage house, and typically Planning would expect that the buildings step down in height as they approach the secondary thoroughfare rather than increasing in height. He said the Guidelines specifically address this and state under New Construction Standards for height: 13izrldings in Historic Dublin do not exceed two stories in height at the street grade, and rnany czre only a single story. In designing a new building, observe typical necarl~y building heights; try to use a similar height, but in ajay case, don't exceed two stories. Mr. Phillabaum provided a comparative analysis of several existing outbuildings, carriage houses, and small barns in Historic Dublin. These structw-es include 41 West Bridge Street, 31 South High Street, 109 South High Street, and 37 South Riverview Street. He noted that the heights of other strictures in the District range between 21 and 23 feet to the ridgeline, and one and one-half to two stories. He said the setbacks from the secondary streets to these structures influence the perceived presence of these structures along the thoroughfare. He said that in the instances where the structure is located relatively close to the right-of--way, a side gable roof design is used which minimizes the mass of the structure by deflecting the height of the structure away from the lane or alley. Mr. Phillabaum said two issues remain with the siting of the proposed carriage house. He said a ten-foot easement runs parallel to South Blacksmith, and approximately 4.5 feet of this structure sits on top of that easement, and the applicant will need to provide verification to the City that the carriage house can be constructed in this location prior to submitting for building permits. He said the other issue is that the building is depicted as 2.5 feet off of the southern property line and Building Codc requires athree-foot minimum building setback. Mr. Phillabaum explained that there were a few landscape related points of clarification needed. He said it was unclear whether the vehicular use area Code requirements were being met with the proposal. He said the height of the wall may meet the required screening for the vehicular use 08-0197 Rezoning 54 S. high Street Dublin Architecriual Review Board December 17, 2008 -Minutes ~R/4FT Page 11 of 19 area, and nothing was indicated along the northern property line. He said there were maintenance concerns with the narrow strips of lawn proposed that run along the north and south sides of the site. He suggested that a ground cover might be a better choice in these locations. He said another concern with maintenance is the proposed location of the maple tree which requires a slight notch in the driveway and ultimately reduces the width of the driveway to about nine feet, which does not meet Code. Planning requested that the tree be relocated or the driveway be reconfigured to meet Code. Mr. Phillabaum said it was noted that there was some inconsistent labeling of tree caliper sizes between the plant schedule and the plans. He said it was not clear which trees are being proposed to fulfill the tree replacement requirement when this existing 14-inch tree is removed, or the additional site landscaping requirements -which trees are proposed to count toward each Code requirement, and clarification is needed. Mr. Phillabaum pointed out that the addition to the historic structure features a deck off of the second level that overhangs a portion of the driveway. He explained that a maneuverability analysis revealed the deck posts as a point of conflict for vehicles backing out of the westernmost parking space. Mr. Phillabaum said when reviewing this proposal against the recommendations of the Community Plan, Planning believes that the diversity of the residential units proposed with this application are consistent and would contribute to the character of Historic Dublin. He said the Community Plan recommends that all designs in Historic Dublin utilize appropriate vernacular architecture with appropriate massing, scale and materials, and with the requested modifications, this can be achieved. Mr. Phillabaum said it was Planning's opinion based on the Historic Dublin Desig~z Guidelines that all guidelines involving construction, design elements, site considerations and demolition maybe met through the proposed conditions listed in the Plaru~ing Report. He said the applicant had made significant progress in resolving the previous issues with this revision, but with the respect to the proposed carriage house and other areas of minor clarification and revision, there is still a little more work to do in order to satisfy all of the Guidelines. He said Planning recommends approval of this request with five conditions as listed in the Platming Report. William Souders asked which sidewalk width staff preferred. Mr. Phillabaum clarified that Planning and Engineering were both agreeable to a four-foot wide sidewalk. Mr. Holton asked if the sidewalk would still require an easement over a portion of 58 South High Street. Mr. Phillabaum said this application has- kept all of the proposed modifications within the site and does not require use of 58 South High Street. IVIr. Souders noted that there was previous discussion that both commercial and residential refuse would have to get to the street somehow. Mr. Phillabaum said there were areas where roll-out bins could be stored behind the outbuilding, but a clear direction from the applicant is needed as to where he proposes that the refuse be stored. Robert Kortsen, the applicant's representative, said the existing trash bin services both prope--ties. He said it will be moved to 58 South High Street. Mr. Phillabaum said research would be needed as to the viability of that option, based his recollection of ARB conditions of approval placed on 58 South High Street for site and 1„rilr~;.,~. OS-U19'I. Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architectural Review Board DRAFT December 17, 2008 -Minutes Page 12 of 19 modifications done in 2005. He said recalled a condition to the effect that an existing dumpster be removed from the site, but was not aware of the frill details of that discussion. Ms. Kick asked if a dumpster was required. Mr. Phillabaum said refuse could be stored internally and taken out to the curb for collection, but there needs to be an area that it can be easily accessed for refuse trucks. Mr. Souders questioned where the trash could be located without blocking something. Mr. Kortsen suggested that trash could be placed in a wheeled residential dumpster and stored in the garage, then wheeled outside, along the Lane in an area notched in the gt•ass. Mr. Gundennan and the Board members agreed that would work for the residential refuse. Mr. Holton said the commercial refuse was an outstanding question. The Board members discussed whether any of the South High Street properties had trash that had to go to South High Street as opposed to the alley. Ms. Kick said it was the decision of the business as to where to place the trash for pickup and that it was different with every property. Mr. Holton said commercial trash was not intended to be located on the street. Mr. 1-Iolton stated that the trash collection needed to work regardless of the type of business. Mr. Gundennan agreed that provisions needed to be made for the case where a business needed a larger enclosure or different arrangement, but he said he did not think that precluded the Board from approving the smaller arrangement now. Mr. Holton said he anticipated that a pad would need to be identified. Mr. Currie asked what was needed to let 58 South High be used as a location. Mr. Gunderman said notice that an amendment may be required to the conditions on 58 South High Street. Mr. Souders said if 54 South High is approved as shown, the dumpster would go away and 58 South High would not have anything. He said some resolution was needed outside of the meeting. Mr. Kortsen said the owner of 58 South High Street said they had no problem moving the dumpster onto their property. He said that there is a management agreement that 58 manages 54 South High Street. Ms. Kick asked about the history of the 58 South High Street dumpster situation. Mr. Gundernzan said preliminary research indicated that 58 South High had increased their lot coverage over the years and graveled over some open space. He said this may relate to the condition pertaining to the dumpster being removed, so Planning did not feel confident of what might be feasible with using 58 South High Street. Mr. Holton said the whole use of the building changed which may have been why. He did not recall any discussion about the dumpster, except the use of the building changed from a fabrication shop to an office space. 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street D RAC Dublin Architectural Review Board December 17, 2008 -Minutes Page 13 of l9 Mr. Souders agreed that the dumpster needed to be identified and it needed to be a workable SOIIlh021, whether it was on this property or the other, but that agreeme2lt was outside the realm of the F3oard. Mr. Holton said placing the trash on South High Street would be a Code Enforcement issue and the applicant would need to research that in trying to resolve this. Mr. Kortsen suggested that he could relocate the Maple tree from the north property line at the back of the lot to the western part of the lot where the existing structure is. Mr. Souders asked about the screening to the north. Mr. Kortsen said he would have to add suitable screening instead of the strip of grass and stated it would make sense to use a ground cover and low shn2bs along that property line. Mr. Holton suggested that there may be an existing stone wall in that area that would be disturbed by constntction, and that it could be rebuilt along that property line to meet the screening requirement. Mr. Souders referred to the wood porch columns and asked if the attached building could be cantilevered. Mr. Kortsen said it might require protruding steel beams under the deck but would allow better maneuverability underneath it. Mr. Souders asked if the parking for this property was required by Code to be screened from the building, even though it was residential. Mr. Phillabaum said it was commercial property. Mr. Souders said usually it was screening for adjacent property, but this was amixed-use. He asked if it was legitimate to come up with the same screening on your own property. Mr. Phillabaum explained that the Code requirement for screening is to screen parking anal headlight trespass from adjoining properties. Mr. Phillabaum said that more grading information was needed for the north property line, and any potential walls that might be needed in this location. Mr. Souders said a similar retaining wall would be needed there to block the headlights. Mr. Kortsen asked what minimum wall height was considered to be screening. Mr. Phillabaum said minimum height was 42-inches, and it could be either a mound, wall, or evergreen shrub. Mr. Kortsen suggested it could be a combination of a 36-inch wall with plants on top with mulch. Mr. Phillabaum said Planning agreed, but that information needed to be depicted on the plans being approved. Mr. Currie referred to the steps along parking space number 4, and asked if there was a retaining wall on the side of the steps, and whether a railing was needed. Mr. Phillabaum said there was a retaining wall shown on both sides of the steps with a railing. Mr. Souders said he had no problem with the sidewalk being four feet wide in order to not straddle the property line. Mr. Holton asked ii' ADA required an accessible access. Mr. Phillabaum said it was clot required. Mr. Souders said because of the grade; it could not be met on the site. Ms. Kick referred to Condition 2 regarding the carriage house and asked for discussi~r, fl8-019L Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architectural Review Board D ~A ~ December 17, 2UU8 -Minutes Page 14 of 19 Mr. Souders said although Planning wanted no more than atwo-story building, he did not count the attic space as a story. He said Planning is suggesting to get rid of the attic and bring it down which eliminates the two bedrooms. Mr. Souders concluded that will not function properly and he questioned the marketability. Mr. Holton said the building at 41 West Bridge which looks like a small barn actually appears to have something like an attic space. He said it looked Tike a little more than two stories and he could not recall the discussion when it was approved. He believed it was approved due to its resemblance of a barn. Mr. Kortsen said he could try to work on the roof so that the ridge is parallel with Blacksmith Lane to reduce the scale as far much as possible without having to sacrifice the usability of the space. Ms. Kick was concerned about the structure being more than two stories, because even the new garage recently built down the street seemed to be a massive building. Mr. Currie said where the roofline is shown; it does not look like a carriage house, but a house with a porch and gables. Mr. Phillabaum presented images of different carriage house designs. He said they were typically one-bedroom. He provided the images as examples of viable carriage houses with less square footage and appropriate heights. Mr. Phillabaum agreed it might be a relatively small square footage, but explained that there is a demand for this type of unit in the Historic District by young professionals as well as empty nesters. He said introducing this type of residence meets the Community Plan objective to provide a diversity of housing options. Mr. Souders asked if the applicant could make cone-bedroom caniage house work. Mr. Kortsen said to make the space work, the height had to increase a little. Mr. Holton asked what was the dimension of the can•iage style example shown. Mr. Phillabaum said it was 24 feet by 32 feet, and 28 feet by 28 feet was proposed, so they were close. Mr. Holton said the photograph of the structure on Mill Lane with the roofline sloping away from South High Street gave the impression of that building being a little less massive even though it was right on the property line because it was going away Irom you. He said that was a good design which allowed some of the mass away from the property line. Mr. Souders suggested a raised saltbox with aone-story eave facing the alley and atwo-story space to the west. He said it violated the two-story requirement which the Board could override, but it would give the compromise of having a one-story along the lane. He said conceptually the west facade would be iwo-story plus attic space, or almost athree-story. He said the north and south would look like the side of a typical saltbox, but the east elevation would be a one- or one and one-half story sloping up. Mr. Kortsen referred to his proposed north elevation of the can•iage house and said if the front gable element was taken down; it would almost achieve the saltbox I^^U 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architectural Review Board llecember 17, 2008 -Minutes p~A~ ti Page 15 of 19 Mr. Souders said the height would be far away from the main structure, and the relationship would also not be seen as shown iu the section drawings. He said if it could be made lower and meet what is wanted, that would be great. Mr. Phillabaum pointed out that the height relationship to the existing structure is one concern, but the bigger concern for the carriage house is the relationship to South Blacksmith Lane and the height that it presents there. Mr. Souders said he was suggesting that the roofline be all the way down at the garage, not at the second floor or one phis stories so that a couple of extra feet can be added so that it does not start from zero. Mr. Souders said the only other thing he could think of was a carriage house that extended over the north end of the site so that you actually drove underneath of it. He said the massing of the height was an issue, so by getting rid of the attic space altogether and bringing the eave line down to get more area on the main floor; it either had to go to the west or north. Mr. Souders said the square footage could be made to work if Mr. Kortsen could live with a one bedroom because an example had been shown that could fit. He said it has to either cantilever out over top of the four parking spaces or over the approach. He said the mass to be dealt with is not the height but the length across the property. Mr. Kortsen asked if the problem with mass was worst height-wise or width-wise. Mr. Phillabaum said Planning would advise chat the South Blacksmith elevation be a fairly na~-~~ow facade and that there was some opportunity to extend westward to gain square footage after bringing the height down. He said the height of the structure was a bigger concern than the width or length. Ms. Kick and Mr. Holton agreed that the height was the issue. Mr. Souders said there was already a good elevation with the two-car garage and the steps, that would basically be the same, but where there are four parking spaces you are driving under the building, so you have to come up with the elevation because then the roof is going to go out over top of that. He said that would result in a carriage-style look. He reiterated that on South Blacksmith Lane, it would be one-story and on the west side it would be two-stories with the garage and main living space, which would give the saltbox look. Mr. Souders sketched out the elevations as he suggested for Mr. Kortsen's benefit. Mr. Phillabaum requested a copy of Mr. Souders' sketch be included in the record. Ms. Kiel: reviewed the conditions listed in the Planning Report and noted that a condition to resolve the location for refuse collection for Che residential units and commercial use needed to be added. Mr. Gundet7nan asked if the Board wanted to table this item in order to see the revisions discussed. He said it sounded like there were a number of potential items that they might not be able to be accomplished without another review by the ARB. He said the easement was the least of the issues because Planning would require some verification that satisfied them prior to the Building Permit. 08-0197, Rezoning 54 S. High Street llublin Architectural Review Board Deceulber i 7, 2005 - M InUleS u r.if~~' T Page 16 of 19 Motion and Vote Mr. [lolton made the motion to table this application. Mr. Souders seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. I-lolton, yes; Mr. Souders, yes; Ms. Kick, yes; and Mr. Currie, yes. (Tabled 4 - (l.) U~3-0197, 1Zeconin~ 54 S. Iliyh Street ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BOARD ORDER Ci'TY OF DUBLIN_ AUGUST 27, 2008 ~.w.aa -o~...q..a~+Ao 5800 Sher-Rings Road Dublin Otvo 43016-1736 Phone/TDD:61110-4600 Fax: 611-410-747 W~ Si1e: www.dubfn.oh.us Creadng a legacy The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 2. 54 S. High Street 54 S. High Street 08-018ARB Architectural Review Board Proposal: Major site modifications, including the demolition of an existing garage, and the construction of a 4,492-square-foot, two-story addition to an existing 1,430-square-foot building within the Historic District. The site is located on the east side of South High Street, approximately 75 feet south of Spring Hill. Request: Review and approval of the proposal under the provisions of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. Applicant: Larry. Paglioni; represented by Robert Kortsen. Planning Contact: Dan Phillabaum, AICP, Senior Planner. Contact Information: (6I4) 410-4662, dphillabaum@dublin.oh.us MOTION: Tom Holton made a motion, seconded by Willliam Souders, to table this application. * Robert Kortsen agreed to the tabling. VOTE: 4 - 0. RESULT: This application was tabled in order for the applicant to pursue the carriage house concept discussed with the parking pulled into the interior of the site. RECORDED VOTES: Thomas Holton Yes Clayton Bryan Absent William Souders Yes Linda Kick Yes Tom Currie Yes --.: TAFF C~ TI IQNn ~ ~1.1 9~~'~~ an Phillabaum, Senior Planner 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architectural Review Board i~nutes August 27, 2008 Page 3 of 16 clari that the exterior gri would be compos f Fibrex®, and the i erior grille would be co sed of wood. He a lained that the grille the exterior is into rated into the wind , d only the interior w d grille can be remov for cleaning. Mr. Souders inqu' ed whether the fixed rtion of the propos window on the fro elevation would actually, aye two separate plc a windows with a ter mullion, in addit' n to the two casement w' doves on the ends, to ve the appearance four separate windo like the other window the front elevation. . Hegenderfer con ed that was the inten appearance. Motion and Vote I~ Holton made the ion, seconded by~ Souders, to approve 's application. The ote /was as follows: .Holton, yes; Mr. S uders, yes; Ms. Kic ,yes; and Mr. C ' ,yes. (Approved 4 - 0.) 2. 54 S. High Street 54 S. High Street 0$-018ARB Architectural Review Board Dan Phillabaum presented this request for review and approval of a 4,492-square-foot addition to an existing 1,400-squaze-foot historic structure with additional site modifications. He said the applicant was utilizing. a portion of the adjacent property to the south, 58 South High Street, for some of the vehicular and pedestrian circulation and that the owner, Mr. Paglioni, is therefore a co-applicant for this application. Mr. Phillabaum explained that the 0.18-acre adjacent site possesses about 20 feet of topographical change from west to east, and is currently developed for commercial use with a gravel parking area located to the reaz of the historic structure. He noted that adjacent to the gravel parking area is an existing garage that would be demolished with this proposal. Mr. Phillabaum said the site is zoned, CC, Central Business District, and would be required to rezoned to HB, Historic Business District in order to develop with the combination and arrangement of proposed uses. Mr. Phillabaum said this case was tabled in June by the ARB after a course of several meetings where Planning consistently recommended disapproval on the bases that the mass and scale of the proposed addition are inconsistent with the rest of the District and that they overpower the historic structure, and Planning had additional concerns related to the site design and vehicular circulation. He said that the general consensus of the ARB at previous mcetings was that the mass and scale of the proposed addition were acceptable, however concerns were raised at both the May and June meetings with respect to the vehicular circulation and the lack of a refuse location. He reported that the applicant has revised portions of the application; however the same issues of mass, scale, and the non-functional vehicular circulation system remain, and therefore Planning again recommends disapproval. Mr. Phillabaum presented a slide showing the June proposal and the current proposal. He pointed out that on the new proposal, the roof design had changed, the four required parking spaces are now in a row along the northern property line, the retaining wall has been modified to wrap around all four parking spaces, and approximately three feet of vehicular circulation and the pedestrian walkway extend over the shared property line. Mr. Phillabaum said the garage has been pushed west by approximately one-foot and the commercial parking spaces aze now directly off of the right-of--way, thereby increasing the azea between the driveway and the retaining wall to 24 feet 9 inches. 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Arcbitecturat Review Board Minutes -August 27, 2008 Page4of16 Mr. Phillabaum said other architectural changes included modifications to the number and location of windows on all four elevations. He reported that the most significant changes occurred on the south elevation, which now features two cross-gables. He said the upper level extends approximately one-foot from the lower level with decorative brackets underneath. He pointed out that on the east elevation, the tandem garage remains, and the amount of window area on the upper level has been reduced. Mr. Phillabaum presented a slide depicting the views from South High Street of the proposed addition and how it would look with the existing 54 South High Street building in front of it. He said that Planning believes that the roof revisions are an improvement and the form is now more consistent with the surrounding structures. Mr. Phillabaum said while the roof changes are positive, the overall mass and scale of the addition have not changed. He said it still was much larger than the existing strucxure, and the Guidelines recommend that additions should be subordinate to the historic structure, and this mass really beats no relationship to that structure, or the larger context which surrounds it. He presented a few context diagrams and an aerial view with the changed roofline. Mr_ Phillabaum noted that Planning's concerns related to this issue have generally not been shared by the Board. Mr. Phillabaum described the revisions to the vehicular circulation. He noted the new location of the four commercial spaces, and that a 12-foot, 7-inch driveway was created to the south of these spaces, with approximately three feet of this drive on the property to the south. He said in order to utilize the property on 58 South High Street, this property would need to seek a pavement setback variance of zero feet, or could alternatively pursue a rezoning also to HB, Historic Business District, which permits a zero pavement setback. Mr. Phillabaum said it was determined using AutoTum software that ingress and egress to the northernmost garage is extremely difficult, and may be completely unfeasible under the proposed layout. He said although the depth of the maneuverability area provided meets the minimum requirements typically preferred by Engineering, in ties situation the depth and access point location combine to create anon-functional circulation route to the northernmost garage. Mr. Phillabaum said it was suggested at the June meeting that if the garages could be pushed further to the west, either flush with, or recessed under, the primary facade of the structure, additional circulation space could be gained to assist in making the turns: Mr. Phillabaum said PIanning's issues pertaining to lot coverage were also not necessarily consistent with the opinion of the Board. He repeated Planning's position that the proposed square footage of this addition changes the general character of this site from principally commercial to principally residential. Mr. Phillabaum noted that the lot coverage of the revised proposal is 79 percent, that in this general nine block context area the average commercial lot coverage is 66 percent, the average residential lot coverage is approximately 25 percent, and the average lot coverage for all uses is about 51 percent. Mr. Phillabaum said Planning believes that the mass of this building essentially obliterates the historical significance of the existing structure. He said in Planning's opinion, the criteria in the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines for construction, design elements, site consideration, and demolition are not met, as the mass and scale of the addition physically overpower the historic structure and the character of Historic Dublin, the lot coverage is inconsistent with similar developments within the District, and the vehicular circulation does not function vronerty. He J8-0197 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes -August 27, 2008 Page S of l6 said Planning is supportive of infill in the District and in this location specifically, but they feel that proper site planning and architectural design have to be maintained He said for these reasons Planning recommends disapproval of this request. Ms. Kick invited those persons who wished to speak in regards to the case to come forward. [No one came forward.] She suggested beginning the Board's discussion regarding the mass and scale of the building. Tom Currie referred to the photo showing the existing 54 South High building. He asked if the arbor would be removed Mr. Phillabaum said it has not been depicted in the proposal as being maintained. Mr. Souders referred to the overlay showing the South High Street elevation of the new addition and asked why it was said to overpower the existing building. Mr. Souders said it was the primary elevation that the public sees, and he wanted Mr. Phillabaum to explain his point on that elevation only. Mr_ Phillabaum said that on this elevation, it would have anappearance of aone-story building. Mr. Souders said Mr. Phillabaum used words and words mean stuff. He said Mr. Phillabaum said "this addition overpowers the historic building" and the only part that is historic is this front elevation to the main street. He said he wanted to hear how that addition overpowers that historic presence on that street. Mr. Phillabaum disagreed that the only historic part of the building was what was visible from South High Street. He said the elevations cannot be evaluated in isolation and that the broader context has to be considered. Mr. Souders said this is in reference to the historic building and this is what the public sees. He said Mr. Phillabaum has consistently stated that the mass of the addition overpowers that elevation. He wanted to hear how that happens. Mr_ Phillabaum repeated that this proposal cannot be evaluated based on the view from South High Street alone. Mr. Souders said this was the primary historic front door and asked if Planning maintained that on this elevation the historic structure was being overpowered Mr. Phillabaum said that from the South High Street elevation alone, it did not. Mr. Souders said he wanted that for the record. Ms. Kick asked if the overall mass and scale of the building is what Mr. Phillabaum was referring to as far as overpowering the historic structure. She said that obviously from the South high Street view, the proposed addition appears smaller. Mr. Phillabaum indicated that it was the overall mass and scale, and was not limited to a single elevation. Mr. Souders pointed out that the north and south elevations can not be seen by human beings for the most part, and said now they needed to concentrate on the east etc 08-Q19/. u~~~>~,~~1~ ~4 S. High Strcet Dublin Architectural Review Soard Minutes -August 27, 2008 Page 6 of i6 Mr. Phillabaum said Planning disagreed and he presented 3-D illustrations depicting the views from South Blacksmith Lane. Mr. Holton also disagreed, and said he thought more of the addition would be visible from South High as one approaches the building from the south. Mr. Souders said the south was blocked for all practical purposes. Mr. Holton said that from the old pump building, you would be able to see the side of the building, because the existing trees would be removed to construct the proposed addition. He said he thought the illustration from the preservation materials provided at the last meeting was a good illustration of how a smaller historic building can be swallowed up by a lazger one. Mr. Holton said 54 South High was a very, very small building, and he liked the connector which he thought made a good transition. He said he thought the residential addition was a massive structure, but that was only one element of the problem. Mr. Souders said the east elevation was a two-story building, so if it is too big, then no two-story building could ever be built. He said it was the smallest two-story passible due to the sloping site and he would like to heaz how staff would do this. He said the Baazd had been going over this for three or four months, and Planning says it is overpowering. Mr. Souders said he needed to heaz what arrangement would not be overpowering. Mr. Holton said staff's job is not to redesign a building. Mr. Souders said they were using words and for four months, the Board has said this was not overpowering. He said it was not his first day out and he needed to hear what is overpowering, because he did not see it. He said he wanted to learn how it was overpowering. Mr. Holton read from the Guidelines, ...an addition should be subordinate to the original building, and said it was subject to an interpretation. It should be obvious which the original building is and which is the addition. The most common way to do this is to keep the addition smaller in scale, its height and roofline should be below those of the original building, and the windows should be somewhat smaller than the original building's windows. The addition should be located toward the rear of the original building, keeping the appearance of the original as unchanged as possible. If space needs or lot needs require the original be placed further forward, keep the facade of the addition set back... Mr. Souders referred to the approved Krema application where the addition on the reaz was twice as high as the house was and the roofline was much higher. He asked how the Board could in all good conscience not be consistent. , Mr. Holton recalled that the conditions were different for the Krema building. He said the building was presented and designed to replicate a barn. Mr. Souders said that had nothing to do with scale and mass. He said it had to do with the barn which was fine, but the size of that roofline, relative to the existing house, is no different than everything presented here, and the Board approved that. 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Strcet Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes August 27, 2008 Page 7 of l6 Mr. Holton said it was because barns were larger than the original houses Mr. Phiilabaum offered two conceptual exhibits prepared by Planning to show arrangements that could effectively break up the mass of the addition and srill create two additional residential units. He pointed out that in each scenario the additional units would be smaller than what is being proposed by the applicant, but of a size that Planning believes is appropriate for additions in situations such as this. He said they would expect to see additions or outbuildings in the Historic District not of the scale of additions in suburban areas. Mr. Phillabaum explained the first concept which added two f800-square-foot units to the rear of the historic structure, each with cone-car garage beneath and one space in front of the garage. He said the four commercial parking spaces could be perpendicular to South Blacksmith Lane along the south property line offof the driveway accessing the residential garages. Mr. Phillabaum said that in the second concept the four parking spaces were in this same location perpendicular to South Blacksmith Lane. He said that the units would be separated with a detached f750-square-foot unit in a carriage house closer to South Blacksmith Cane, and a somewhat larger (1,200-square-foot unit attached to the historic structure. He added that each unit would have atwo-car garage on the lower level. He said both of these arrangements make a stronger connection between the commercial spaces and the commercial portion of the site, as well as create areas for refuse collection. Mr. Phillabaum reiterated that Planning was not opposed to additions or infill, they were just concerned with that much building in one place, and the potential for seeing it replicated up and down South Blacksmith Lane and other locations throughout the District. Mr. Souders observed from the discussion and the slide shown that the plan was within the setbacks and the maximum lot coverage and the greenspaee was within the current regulations relating to massing.* Ms. Kick asked if feedback on the most recent revision by the applicant had been provided by Dublin's Historic Consultant, Jeff Darbee. She also asked what Mr. Darbee had said about the previous proposal. Mr. Phillabaum explained that Mr. Dazbee stated that the proposal was too large for the site, and with respect to the east elevation, the amount of ornamentation, including the chimney, the garage doors and the amount of windows were out of place. lie said a step in the right direction has been the change of the double two-bay garage doors to tandem single-bay garage doors. He said Planning believed- some positive steps had been made with this revision, however the larger concern over the square footage and mass of the building has been relatively unchanged. Mr. Holton recalled that the Board's original discussion about the three-story building that backed onto Blacksmith Lane on Pinney Hill was that they wanted to avoid another building of that size in the District. #F,dited and approved at the September 24, 2008 Commission meeting. 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Strcct Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes -August 27, 2008 Page 8 of 16 Mr. Holton again referred to the Guidelines: Help avoid the creation of a false historic look for the addition..., and said there was quite a contrast here between the look of 54 South High Street and the proposal, although it was no fault of the design which was nice-looking. He said 54 South. High Street was one of the most plain-looking buildings in the Historic District. Robert Kortsen, the co-applicant, pointed out that his earlier plan presented to the ARB had a carriage house with a garage and living quarters above it, but Planning told them that having such a height on the alley would create something that was visually too big. Mr. Phillabaum clarified that the proposal Mr. Kortsen was referring to was for a three car garage with one and a half to two stories over it. Mr. Kortsen said the residential and commercial refuse area is shared between 54 and 58 South High Street. Mr. Phillabaum said that when 58 South High Street applied for ARB approval of window replacements in 2004 or 2005, there was an existing dumpster on their site that was required to be moved off-site. He said the intent of their approval was that the dumpster not be located on their site. He said he was not aware of a specific agreement for a shared dumpster between these properties. Gary Gunderman said that for this site plan to be approved there needed to be an agreement in place. He said that if everyone is comfortable with that arrangement that can be made a condition. He said that firm agreements for the trash and the overlapped sidewalk and anything else between the two properties are needed. He added that to make it practical ~ for this arrangement to work, the 58 South High Street property is going to have to resolve the lot line encroachment issues all the way along, from the zoning standpoint as well, so they can apply for a variance or initiate a re-coning application. He said this arrangement cannot be approved until 58 South High Street property resolves that the Iot line encroachment issue. Mr. Currie said he would like the two-building concept from Planning compared with the proposal presented in November or December when the Board said the carriage house was too close to Blacksmith Lane. He said the carriage house began with 2,000 square feet which included attic space. He asked to see an overlay of the original proposal compared to the one suggested by Planzung. Ms. Kick noted that the total square footage of the most current revision was 4,492 square feet and the proposal suggested by Planning was approximately 2,945, so as far as mass goes, it was a suggested reduction of approximately 1,500 square feet. She asked if that would be a mass appropriate for the site, considering the historic building on the same property. Mr. Phillabaum said that generally, this square-footage would be acceptable if broken into separate buildings. He said that the lot coverage of the Planning's concepts is approximately 70 percent, which was similar to the applicant's most recent proposal. He said the chief difference is in the amount of building area versus paved area. He noted that the circulation plans on the two Planning concepts appears to provide adequate ingress and egress. Mr. Phillabaum presented the slide of the applicant's previous carriage house plan and said the height would be different from anything that would be entertained on South Blacksmith. 08-0192 Kezonirlg 54 S. High Street Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes -August 27, 2008 Page 9 of 16 Mr_ Kortsen said it would not be that much difference because they still have to have the same roof pitch. He said with their latest design, it does not look like it covers the whole lot because it is set back. Mr. Souders recalled that at the last meeting when the depth from the garage to the retaining wall was discussed, it was mentioned that Code required 21 feet. Mr. Phillabaum clarified that Engineering recommends a minimum of 21 feet, but they would prefer more in this case because it would not function. Mr. Souders asked if the driveway could be extended further to the south onto the 58 South High Street property and use that 12-foot or whatever for the dumpster, more green space or something. Mr. Phillabaum said a Code compliance issue exists with 5$ South High Street. He said that over the years, green space on this parcel has been gradually converted to gravel. He noted that the parking spaces are no longer clearly defined and cars aze now parking on areas that were previously green space. Mr. Gunderman said Planning's fundamental view was that some other arrangements could be imagined on 58 South High Street that potentially might make that possible, but they do not really have it at the moment, so Planning's review of 54 South High Street cannot be based on proposals for the other property at the present time. Mr. Souders summarized that they were not going to agree on the massing issue, but regazding the other two points, he still agreed with Planning's recommendation. He said he had a hard time separating the commercial vehicles away from the commercial structure and a real hard time using someane else's property to make all this work. Mr. Souders said he found the last two points much more problematic than the definition of massing. Mr. Souders said he liked the split carriage house concept, but the biggest issue was the perception that atwo-story structure with a roof had more of an impact than atwo-story structure with a roof 30 feet away. He said they were going around in circles in the applicant's point of view, but the concept from Planning addresses the bigger issues. Mr_ Souders said it settled the issue of massing so that they were not in disagreement with what Mr. Phiilabaum was saying, but Planning would never agree with the way they are at right now. He said that Planning's concept plan puts the commercial in a better location relative to the commercial use on the site, and it makes vehicles turn right off of the alley, which was a more practical arrangement. He said this solves the practical issues that he was most concerned with because he thought they had demonstrated the massing, especially from the main street. He said this breaks the mass up, but it really came down to the City now having to live with atwo-story structure with a roof because that was why they left it in the first place. Mr. Phillabaum said a major part of Planning's concern over the previous carnage house from the applicant was having a three car garage with a story and a half to two stories above it. He said that the combination of these elements created a mass that could not be supported and did not leave enough room for a driveway. He explained that the concept from Planning was evaluated in context using SketchUp, and it did not appear to be inconsistent with the scale of structures they might expect to see as outbuildings on South Blacksmith. 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dubtia Architectuiat Review Board Minutes August 27, 2008 Page 10 of 16 Mr. Souders asked that Mr. Phillabaum's comment be in the record, because he was in agreement with him this time around. Mr. Holton said the design that Mr. Kortsen had presented with his earlier carriage house looked very nice, however from the Historical Society standpoint, he thought it would need to be a little simpler in design. Ms. Kick suggested the proposed building should be more tailored or "saltbox"-looking and more subdued. Mr. Holton said he liked the idea of not having to be so dependent on agreements with the adjacent properties. Mr. Souders asked if Planning's concept was based on the original property line or if the extra three feet were taken into consideration. Mr. Phillabaum said that the proposal was within the site, not using any of the adjacent property. Ms. Kick asked if that was something that the applicant would be interested in considering. Mr. Kortsen confirmed that the addition could not go higher than the roofline on the front building. Mr. Souders noted that in trying to make the duplex work, the building is lowered. He said he could not imagine using the same dimensions would be objectionable to the City. Ms. Kick said that it was being recommended that the actual buildings be approximately one third less than what is currently being proposed. She said the one carriage house will be on the street, but the other building will be set back so it is almost going to have a similar appearance as it does now, but will be a little smaller. Mr. Kortsen stated that the lot was 47.5 feet wide and the garage would need to be 30-plus feet wide, which only leaves about 17 feet. He said the carriage house is going to be a barrier there. He estimated that he needed the carriage house to be 1,200 square feet in size. Mr. Souders and Ms. Kick agreed that the total square footage of the two structures should be 3,000 to 3,204 square feet and the one connected to the historic structure could be larger. Mr. Souders suggested that square footage be used for the basis for the foundation plans, plus or minus. Mr. Phillabaum said the structure near Blacksmith Lane needed to be substantially smaller than the unit attached to the historic structure. He said that a minimum garage width was used for the lower level in the concept created by Planning. He said it was an extra deep garage with access to the upper level from behind the structure, and it was approximately 24 or 2b feet wide and approximately 30 feet deep. Mr. Souders suggested Mr. Kortsen take the Guidelines and what Planning suggested and make it work. 08-O19Z Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architectural Review Board Minutes -August 27, 2008 Page 11 of 16 Mr. Kortsen referred to the original carriage house proposal and asked if he could make it smaller if the height was okay with some space in the attic. Mr. Holton said it could not be done if it was close to Blacksmith Lane because it would be too tall. He said the structure on Blacksmith Lane will need to be the smaller of the two buildings. Mr. Kortsen told the Board that it had to be historically accurate. Mr: Souders said a historic carnage house would have the garage, a floor and a roof; and that was the height to have. He said it definitely was not athree-car garage, but it was still a garage height of about nine feet, floor joists, aneight- or nine-foot height for the living area, and a roof height that needed to be at least 4:12, if not 6:12, and 8:12 ratio would feel even better. He said the shorter the floor-to-ceiling height, the more pitch there could be without it exceeding what is permitted. Mr. Souders said that it was agreed that a carriage house concept would work, but the height must be reasonable with a normal garage height, a finished floor, and a roof pitch based on the design. He said it could not be said it was too tall because that was what a caniage house was. Mr. Souders said the height looking at the structure from Blacksmith Lane was irrelevant. Mr. Holton reiterated that the building on Blacksmith Lane should be the smaller of the two structures because of the scale on BIacksmith Lane. Ms. Kick requested procedural direction from Planning. Mr. Phillabaum suggested that if the applicant was interested in tabling this request to pursue the carriage house concept with parking pulled into the interior of the site and that the Board was generally in favor of that idea, a motion was needed from the Board to do so. Mr. Kortsen agreed to a tabling and to resubmit a plan with the carriage house as discussed Motion and Vote Mr. Holton made a motion and Mr. Souders seconded the motion to table this applicatioa. The vote was as follows: Mr. Holton, yes; Mr. Souders, yes; Ms. Kick, yes; and Mr. Currie, yes. (Tabled 4 - 0.) 3. ode Amendments - rchitectura! Revi Board Code Amendme s 07-096ADM Administrative Re est Ga Gunderman stated iat at the last meeti the Board review the proposed modi cations t the section of th Zoning Code rela to the Architec 1 Review Board nd made recommendations ich are reflected in is revised version. a said the remaini issues that the Board indicat they wanted to co ider further will be viewed. Mr. Gund an reviewed the changes m eon each page oft revised proposed C e Amendment: Page 1 Mr. Gu erman stated that n changes suggested Mr Currie pointed out at A(4), referenc t3 ovided in Code Se ion 153.170(B) w ina because that sectio o longer existed. . Gunc fhe last meeting. Ohio Historic ventoried Properti being ropriately re renced in the new ocument man a~~ee Mr. Cturie also r,~i +P~ ~~~* •~°• 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. l-ligll Street ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BOARD ORDER JITNE 25, 2008 CITY OF DUBLIN_ tuna ta. ena seoo ~ar.,~ ttooa t~ ot;n a3o1677l6 PhonellD0:614j11}600 Fmc 61NIU17~7 Web Stc: www.dub4i.oh.vs The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting, 1. 54 S. High Street 54 South High Street 08-018ARB Site Modifications Proposal: Major site modifications, including the demolition of an existing garage, and a 4,298-square-foot, two-story addition to an existing 1,430-square-foot building within the Historic District. The site is located on the east side of South High Street, approximately 75 feet south of Spring Hill. Request: Review and approval of the proposal under the provisions of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. Applicant: Larry Paglioni; represented by Robert Kortsen. Planning Contact: Dan Phillabaum, AICP, Senior Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4662, dphillabaum@dublin.oh.us MOTION: Thomas Holton made a motion, seconded by William Souders, to table this application as agreed upon by Robert Kortsen. VOTE: 5 - 0. RESULT: This application was tabled_ RECORDED VOTES: Thomas Holton Yes Clayton Bryan Yes William Souders Yes Linda Kick Yes Tom Cun~ie Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Dan Phillabaum, A C" Senior Planner 08-019'L Rezoning 54 S. Hig}~ Street Dublin Anct-itectura! Review Board June Z5, 2008 --Minutes Page 2 of 16 Administrative import Gary Gund confirmed that Board members ived their copies the Community Plan. He ed the Board m to bring their ng Code books to July meeting so t they a updated and re ed in the August ing packets. . Gunderman ann ced that the rezo ' g for Waterford Co ons on Monterey 've would be presented to C' Council for a s reading, and if ap oved, another 12, -square-foot commercial b 'ding would be add at the corner of Ie~i erey Drive and B ' ge Street. He said the larger ome portion o e project would reel ce the existing du xes and be Located along either side of Mo ey Drive. r. Bryan explain the purpose and cedures of the Bo and asked those ' terested in speaking in rep s to the cases on agenda be placed er oath, including a applicants or their represe fives and City representatives. 1. 54 S. High Street 54 South High Street 08-018A1tB Site Modifications Dan Phillabaum presented this request fora 4,298-square-foot building addition to an existing 1,4Q0-square-foot historic structure with associated site modifications. He said at last month's meeting, Planning recommended disapproval and the Board requested five specific revisions to the proposal which the applicant has made. Mr. Phillabaum said the requested revisions have had only a limited positive impact in reducing the scale of the proposed addition and have not significantly altered the mass from the previous proposal, therefore Planning maintains that the building addition fails to meet the Guidelines, greatly exceeds the appropriate mass for this site, is completely out of character with the Historic District, and therefore strongly recommends disapproval of this request. Mr. Phillabaum said during a routine site visit an existing dumpster was noted on the site that had not been included on the existing conditions plans nor accommodated on future plans submitted by the applicant. He presented and compared changes from the previous plan to the current revised plan. The five-foot wide sidewalk has been added along the south elevation, and it straddles the property line, therefore the adjoining property owner is a co-applicant on this proposal. Mr. Phillabaum mentioned that the tandem garages were included, but not in the arrangement Mr. Souders had intended. He said the commercial parking spaces required to be maintained with this proposal are still in the same location, as is the driveway, the amount of pavement has been reduced based on the tandem arrangement shown. Architectural changes include the tandem garage, the roof height being reduced by approximately three feet, and the amount of stone was lowered on all elevations. Mr. Phillabaum said the east elevation includes two, ten-foot garage doors which replaced the previous 16-foot wide garage doors. He added that the applicant was directed to use windows with muntins through or on the glass to give the appearance of true divided lites, and it is Planning's understanding that is being proposed with all of the windows. 08-0197 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architectural Review Board 3une Z5, 2008 -Minutes Page 3 of 16 He said the other aspects of the project are really not an issue for either Planning or the Board. He said Planning is fundamentally in agreement with the materials proposed and other minor details of this proposal. Mr. Phillabaum said Planning would therefore, prefer to focus the presentation and discussion on the primary concerns and reasons for the disapproval recommendation. Mr. Phillabaum began with the reconunendations found in the Community Plan related to the Historic District and projects of this type. He stated that the Community Plan recommends that a mix of housing choices be provided, that developm~rtt be encouraged in the Historic District, while protecting and maintaining existing businesses, neighborhoods and historic resources. The Historic Dublin Area Plan recommends that all designs should utilize the appropriate vernacular architecture with appropriate massing, scale, and materials. The chapter devoted to preservation recommends the use of evaluative tools such as these, the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines (HDDG), the Community Plan, and other applicable plans for future development proposals in Historic Dublin. Mr. Phillabaum continued with an overview of the HDDG and the National Park Preservation Services (NPS) Standards. He said the HDDG are a condensed version of the NPS Standards, which aze a more comprehensive set of standards. He addressed each of the three preservation objectives of the Guidelines, and the NPS Standards for additions to historic structures and discussed Planning's concerns. 1. Additions should preserve significant historic materials and features. Mr. Phillabaum explained that this objective was not met with this proposed addition because it will be connected to the primary structure with a covered walkway, and while it is an effective method to reduce the amount of damage to the primary structure, Planning believes that the abrupt out-of-scale transition to the significantly larger structure compromises the visual and functional relationship to the historic structure objectives 2. Additions should preserve the historic character of the building and surrounding context. Mr. Phillabaum said that it is this objective which addresses the primary concerns of Planning related to mass, scale and proportions of the proposed addition. He said the determination of the appropriateness of building mass in a given location is less subjective than it may appear_ In urban contexts such as this, the cumulative effect of the surrounding development context provides the best direction for the scale and massing of building additions. He said this context can be quantified by using conducting a relative comparison of building square footage, height, width, setbacks and lot coverage of existing to proposed development. Mr. Phillabaum said in Planning's view, this proposal should not be viewed in isolation, it must be considered in its context of its surroundings and the character of the entire district. He presented 3-D views of the proposed addition and the surrounding building context. Mr. Phillabaum said based on Planning's analysis, we have concluded that the mass of the proposed addition effectively eliminates the historic integrity of the original structure and the site and compromises the sun ounding district. He added that the Jeffrey Darbee, City's Historic Preservation Consultant concurs with this view. 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Arctutectural Review Board lone 25, 2008 -Minutes Page 4 of 16 Mr. Phillabaum said only the height of the multi-gabled roof had changed with this revision. He said Planning and the City's consultant still assert that the roof design is overly complex and out of character with the simple rooflines of the primary structures throughout Historic Dublin. Mr. Philiabaum said although the topography of the site lends itself to a two-story addition, the width and depth of the addition remain a great concern. He said the width is within 3 feet 8-inches of the north and south property lines and creates potential hardships to those adjacent properties. He said the mass of the building obliterates the presence of the historic structure from South Blacksmith Lane. a 3. Additions should protect the historical significance of the primary building. Mr. Phillabaum said additions to historic structures should create a visual distinction between the original portion and the addition. When they are indistinguishable from the old and chazacter of the historic structure and district may no longer be perceived and appreciated by, the public. He quoted from the Standards "A modern addition should be readily distinguishable from the older work. However the new work should be harmonious with the old in scale, proportion, materials and color. Such additions should be as inconspicuous as possible from the public view. Mr_ Phillabaum said cleazly, this standard cannot be met with this proposal. Mr. Phillabaum then described concerns of Planning and Engineering related to the proposed site plan. He said a concern which remains from the last meeting was related to the lot coverage. He presented an analysis of the lot coverage on the nine blocks surrounding this site. He said that this proposal is at approximately 70.3 percent lot coverage, that the average lot coverage of all commercial development within this nine block area is 65.8 percent, and that the residential lot coverage is approximately 24.8 percent. He said the overall average lot coverage for this azea is 51.2 percent. Mr. Phillabaum said based on the size of the addition, the dominant residential chazaeter imposed by this addition will forever change the character of this site from business to residential. He said Planning recommends that the lot coverage be lowered to reflect the change in use of this site from principally commercial to residential. Mr. Phillabaum said another concem that impacts circulation was a discrepancy with the proposed retaining wall detail. He said Planning believes the retaining wall detail proposed underestimates the actual width that would be required for this wall. He said the plans note the width of the driveway as 9.5 feet, but based on the retaining wall issue the actual width could be just over 8-feet wide. This does not meet the Zoning Code requirement of ten feet. Mr. Phillabaum further explained that after analyzing the maneuvering with Auto TURN, there are several points of conflict between a vehicle and the walls. Mr. Phillabaum said Planning supports infill development in the Historic District, including this location. However, proper site planning and architectural design must not be sacrificed to the detriment of protecting and preserving the character of Historic Dublin. He said with the limited amount of land available in the District, we fully expect to experience an increased demand for infill proposals. As multiple uses are accommodated on the same site, the character of the District will likely continue to evolve. It is of critical importance that this evolution does not jeopardize the irreplaceable historic character of the District. -~ 0$-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architectural Review Board June 25, 2008 -Minutes Page 5 of 16 Mr. Phillabaum said accordingly, infiil proposals must not be evaluated in isolation but viewed in the context of the historic developments that preceded them, and as potentially precedent setting for future proposals under similar circumstances. While this proposal meets some Code minimums and maximums, this does not guarantee a quality project. The purpose of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines is to provide the additional level of subjective review necessary to ensure that our historic resources are preserved. He added that in Planning's opinion the proposed building addition physically overpowers the historic structure it shares a site with, and the chat'acter of the Historic District as a whole. Planning- strongly recommends disapproval of the request. Mr. Phillabaum offered to answer. questions from the Board members. Tom Currie rand Clay Bryan asked how recent the exhibits shown were, as several recent approvals were not depicted. Mr. Phillabaum said the exhibits were not up to date to the minute, but they still provide an effective means of comparison for the topics being discussed. He added that the net effect of recent developments not included on these exhibits was minimal. Mr. Currie said north of Bridge, you've got a lot more infill, already. Mr. Bryan said he was concerned about how infill can occur if it is not supposed to overpower the historic structure. He referred to the Krems Nut building as an example and said that the addition was more than double the size of the original structure. He asked at what point the historian or the city planners feel that an addition exceeds the appropriate size. Mr. Phillabaum said there was no blanket methodology that could be applied to make that determination; they have to be evaluated on a site by site basis. He added that the Krems Nut addition was an exception and not the rule for typical building additions. Tom Holton said Krems Nut was designed with a barn theme, where the addition was to have the appearance of a large barn behind a smaller "farmhouse" structure. Mr. Souders stated that Planning was using the word 'massing', and that on this site it has a lower roofline and is a smaller building appearance from the main public view. He believed Krems Nut was a much larger building, just from a massing point of view. He said he was confused that Planning can say one thing on one property and another thing on another, and was being inconsistent. Mr. Holton said he did not think it was inconsistent. He said this proposal is a residential structure, and in the case of Krems Nut it is a commercial structure-a warehouse-that was presented to them as resembling a barn. He stated that this proposal should be simplified- and made smaller. He said that from the High Street level, it is subordinate to the principal historic structure and is consistent with the Guidelines. However, he said the mass of the building, from Squth Blacksmith is substantial, as the Board had discussed in prior meetings. Mr. Holton said U8-0197, Rezoning 5~- S. High Street Dublin Architectural Review Board June 25, 2008 -Minutes Page 6 of 16 with the input from the historic preservation consultant and continued reseazch and input from Planning, he was convinced that the building size should be reduced for a number of reasons. He said he would like to see it made less massive on the site, so that the scale is more proportional to the other buildings in this ,quadrant of the Historic District. Mr. Holton added that he would not compaze it any further to other buildings such as Krema at all because it was a different building. It was a residential building. Mr. Phillabaum clarified Planning's position that the scale of the Krema Nut addition from Darby Street was appropriate to and consistent with tfle scale of the adjacent buildings on Darby Street. He said in that location the lots are essentially double-fronted, and a character has been created along both North High and Darby Streets. He said Planning believes that as infill projects are proposed here and elsewhere in the District, it is important that we establish a scale and massing that is appropriate and sympathetic to its context. He said this proposal is out of context with its surroundings and not a theme that Planning would recommend replicating down South Blacksmith Lane. Mr. Holton recalled that Mr. Souders at the last meeting used the term "urban scale." He said perhaps this design was a little too big for the District, and instead of building a large residential structure in a small space, perhaps the applicant should build two smaller units that fit more proportionally in the Historic District. Mr. Souders clarified that the lot coverage permitted by Code was 80 percent, and this proposed lot coverage was 77.5 percent, that the building setbacks were within the Building Code, and the roofline was below the existing roofline. Mr. Phillabaum said the point Planning wanted to make was that a project could meet all of the minimums and maximums required by the various Codes, but that this would not guarantee good design. He said that was why the Guidelines were developed, because to ensure quality design is achieved an additional level of subjective criteria is required when evaluating projects such as this. Mr. Souders said that he agreed with Planning with respect to the parking issues. He said the applicant did not listen to what was suggested at the last meeting, and actually, in his mind, made it worse. He said the Code called for 10 feet, and the reality is on an icy day, 10 feet in itself is barely enough to make that maneuverability work. Mr. Souders said for all the other reasons, he could not disagree more with everything Mr. Phillabaum said. He said the applicant presented a design that worked well - a two-story building totally within the acceptability of this alley, and more than enough setback to make it work, but he could not approve this because the parking was unacceptable and did not work. He said he totally disagreed with the analysis and said that it would be a benefit to the Historic District, and not a negative. Mr. Currie asked about public parking Code requirements. Mr. Phillabaum said there was a variance in place in association with the existing business to require only four parking spaces for the existing cvmmercial use. Mr. Currie asked how many other commercial buildings had 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architectural Review Board June ZS, 2008 -Minutes Page 7 of 16 variances and if requiring four parking spaces was realistic or if it should be closer to three parking spaces. Mr. Phillabaum said there were numerous variances approved for businesses in the District. He said he did not know if four spaces was excessive, but that is what the BZA granted. Mr. Currie suggested that further infill would add to the parking problem and perhaps the Code parking requirements needed to be changed for the District. Mr. Phillabaum said it had been acknowledged that the parking Code is based on a suburban standard and is not always effective when applied to an urban context such as this. He said Planning is investigating Code revisions specific to the Historic District with respect to parking. Mr. Currie also suggested that the Code requirement for atwo-car garage in residential areas did not fit in this urban setting. Mr. Phillabaum clarified that the Code does not require garages, only parking spaces and added that this proposal had to be evaluated based on the Code in place today. Mr. Bryan -said he was in agreement with Mr. Souders when it came to the building. He said he had no problem with the square footage or roofline. He believed this roofline to be similar in design to that used on the Bassett carriage houses, and not out of place for the District. Mr. Bryan said he did not see a problem with a flat roof patio atop the garages, but that this plan would not work due to the way the garage extends fiuther east. Mr. Bryan said there were a iot of good things about this plan and he would like to see it work, but obviously it can not with the parking situation. Mr. Bryan said he was concerned that development could be impeded because it was in one quadrant of the District versus another. He said in this quadrant, Cullen Art Glass was as wide from side yard to side yard and as high as the proposal before them. He said Biddies' Restaurant also was the same situation. He said there are many structures there that have almost a zero clearance between buildings. Mr. Holton asked about the sidewalk provision. Mr. Phillabaum said the property owner to the south was a co-applicant and the revision to sidewalk width had been made. Mr. Holton noted in the Planning Report the comment on fences and walls: It is likely that portions of these walls cannot be constructed without requiring grading on adjacent properties, and asked if the adjacent properties were those to the north and south. Mr. Phillabaum said based on the property owner to the south now being a co-applicant, that was less of an issue, but Planning's analysis of the topography is that there will likely be a wall needed along the northern property line. He said a significant tree row now exists there. Ms. Kick asked if all the Code requirements were being met what guidance could be provided to the applicant. She asked if there were specific square footage recommendations. Mr_ Phillabaum said Planning has maintained from the beginning that all the issues with this proposal relate back to the size of the structure being proposed, and the amount of vehicular ac,~ivity that needs to be accommodated on this site. He said with dimensional standards for 08-0] 97 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architechual Review Board June 25, 2008 -Minutes Page S of 16 vehicular circulation being inflexible, reducing the size of the structure would assist in alleviating a number of the concerns. Mr. Phillabaum said the applicant should develop a •fiinctional vehicular circulation and parking arrangement first on the site, rathei than starting by maximum the building envelope first to the detriment of the parking and circulation. Mr. Holton asked about the dumpster location and trash removal provisions. Mr. Phillabaum said the existing business needs to have some place for refuse collection, as do the future residents and that was yet another item that would have to be considered in a revised circulation area. Mr. Souders questioned if there is a co-applicant, do both properties have to be evaluated for scale and size or just the one site. He asked if one property could provide all the parking spaces, could the other property accept the dumpster. He said if they have some joint relationship, would the massing be evaluated based on not one building but based on a couple of buildings. He said it might not change the way you it is looked at as a single building, but the Boazd could then consider there are two buildings and its massing relationship to the other building. Mr. Gunderman clarified that Mr. Souders was talking about the property to the south. He said the property to the south was already so fully developed that he did not know that there was much opportunity for the arrangement Mr. Souders was talking about. He said as long as the property to the south was not proposing a new building or changes, he did not think Planning saw that as a real opportunity. He said broadly speaking, he agreed with everything Mr. Souders was talking about and that if properties were combined, things could theoretically be arranged differently. Mr. Holton asked if the handrails and cheek walls at the edge of the steps had to be included on the .plan. Mr. Gunderman said that unless the Board had interest in the design, they were not something they needed to review. Mr. Bryan asked the applicant, Robert Kortsen, if from what he had heard tonight, it gave him any ideas of where he could go with this or would like to do. Mr. Kortsen said that in dealing with Planning, every time they would come up with something, Planning would come up with something else. He said it was frustrating because Planning was leaving it up to them to put the thing together. He said parking was going to be an issue. He• didn't think two spaces would be necessary because there would not be a family of six or eight living here. He said the parking issue was related to being able to turn around and that if you are driving an SUV it would be difficult, but if you are driving a Mini, you could get in and out of that space easily. Mr. Bryan said that they cannot mandate what people drive, and that the parking issues are a matter of the Zoning Code that is in effect. He said there was not anything the ARB could do to help on those lines. Mr. Kortsen said it sounded Iike the Board was fine with the building but that the parking is the iss,~e. He said they would go back to the drawing board and try to redo things. He said that the 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architectural Review Board June 25, 2008 -Minutes Page 9 of 16 proposal needed to make economic sense for them to do it. He said he couldn't put a600-foot house up there and expect it to make economic sense unless you want low income housing. He said they were proposing units at about $600,000 each that would enhance the neighborhood. He said parking was the issue and that he thought it worked but Planning did not. Mr. Souders said that he didn't think it worked, either. Mr. Holton asked if Planning could work with the applicant to figure out how to make this work and resolve this standoff Mr. Phillabaum said that they as a rule they try not to design projects for applicants, but to give them enough direction to make some informed decisions. Dave Johnson, the architect for the applicant said that at one time, they had the parking arranged with all four spaces in a row with a driveway to the south. He said this arrangement would have required only one retaining wall versus two. He said regarding the retaining wall construction, that it could be constructed as he has proposed. Mr. Souders said that his comment from last meeting is that it would work if you were willing to give up interior square feet_ He said to make it work there was space in the building that you've got to give up. He said the pazking needed to move to the west, almost the full depth of the current garage extension. He said it would actually be about two feet less than your building above to make this work, but that was before we started talking about the dumpster. He said he didn't know how that would all work, but shifting it over another three feet in cooperation with the existing property to the south might provide the ten-foot drive width needed. He concluded that 21 feet of maneuvering space, or whether it becomes 24 feet, was still too tight and still wouldn't address the dumpster. Mr. Phillabaum said that there may be an agreement in place with one of the adjoining properties to shaze the use of this dumpster, but that Planning is just not aware of that. Mr. Souders said these two residential units are also going to generate trash. They aze going to have to set it out at.the alley and you don't want to block your four parking spaces or the driveway. He didn't think it is the Boards responsibility to work it out tonight. He said in terms of his comments related to the depth of the building there were still issues with Planning regazding the mass proposed. He said that the massing wasn't an issue for him, but he was only one member of the Board. He said that their current proposal extended the stacking out, which was completely opposite from what I was saying last week. It has to go underneath the building, and it has to be even shorter than the story above. He told them that they had to be willing to live with less squaze footage, and didn't know if you could do that, and it was obvious that they couldn't. Mr. Johnson asked what distance Engineering preferred between the garage door and the edge of the pavement area. . Mr. Phitlabaum stated that Engineering would prefer to have a minimum of 21 to 22 feet of pavement for vehicles to maneuver. He suggested that if the parking spaces were oriented pa,~allel to the north or south property line as opposed to parallel to the east property line 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. 1 Tigh Street Dublin Architectural Review Board June 25, 2008 -Minutes Page 10 of 16 vehiculaz access could be resolved and a landscape island could be created for location of a dumpster. Mr. Kortsen said that he believed he could make a deal with the adjoining property to the south for location of a shared dumpster on the 58 South High site. Mr. Souders advised that the applicant would need a place for your residents to put their trash out, even if it is not a true dumpster. He had similar suggestions on how the parking could be re- oriented to provide some different flexibility, but did nat want to design the project for them. Mr. Holton added that these were good suggestions that could help the applicant. Mr. Currie noted that in the previous meeting minutes the applicant stated that the residents along Blacksmith were in favor of this type of development_ He asked if anything had changed in that respect or if staff had heard any other input from the existing neighbors. Mr. Phillabaum replied that they have only heazd of this support anecdotally from the applicant. He added that neighborhood support is definitely a consideration for Planning when evaluating infill proposals, but it is not the ultimate factor. With infill projects, there can be a tendency to favor a project simply because it is superior to what currently exists in that location. Mr_ Bryan said that while there are residents that would like to see a lot more infill along Blacksmith, there aze other residents that would rather see nothing happen and they aze going to raise objections to any proposal. He did not know of anyone that he had talked to with strong objections to this proposal. I know of one individual that wasn't crazy about it, but obviously didn't feel that it was important enough to speak out against it. Mr. Kortsen said that he received comments from the neighbors that they were tired of looking at the back of those buildings and that they would like to see something nicer up there. He stated that the existing building has that old lodge style that doesn't Look good. He said South Blacksmith is not kept up well and that it is just a hodgepodge of things. Mr. Holton replied that that goes directly back to what Mr. Phillabaum just said, which is simply that you can do a lot of different things that would be viewed as an improvement over what is there today. The concern is that just because it might look better today doesn't mean it's going to look better five years from now. Mr. Bryan said there needed to be a formula that allows people to know ahead of time how much they are allowed to develop on a site. He said this applicant meets the Code requirements but is being told that they have put too much on the site. He suggested that it was something in the Zoning Code or as another guideline that the Planning Department and the ARB should look at. He clarified that he did not want to see 80 percent coverage of lots up and down Blacksmith Lane. He believed that there were some large structures back there, and questioned how large was too large. He said if things are done well, you can make a lot of things work. He thought there was a significant attempt at making this thing work and present itself well for quite a few years. 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Arclutecttual Review Board June 25, 2008 -Minutes Page 11 of 16 Mr. Holton said with respect to infill projects along Blacksmith Lane that he would not like to see a project of this size and mass on the rest of the lots because then we would have massive infill on Blacksmith Lane, and then people would want to do the same on Mill Lane. He said he was very much not in favor of this building as designed and would like to see it reduced for the record. Mr. Gunderman asked for other Board members position with respect to the mass of the building and roofline proposed. To establish a framework fob the other properties that might request a similar infill approval, we would expect to take the same position as we have on this case. He said what Planning believes needs to happen here is a little smaller building, a little less square footage. Tn order for everybody to proceed here, we need to have maybe a little better feel for how we are coming down on that particular issue. Ms. Kick said she didn't have an issue with the massing and the design because it meets Code. She thought that if Planning believed it was too big, they should have a recommendation for how much smaller it needs to be. Mr. Currie stated that he did not have any problems with the mass or roofline of the building. He suggested that if the units were to be as expensive as planned and if they are going to fill up that much of the lot they should increase the quality of the materials being proposed. He preferred that they not use Trex, Hazdiplank or cultured stone on the building, but real wood decking and siding and real stone. He suggested that the shutters be operable and fit the windows for privacy and that the sidewalks be real brick as opposed to concrete pavers. Mr. Kortsen said that was not a problem, but believed Hardiplank to be a superior material to real wood siding based on long term maintenance and durability. He said the Trex could be changed, but it's also a good material from a maintenance standpoint. Mr. Holton said that the Board has commonly approved Trex in the District for those reasons, and because it doesn't splinter. Mr. Bryan said an additional reason to use modern materials was simply to keep the new structure looking like a new structure, compatible - but a new structure. Mr. Souders shared a roofline sketch he developed with the other Board members. Mr. Holton asked if he was suggesting that the applicant use this type of roof and noted that this sketch should be part of the record. Mr. Souders referred to the sketch and said that the two units would not be exactly the same as modified by his roof sketch, but said he was trying to get this application passed. Mr. Kortsen asked if they were to solve the parking problems whether the application would otherwise be acceptable. Ms. Kick said the building mass was still an issue, among other items. Mr. Bryan asked if Mr. Kortsen was in agreement with tabling this application to further refine the proposal, and the applicant agreed. 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architectural Review Board June 25, 200$ -Minutes Page 12 of 16 Mr. Holton directed the applicant to modify the parking plan and vehicular access, accommodate commercial and residential refuse collection, and reduce the mass of the addition. Mr. Holton made the motion to table. Mr. Souders seconded. The vote was as follows: Mr. Bryan, yes; Ms. Kick, yes; Mr. Currie, yes; Mr. Souders, yes; and Mr. Holton, yes. (Tabled 5 0.) 2. Jones Residence 1 South Riverview treat p8_047~g ~ Exterior M ification Sarah White, Planning ssistant, present this request fo review and app val for 14 replacement windows ' asingle-family esidence in Histo ' Dublin. She s ' the applicant purchased the hom n the early 1970 and since that ti constructed two ditions and adde yellow vinyl sid' g, white vinyl wi ows, and blacks ers to the house a original win w style is doubl ung, two-over- with muntins, an 11 storm window without screens. Ms. ' e said the propo Rosetti replace nt windows are 'te vinyl, two-o r-two with fulls eons and will hav double-pane glas ith muntins on b sides of the gl .She said the D tgn Guideline #7 ecommends desi elements for repl ement windows d the Guidelines uggest historic ndows be repair ,and replacem s only be cons' ered when origi windows are to deteriorated. Ms ite also stated an any replacem windows should a of the same m erial, color, and esign as the on ' al windows. S said while the oposed replacem t windows gen ly mimic the on nal design, they re constructed o different materi (vinyl) which i discouraged by a Guidelines. .White said Du tn's Historic Pr rvation Consult Jeffrey Darbee r mmended that i is case, window which could not repaired should referably be repl ed by wooden wi~ows. She said er options inclu vinyl or alumi -clad wood or I aluminum wi~dtiws. She add at Mr. Darbee so explained th the preservation p~he original win dws may help to r ain the historic n re of the home. ,; ~ r Ms. ite said Plaiuti~~recommends disapproval of this r uest because th roposed vinyl ndows are not in kEepmg with the hisZdric nature of the strict and the His ric Dubini: Design Guidelines. She id Planning is supportive of replace ant windows for ose which cannot e repaired, but f ds wood to be the,}~ceferred material er vinyl. ~~ Mr. Sou rs asked if the o ' al windows war deteriorating bey d repair. .Bryan said the a al window sash aterial was so ro en that if opened a center muntin d lower section the window wou remain down by e sill. He said it ould require a ma' r overhaul of the riginal windows ' h replacement p s to fix. He sug tad that replace t of the original ndows was then step. Leona ones, owner and licant, said only o original upsta' windows would en. She said the ginal storm wi ows have to be aned from the o side. She said t y could only do lat they could of rd on a fixed in me and could no afford wood win ws or have the ojd windows repair Ms. Jones ask why vinyl was rmitted on the o side where it cou be see,, but not the inside. 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. high Street A.RCHTTECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BOARD ORDER G'TY OF DUBLIN.. MAY 21, 2008 ~..»~. SDOO Sl;e.~ rtoad ~~~~~» a~ goo: e,.~~o-.eao Fmc 614410J7l7 '~ wee Sla www~duefndua The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 54 S. High Street ~ 54 South High Street 08-018ARB Site Modifications Proposal: Major site modifications, including the demolition of an existing garage, and a 4,343-square-foot, two-story addition to an existing 1,430-square-foot building within the Historic District. The site is located on •the east side of South High Street, approximately ~75 feet south of Spring Hill_ Request: Review and approval of the proposal under the provisions of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. Applicant: Larry Paglioni; represented by Robert Kortsen. Planning Contact: Dan Phiilabaum, AICP, Senior Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4662, dphillabaum@dublin.oh.us MOTION: Thomas Holton made a motion, seconded by Linda Kick to table this application. * Robert Kortsen ,the applicant agreed to the tabling. VOTE: 4 - 0. RESULT: The Board recommended that the height of the roofline be lowered, tandem parking be incorporated, the amount of stone be reduced, the width of the sidewalk be a minimum of five feet wide, and that the windows have muntins on the surface of the glass. This application was tabled to the June 26, 2008 meeting. RECORDED VOTES: Thomas Holton Yes Clayton Bryan Yes William Souders Yes Linda Kick Yes Tom Currie Absent STAFF C `RT~IF ' ON I ~V. ~1 moo Dan p~ 08-0192 Senior I Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Arclntochual Review Board May 21, 2008 -Minutes Page 2 of 14 1. 54 S. High Street S4 South High Street 08-018ARB Site Modifications Dan Phillabaum presented this request for review and approval of a 4,343-square-foot addition and associated site modifications to this 0.18-acre site in Historic Dublin. Mr. Phillabaum described the existing conditions of the property and presented photos of the existing building. He said that there is significant topography on the site, with approximately 20 feet of fall from west to east, two significant trees and a tree row along the property line, which is shared with the adjoining property to the north. Mr_ Phillabaum said this proposal would create atwo-story, two-unit residential addition to the existing primary building. ~e said the existing garage at the rear of the site would be demolished with this proposal and four parking spaces associated with the existing business are in its place. He said that these spaces are accessed off of South Blacksmith Lane, and a pedestrian connection to bring customers from these spaces up to the commercial building entrance is depicted along the south side of the site. Mr. Phillabaum mentioned that the commercial parking spaces are cut into the existing terrain by two retaining walls that wrap azound the sides and front of the spaces. He said that landscape islands have been added in the azea between those parking spaces and the driveway to the residential garages. He said there is a strip of lawn proposed along the north of the site, and some existing pavement has been taken out of the western portion and replaced with lawn and additional landscaping. Mr. Phillabaum said the proposed building placement and orientation is consistent with the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines pertaining to building additions, in that it is to the rear of the primary structure and creates the impression of a clear sepazation between them_ He said the only exception to this guideline is the relative proximity of the proposed addition to the north and south property lines, which is approximately 3 feet 8 inches on both sides and which could create a potentially imposing relationship with the adjoining properties. Mr. Phillabaum said the proposed architectural style is a carriage-house or barn-like structure. He said the City's Historic Preservation Consultant, Jeff Dazbee, has stated that this general style is appropriate to the District. Mr. Phillabaum said the materials include stone veneer on the lower level with board and batten Hazdiplank siding above. He said that the shingles are dimensional asphalt and the proposed colors and materials are consistent with the rest of the Historic District and with the Guidelines. Mr_ Phillabaum said the only exception to Mr. Darbee's endorsement pertains to the east elevation, which the consultant believes has a contemporary appeazance and is unlike the rest of the proposed addition. He said the dispazity is created by the window to wall ratio on the east elevation relative to the other sides of the addition. He said windows aze fairly minimal on the north and south versus the east which has hanks of windows. Mr. Phillabaum said additionally, Mr. Dazbee believes that this east elevation would be improved by removing the chimney from this elevation and replacing the two, two-car garage doors with four, single-car carriage-type doors. Mr. Phillabaum presented the elevations with a human figure imposed to depict the sense of scale of the buildings. He said that when viewed from the east the scale is imposing and inconsistent with the Guidelines recommendation that buildings be of a human scale. HP ca;rl the west elevation is much more in keeping with the.recommended scale. 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architectural Rtview Board May 21, 2008 -Minutes Page 3 of i4 Mr. Phillabaum said the building farm is simple and rectangular with amulti-gabled roof. He said Planning and Building Standards interpreted the roof plan based on the information provided and presented an isometric sketch of the roof. He said while multiple gables can assist in visually breaking down the mass of a building that is too large for its environment, in the opinion of both Planning and Building Standards, the complexity of the roof is a result of the mass of the building. Following discussions with Mr. Darbee, there are concerns that this roof design is overly complex and out of character with the more simple rooflines found in Historic Dublin. He said based on the proposed width of the building, it is difficult to span this addition with a simpler roof while maintaining a proper pitch and roof height that is consistent with other structures in the District. Mr. Phillabaum pointed out that the vehicular circulation areas can not function properly as proposed. He said that the driveway width between the commercial parking spaces was narrow, and that this width could be further decreased because the construction details provided for the retaining walls underestimates the actual width of these walls based on common construction standards. He said the garages were also undersized, and that the stairs internal to the garages would be difficult or impossible to reach with two cars parked inside. Mr. Phillabaum said the overall lot coverage for this proposal is just under the maximum permitted 80 percent. He said while this proposal is at ?9.86 percent lot coverage and while it meets Code, there is little precedent for lot coverage this high on similar successful projects, building additions, or new outbuildings in Historic Dublin. Mr. Phillabaum summarized the reasons for the recommended disapproval were that the vehicular use areas and garages are undersized, the eastern elevation is inconsistent with the other facades of the addition, and most importantly that the mass of the building addition are inappropriate for this site and out of character with the rest of the Historic District. He also said that Planning and Building Standards believe that this addition could be significantly reduced in size, which would assist the applicant in creating functional vehicular circulation areas. He said while Planning is supportive of infill development in this location, proper site planning and architectural design must be achieved to protect and preserve the character of Historic Dublin, therefore Planning recommends disapproval of this request. Mr. Phillabaum said while this project could meet the criteria to demolish the existing garage, based on its lack of historic or architectural significance, and lack of a reasonable economic use as it currently exists. He said that the Guidelines recommend that before the ARB approves a demolition, an acceptable plan be presented that shows what the building to be demolished would be replaced with. He said that Planning does not consider this proposal as an acceptable replacement yet. Linda Kick asked for clarification on how the east elevation was inconsistent with the rest of the building. Mr. Phillabaum reiterated that the north, south, and west elevations have a ratio of window to wall area consistent with that of a barn, carriage house, or outbuilding. He noted that the Guidelines recommend that windows on additions be smaller and less prominent than those on the main structure. He said the east elevation was not compatible with the other elevations, because of the amount of glass proposed, the size of the openings for the two garages and the chimney detail which appears as though it is sitting on top of the roof d ' 08-O19Z Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architectural Review Board May 2 t, 2008 -Minutes Page 4 of 14 Mr. Bryan asked what portion of the addition would be visible from South High Street. Mr. Phillabaum stated that about half of the addition would be visible behind the existing structure from that location. Mr. Bryan asked what else in the District was comparable in square footage to this. Mr. Phillabaum said Krems Products recently constructed a 3,422-square-foot one-story addition to the existing 1,208-square-foot structure. He said it has lot coverage of 67 percent. Tom Holton noted that in the minutes from the previous meetings, the Board members discussed scale and mass, but they did not clearly express disapproval. However, they talked about dissatisfaction with the size. He said the project was interesting but the mass of the building is too much for this site. He said the adjacent properties were overshadowed by this size building. Ms. Kick asked Planning what might be a more recommended building size for this site. Mr. Phillabaum said Planning has been advising the applicant consistently about the scale and mass issues. He said the combination of residential and commercial activities are being proposed on this relatively small site, and their functional needs for vehicular circulation are pushing it to the limits of its capacity. He did not have a specific size to recommend, but noted that the dimensions for vehicular movement are fairly inflexible, and in order for the site to meet minimum functionality more space would be needed, thereby reducing the size of the addition. Mr. Bryan asked to see the aerial photograph that showed the adjacent properties. Ms. Kick asked what Code required for distance between buildings. Mr. Phillabaum said the Building Code requires a three`foot separation for this structure from the property line. Mr. Bryan had no issue with the lot coverage and said the parking issue would be a problem for the tenants, and ultimately the owner. He said that the general height of the building was more out of character and a greater concern. Mr. Holton noted that there was three-story building at Pinney Hill and Blacksmith Lane that was similar. He referred to the past meeting minutes where they said they did not wish to have another building that was as tall as that. He said this is very closely approaching that height here. William Souders suggested the floor to ceiling height could be in the nine or ten-foot range to reduce the height of the building as seen from the alley. Dave Johnson the architect for this project said that was a possibility. Mr. Souders suggested that the roofline of the building could be brought down at least three feet, and then it would be a true two-story building. Mr. Souders had concerns with the width of the building and the amount of space available for two people passing each other on the sidewalk along the south side. He said anything less than five feet was uncomfortable. He suggested the building might be narrowed down, and was not supportive of a sidewalk less than five feet wide. He suggested that the garage could be narrowed a foot or so to gain more width for the sidewalk. He suggested that reducing the amount of stone a little might help the mass. He said if the stone on the alley side was brought down a couple of feet, relative to the first floor it might help. He was okay with using the three- dcxmer type concept or three gable ends. He reiterated that he had no problem with parking. 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Ar+chitechual Review Board May 2l, 2008 -Minutes Page 5 of 14 Mr. Holton asked why there were concerns about maneuverability. Mr. Phillabaum explained that while the commercial parking spaces have no issues, the vehiculaz access to the garages is undersized. He said Planning foresees an issue with the retaining walls. He said based on experience and constnidion standards, this wall will need to be shown between 20 and 24 inches wide, which reduces the width of the driveway down to eight feet, which is less than the width of atypical parking space. Mr. Johnson said that he thought a 24- to-22-inch retaining wall holding back two feet of dirt was overkill. Mr. Souders suggested a parking solution for this tight site would be to reduce the interior space on the lower level and to park the vehicles in tandem. This would provide additional space for improved maneuverability, and the width of the building would be reduced by moving the east facade further west, thereby reducing the finished space. Robert Kortsen, Jr., representing the applicant, Larry Paglioni, said he was working with the building owners on the south side and putting in a five-foot sidewalk straddling the property line would not be a problem. Mr. Phillabaum said it would require across-access easement, and this adjoining property owner would need to be a co-applicant. Mr. Bryan asked if this application could he brought back next month and if the applicant was amenable to making the changes requested by the Board. Mr. Kortsen said he felt the massing issue was purely a subjective opinion. He said they meet the height requirements and the residents on Blackstone Lane liked the idea of seeing high end residential units there instead of garages, trash cans, and things like that. He said there was no definition of mass other than what a.person sees when they look at it. Mr. Phillabaum asked for fiuther direction regarding the east elevation, and the issues raised by the consultant and Planning. Ms. Kick, Mr. Bryan, and Mr. Souders agreed they had no problem with the large windows as proposed. Mr. Souders suggested two, oversized single width gazage doors be used and that the garage accommodate two cars parked in tandem. He said it was not uncommon and this was an urban site. However, he said if the 80 percent lot coverage cannot be met and the five-foot sidewalk cannot be managed, then narrowing the garage has to be considered. Mr. Holton asked if the tandem garage arrangement would permit better tumaround in the existing hard surface area. Mr. Phillabaum said theoretically, this change could improve the ability to back out of the garage and turnaround, and Planning would be supportive of a tandem parking arrangement. Mr. Souders said he thought Planning's concern regarding the width of the driveway was legitimate. He said a driveway width below i2 or 14 feet is a maneuverability issue. He said he thought everything else the applicant could work with. Msr Kick agreed with Mr. Souders that bringing in the side elevations with stone a little bit more would help reduce the mass appearance of the building. 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Architectural Review Board May 21, 2008 -Minutes Page 6 of 14 Mr. Holton referred to the Historic Preservation consultant's recommendation to consider zero- clearance fire boxes in place of the chimney because it was very prominent and to reduce the prominence of the chimney, and asked if the applicant had considered that. Mr. Kortsen said that would be fine. Mr. Souders said he thought the chimney broke up the elevation and added interest and character to the building. Mr. Bryan asked what type of windows were used. Mr. Johnson said they were Pella Architectural Series windows. Mr. Phillabaum clarified that they were aluminum clad wood windows versus all aluminum. Mr_ Bryan preferred to see a grid on the exterior of large windows instead of between the glass. Mr. Souders agreed and said he thought that would help. Mr. Johnson said that was something they definitely could consider. Mr. Bryan suggested that conditions be set regarding the revisions requested by the Board. Steve Langworthy said if the application were approved with conditions, the Board would not see it again and there was still the issue with involving the south property owner. He recommended that the safe route would be tabling. Mr. Bryan asked if the redundancy of paperwork be reduced by just submitting what the actual changes entail, rather than additional full copies of everything. Mr. Langworthy said a change package could be provided if that is all the Board wanted to see. Mr. Bryan suggested that the Board hold onto packet information when it was known that a case was coming back within 30 to 60 days for the sake of minimizing the amount of paperwork both for the applicant and the City. Mr. Kortsen said for the marketability of these units, he preferred to see if they could go to four garage doors and do side by side versus stacking. Mr. Souders said he did not see that working. He said the applicant should work with what the Board was talking about and the maneuverability and tandem. He said he thought two, ten-foot total garage doors were needed. He said this was an urban site and it needed to be as suggested. Mr. Kortsen asked for confirmation that the 16-foot wide garage doors would not work. Mr. Souders said there were legitimate concerns from Planning that the garage doors are basically taking up the whole east elevation. Mr. Bryan reiterated the five elements that needed to be addressed: replacing the two, two-car garage doors with two, one-car garage doors ten-feet in width, incorporating a minimum five- foot sidewalk, lowering of the height of the roofline, lowering the stone elevation, and that the windows muntins be on the surface of the glass, not between the panes. Mr. Holton made the motion to table this application until the next meeting. Ms. Kick seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Souders, yes; Mr. Bryan, yes; Ms. Kick, yes; and Mr. Helton, yes. (Approved 4 - 0.) OS-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street CITY OF DliBLIN_ land Usa and long Range Plaoaiag 5800 Shier-Rings Road Duhlin, Ohio 43016-1236 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION APRIL 3, 2008 Phone: 614-010-0600 fax: 614-010-4747 Web Site: www.duhlin.oh.us 4. Historic District Site OS-0192 Proposal: Request: Applicant: Planning Contact: Contact Information: 54 South High Street Rezoning Major site modifications, including the demolition of an existing garage, and a 1,794-square-foot, two-story addition to an existing 1,430-square-foot building within the Historic District. The site is located on the east side of South High Street, approximately 75 feet south of Spring Hill. This is a request for review and feedback of a rezoning to rezone the site from CB, Central Business District to HB, Historic Business District under the provisions of Code Section 153.234. Lawrence Paglioni; represented by Robert Kortsen. Abby Scott, Planner. (614) 410-4654, ascott@dublin.oh.us. RESULT: The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed this Rezoning application and had no concerns regarding the proposed rezoning. The applicant was instructed to work with the Architectural Review Board and to follow their direction. STAFF CERTIFICATION Abby t Planner 0$-0192 Rezoning 54 S. I~igl~ Street Zimmerman inqu d if a standard fen or t~rials were approved r specific fence or p =,e~ the fence be coor ated throughout t icant`tc~ find a solution top vide some kin area. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 -Meeting Minutes Page 9 of t0 patios had been icte tified. Ms. Rauch 'd no ' o furniture for the en ' e shopping center. e he evelopment. Shea to work with the d of ptainment or planters o define the patio Mr. Fishman said would like to seems e kind of patio fence. Mr. Walter said p ters to ~efine the patio area uld be excellent. Zimmerman agreed~t at whatever is used the pa~i should be used thro out the center. Ms. morose Groomes sai a patio enclosure wo d be he 1 and she thought obi oor seating would b utstanding in this to tion. Mr. Salcone nfirmed that there Commission conse us that they were ope to some fence alternatives suc as planters. Ms. Am ose Groomes said a ong as there is a de Bated patio area that is clearly fined and contained, ' would be good. Mr. .~eimann clarified that a would ~l~ce to see a fence. 4. Historic District Site 54 South High Street 0&0192 Rezoning WORKSESSION Abby Scott presented this request for an informal review of an application to change the zoning district on this 0.1-acre site from CB, Central Business District, to HB, Historic Business District. She said the surrounding zoning is primarily CB along both sides of South High Street and HB to the east. She said this request is consistent with the desired land use and development pattern for the District. Ms. Scott said the site contains cone-story commercial building, a gravel parking lot, and a garage to the rear accessed from Blacksmith Lane. She said although the applicant is proposing to add a residential use to the site, other uses also permitted in HB include retail, restaurant, business and medical office, personal service, and institutional uses. She said a front yard setback is not required in HB, and limited side and rear yard setbacks are stipulated. Ms. Scott said the building height is limited to 35 feet and lot coverage to 80 percent. Ms. Scott reported that when this project was reviewed informally by the Architectural Review Board last year, the Board was generally supportive of the proposed addition and associated site improvements. She said the Board will review and vote on the proposed site layout, landscaping, and building architecture prior to this application returning to the Commission for a vote on the rezoning application. Ms. Scott explained that the Commission's role in this case was to review the rezoning of this parcel as part of the development process using the HB District Development Standards. She said that Planning is supportive of the proposed use of the site. Mr. Zimmerman confirmed that the only thing the Commission was discussing was a rezoning to a HB and not about architecture, which was ARB's responsibility. OS-0197, Rezoning 54 S. High Street Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Apri13, 2008 -Meeting ;Ylinutes Page 10 of 10 Robert Kortsen, representing the applicant, Lawrence Paglioni, said additional housing will make the District more vibrant. Mr. 7.immerman said he had no problem with rezoning this site to HB. [There were no comments from the other Commissioners. The meeting was adjourned at 7:Sb p.m Respectfully submitted, :..;% Gib y",~,~ ''~~~ rJ Flora Rogers and Libb Farley Adtninistrative Assistants OS-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street AItCHTTECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BOARD ORDER Decxmber 19, 2007 CITY OF DUBI~-l. ~,,......n-.+v seoo~rf+snv+~ . oa,rn,onb m~.az~ _ ~~aaaa~aum f~ N 4i1QV0 wan sic wwwdu6ir.d+as . The Arrlutectural Review Board took no action on the foUowing~case at this meeting: 1. Informal Review ~ _ 54 South High Street 07-124ARB Euterior and Site ModiGra6ons p~po~; Modifications, including the demolition of an existing garage and a two-story addition to an existing building, located on the east side of South High Street, approximately 70 feet south of Spring Hill. Request: Informal review of and feedback on exterior building and site modifications to an existing building. Applicant: Larry Paglioni; represented by Robert Kortsen, Jr. Planning Contact: Abby Scott, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4654, ascots a~dublin.oh.vs. RESiJLT: A discussion reg~~rding two revised plans, Sch~9ine A and B, included issues .regarding architecture, materials, and site layout. The Board preferred Scheme A, and requested that the garage copula be removed, the louvers be replaced with windows, .that the center gable on the south side be reduced, and that storm water run off be addressed.. STAFF CERTIFICATION ~~t•EYl7- Abby S tt Planner 08-U19Z Rezoning 54 S. High Street Arctutectutal Review Board December 19, 2007 -Minutes Page 2 of 16 1. Informal Review 54 South Righ Street 07-124ARB E~cterior and Site Modifications Abby Scott presented the Planning Report for this informal review of two site plan proposals for an addition to an existing building, based on the Board comments at the first informal review in November. Ms. Scott explained that the proposed site plan elevations and materials for Scheme A, a 4,700-square-foot, two-story addition to the rear of the existing one-story building and demolition of the existing garage in the rear. She said the proposed Scheme B site plan indicated a two-story 3,800-square-foot addition to the reaz of the existing building, with a new detached garage. She said the proposed additions in Schemes A and B were basically the same basic footprint, exterior materials, and roof design with the primary difference being the location and exterior finishes of the garages. Ms. Scott said that Planning is more supportive of Scheme B because the proposed buildings are distributed over the lot which helps reduce the impact of the building mass and scale and makes them more in line with existing structures located along Blacksmith Lane. She said however, the size of the proposed addition should be reduced to make the new building consistent with the Historic District and the Guidelines. She said many general development standazd requirements could impact this proposal and require the reduction in the size of the addition in order to meet the Code requirements. David Garcia, 109 South Riverview Street, had no comments on this particulaz project, but requested that Planning design a landscape plan for the entire alley, including the aspect of traffic safety on Blacksmith Lane and South Riverview Street. Mr. Holton said he preferred Scheme B because of the building mass and that the south-facing garage mass was oriented north and south, away from the residents to the east. He said he would like the middle gable reduced. Mr. Holton said he still was not keen about the garage copula. Mr. Holton asked if the terra cotta block material shown had been used elsewhere in the District. Ms. Scott was not aware of it being used in the District, and thought ultimately that Planning would recommend a different material. Mr. Holton inquired about the storm water runoff being directed to Blacksmith Lane. Ms. Scott said that the Engineering reported that there was not a storm water line in Blacksmith Lane, but there was a trench drain located against the curb on the east side of the alley so all the water flows off this lot into the alley and is directed toward a storm water catch basin; eventually into the river. Clayton Bryan inquired about the proposed surface of parking areas. Ms. Scott said Code requires parking lots to be paved, but the pazking surface is proposed as gravel. Mr. Holton noted that two mature trees were located on the site. Ms. Scott said at least one sizable tree would be removed with this proposal, and typically, the number of caliper inches are replaced on site. However, if the replacement trees cannot be placed on site, a fee would be placed into a fund and trees would be placed elsewhere in the District. William Souders asked what was the difference in dimension from the roof to the east between the two schemes. Robert Kortsen, representing the applicant, Larry 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Architectural Review Board December 19, 2007 -Minutes Page 3 of 16 of Scheme B was ten feet less than Scheme A. Mr. Souders confirmed that was the difference between the eave lines. Mr. Souders suggested going ten feet deeper under the Scheme,A building for pazking space. Mr. Kortsen said it could be done, but it affected the square footage of the living space. Mr. Souders noted that if the ten feet were eliminated, the buildings in Schemes A and B would be the same, excluding the free-standing garage. He said Scheme B was terrible because it was so much more building. He did not like the garage copula and he thought the center dormer should be reduced in scale. He preferred Scheme A because it was more livable and there could be green space to capture the water if the parking was moved underneath the building. Ms. Bryan said he would not want to see Scheme B because of the blank side of the garage that would be seen by other residents. He noted that in Scheme A, the garage looked more like a dwelling and it was pushed offBlacksmith Lane. Mr. Kortsen said when the landscaping plan is submitted, there would be an arborvitae screening on top of the retaining wall that will shield a lot of the building. Mr. Kortsen said the sidewalk from Blacksmith Lane to the front will be public; not private. Ms. Scott clarified that the sidewalk would serve the business located at the front of the property, and was not a public sidewalk that the City would maintain. Tom Currie asked if the downspouts would be drained underground to a catch basin. Mr. Kortsen said they would work with Engineering regazding the drainage. Mr. Currie preferred that the louvers shown be changed to windows which were more typical on older homes. Mr. Kortsen said he preferred windows to the louvers with the vaulted ceilings. Mr. Currie asked why there was not a south facing window on the south side. Mr. Kortsen said there was a window on the south side planned, but it had not been depicted by the architect. Mr. Holton switched his preference from Scheme B to Scheme A, due to it including green space to mitigate some of the water runoff problem and it having the appearance of the garage somewhat mitigated by the parking space described as being landscaped. Mr. Holton asked what kind of deck railing would be used on the deck in the rear of the building. Dave Johnson, AIA, said the proposed deck railing height was three feet. Mr. Currie asked why board and batten was being used rather than shingles like on the existing building. Mr. Kortsen said there was more board and batten used in the azea and he liked it. However, he said if shingles were needed to match the structures, they could switch. Mr. Bryan said the addition always needed to look like anadd-on, not a duplication of the original structure. Mr. Holton summarized that so far, the Board preferred Scheme A, wanted the copula removed so that the addition is subordinate to the primary structure as suy^~PC+P~ t.., tt,p ('~ii~oli»or 7n~ that the louvered vents should be replaced by windows. 08-01.97 Rero»ing 54 S. High. Street Architectural Review Board December l9, 2007 -Minutes Page 4 of t6 Mr. Holton asked about the roof material proposed for the addition. Mr. Johnson said if the original shingles on the building needed to be replaced, they would use dimensional shingles suitable to the District. He said that would help tie in the new covered addition with the old building. Mr. Bryan said the roof line should be separated in order to make the new and old structures look different. Mr. Johnson said he was considering standing seam metal roof accents on the vestibule. Mr. Holton said the Board would be agreeable to that. Mr. Bryan asked about the screen above the deck railing. Mr. Johnson said it was asix-foot fence between the two open roof back azeas for privacy. He suggested atongue-and-groove type of solid wood fence. Mr. Holton asked that the terra cotta block material proposed be described. Mr. Johnson said it was abrick-looking material proposed to break up the retaining wall and is more economical than stone. Mr. Holton said the Boazd would look at previously approved brick materials that could be used. Mr. Holton said the Board had previously addressed the overall architectural design by requesting that the center gable on the south side only be reduced. Mr. Kortsen agreed to reduce the size of the width so that it hits the ridge and is .consistent. Mr. Currie noted that on Scheme A, the gazage siding was Hardiplank instead of board and batten. Mr. Johnson said they thought it would to make it feel like the building was phased in and it would add variety to provide more interest. He said it could be the board and batten, if requested. Mr. Bryan asked what dimensions were suggested for the windows replacing the louvers. Mr. Johnson proposed two by two, fixed glass with two-over-two sashes, still keeping it vertical. Mr. Bryan said that would be good. Mr. Holton asked if the chimney would extend over the roof line. Mr. Johnson said if the roof in the middle is a 4:12 pitch, it cannot be extended too far. Mr. Souders suggested that by taking the stone slightly beyond the eave line and running it down, it would add a little to the separation. Mr. Johnson said they could probably do that. Mr. Kortsen asked the Board if they were comfortable with the roof deck coming out over the garage in Scheme A as proposed. The Board recalled that there was the same type of deck approved by the Board at the Steele Building. Sara Ott confirmed that it was an elevated railed platform on the east side of the structure. Mr. Kortsen asked the Board if the length of the Building A could be extended towards the back ten feet to provide more square footage which would not affect the site lines on the 165-foot deep lot. Mr. Souders said he could not support adding another ten feet to the length of the building because he thought it was possible to add space internally. 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Architechual Review Board December 19, 200'7 -Minutes Page S of 16 Mr. Holton said this was a large project that needed to be kept in scale with other residences and buildings in this quadrant of the Historic District. Mr. Kortsen agreed to keep the length of the building as proposed in Scheme A. Ms. Kick asked what the residents would see from the back. Mr. Kortsen said a solid wall. He said the existing windows will probably be kept and the deck removed. Ms. Scott suggested there could be Building Code requirements regarding the windows being fire-rated between the existing and new structure, or the side of the new addition would have to be fire-rated. Steve Rudy, 129 South Riverview Street, asked if it was a performance requirement that the run- offwater be contained on the lot or delivered into the subsurface system on the lot. Ms, Scott said since this property was less than an acre in size in the Historic District, water does not have to be retained for quantity or quality on site. Mr. Rudy recalled City and resident discussions when the storm water improvement and the six- inch trench drain in the District were discussed. He said they were told that when any improvement is made, the site has to control its own water. Ms. Scott said she was not aware of that issue. Mr. Rudy requested that the Board or someone ensure that it happens because it is well documented and well communicated to the residents downiull from the alley that the reason the alley elements of the surface collection were so small in size was that when all this is paved, it will have its own collection elements so that there will no longer be sheet water running into everyone's lawns. Ms. Scott said she would Iook into that.. Mr. Rudy asked that it be ensured that the water does not leave this lot once it is paved. Mr. Kortsen said they definitely want to have a grate in the parking lot to move the water quickly. He asked if a plastic pipe underneath the Lane and tied into the six-inch trench drain would work. Ms. Scott said that would be a question for Engineering to address. Mr. Holton concluded by requesting the applicant check with Planning regarding storm water runoff questions. Ms. Scott said that would be done during the next phase of the project. Mr. Holton thanked Mr. Kortsen for his time and patience 48-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street l'I I'1' Uli' I)UBLIV land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Rood Oublin, Ohio 43016-1236 ?hone/ TI~7 61 4 ~ IO-4600 fax: 614-t 10-4747 web S+te: wv.^.v.dubYn.oh,us AR(:HI'fEC,TUI2AL RF.VII?W BOARD BOARD OItDF.R November 28, 2007 The Architectural Review Board took no action on the following case at this meeting: 4. 1.nformal Review S4 South IIi~h Street 07-124ARB Sitc and Exterior Modifications Proposal: Modifications, including the demolition of an existing garage, the construction of a three-story carriage house and garage, and atwo- story addition to an existing building, located on the east side of South High Street, approximately 70 feet south of Spring I-Iill. Request: informal review of and feedback on exterior building and site modifications to an existing building. Applicant: Robert Kortsen, Jr. Planning Contact: Abby Scott, Planner Contact Information: (614) 410-4654, ascott@dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Board informally reviewed the layout, architectural style, features, and materials proposed. It was suggested that a second informal review would be useful due the changes in the proposal and the number oi' outstanding issues. No vote or action was taken on this informal case. STAFF CERTiI~ iCA1'1(aN ~~~~-_ J ~nifer .Rauch, AICI' Planner II 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Anch'itectucaI R~tv4ew Bond Novamba 28, 2007 - Mertes Page 6 of 9 after the ap cant made chan Mr_ S ter said for the ' spa_ ce they if they di of bump out th dition as muc as armed, they w d have toe it out at the which would me 5nan dship. Mr. C e said he was no pposed to the fr t extension. Mr. (curie d Mr. Souders ested board an txen siding sparingly, in brick. .Holton said th 'age house denoe at 59 So High had redone porno of boazd and and suggested i a model to fo . Souders said ck was the best lution, but the red and third ptions 'th combination of ck and stucco, or 'ck and board batten. Mr_ Bryan ed that the a brick was ooth brick said any valor the same type of b ' could be pain and the diffe would not be Mr. Holton ted out thai brick uld help retain haracter of the Mr. Soude confirmed that ted brick was not issue for Frankl' treet . Bryan said h iked the maj of this pro ut the outstared' g issue was wh r or not a yle would fit o ranklin Streeet_ .Bryan Bugg another info review Mr. Szuter 'd if he was not able to extend front, then hew d apply for a v ance for a rear ex ion and use ho ' atal siding_ He d he would not off the siding oared the rest of th ouse, but would ork around the doves and paint " all so the house ' l look the same in a front. Mr_ Szut said he underst that the desi brought forwar was off the tabl Mr. Holton nevi ed the recomme 'ores of the d members. H said the majori ould like to see brick retained would like to oid~ the front ad ' 'on because it not in keeping •the character of a street. air. ~?(irrie said he had oticed every im finable style of v~t'ndow was used~fi Fraaklin Stree; rt seemed like was proposed uld be co Mr. Souders ~ the proposed s and proportioa Mr_ Soud said he had a blem with the s e it was s detached from house. Mr. Szuter thanked a Board for their ' put. Mr_ Holton calted a short recess before continuing the windows tot house was but not the f shape of the g the next g~ with because 4. Informal Review 54 South Higb Sheet 07-124ARB Site and Ezterior ModiGrxtions Abby Scott presented the Planning Report for this informal review for site and exterior modifications of a proposed 2,200-square-foot two-story rear addirion io a existing building, demolition of an existing garage, a new 3,260 square-foot three-story carriage house, and a fotir- space parking lot in the CB, Central Business District She said Pla 08-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street a were et a Anh'ctectucal Rsv~evv Board November 28, 2007 - Mitu~tes Page 7 of 9 proposal for the three-story carriage house at this location and its impact on the surrounding properties does not adequately meet the intent of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines which limit the height of new buildings to two-stories, and recommends that all new construction and additions be placed appropriately on the lot and be compatible with the pedestrian scale of the District. She said that Planning -is also concerned that the proposed addition reIIects a more contemporary building size, which does not meet the recommendations of the Guidelines that suggest additions be subordinate to the principal strudiu~e and keep the appearance of the original structure as unchanged as possible. Ms. Scott said Planning's review of this proposal . took into account the standards that the Architectural Review Board has to consider. iiiir. Souders confirmed that variances granted in the past in the District have allowed larger secondary buildings on premises, and that as proposed, the building size of this project would require a variance. Mr. Souders asked if water reterifion was required for impervious surfaces to hold all the water on site before it is allowed to go off the property. 1vLs. Scott there are no storinwaber retention requirements if the site is under one-acre, which this site is. Mr_ Bryan recalled that a storm sewer ran through Blacksmith Lane, and any parking areas permitted on High Street had to connect to it, although the sites were not greater than one-acre. Ms. Scott said she would investigate those instances. Mr. t,runderman said at the Building Permit stage, if Engineering felt there were nu~-off issues here, they may require a solution. Mr. Bryan noted that an existing three-story building further south on High Street was a considerable distance from Blacksmith Lane. He said the two-story front height of it was not overwhelming, relative to the other structures along High Street, however along Blacksmith Lane, there were only oae-story buildings_ He said he was concerned about the height and mass of the building sitting on the Lane: Robert Kortsen, the applicant and developer, said if they could build two units there, he could build aone-story garage along the side so that there is an open area and there would be little mass seen until you see the building which would be two-story, partially underground, so there would not be the mass of the proposed carriage house_ He said if they could receive consensus that two units would be fine on this property, then he could work to get the proper materials, siding, landscaping, and everything else that was needed. Mr. Bryan asked if two-units meant one added onto the existing structure and a separate unit over the carriage house, or two in the carriage house. Mr. Kortsen suggested taking away the carriage house on the Lane and the other proposed unit could be divided in half to make two units. He said they could then build asingle-story garage and the four public parking spaces for the business along Blacksmith Lane. Ivir. Holton asked what the garage would look like. Mr. Kortsen said it would look like the Bassett carriage house. ~He said there would be two long and law double car garages. Ivlr. Kortsen said the area where the carriage house was located will be asphalt pazking and then there would be the walkway going to the business and High Street. OS-0192 Rezoning 54 S. High Street Archit~octiQat Review Board Novemtxr 28, 2007 - M'unges Page 8 of 9 Mr. Gumdecman stated that Planning was not familiar with the new propasais being diseu.~.sed tonight; therefore, they could not provide a formal opinion about any of them. Ms. Scott asked if the applicant had a revised site plan to present to the Board. Mr. Kortsen said he did not Mr. Cuirrie asked if emergency access for the layout presented had been reviewed by the Fire .Department Ms_ Scott said the Fire Department did not have a problem with the layout because access was available from both public right-of-ways. Mr. Holton asked about the modified forward building_ Mr. Kortsen said they would increase the square-footage of the single unit and put two units side-by-side. He said they would remove the existing deck He agreed to do what was aecessary to the.ezterior. Mr_ Holton asked if the forward building as submitted would meet the subordination standard. Mr. Souders replied that if it was done with quality, he thought so. He said due to the sloped site, having a :two-story building was not going to be a dominate issue off of High Street which was important He said conceptually, he thought it could work Mr. Holton asked if anything would be done to the front of the building. Mr_ Kortsen replied that he thought he could not since it was on the Historical National Registry. Mr. Currie asked if the new building had to be butted against the existing building. Dave 3ohnson, architect, said Planning explained that it was required. Mr. Souders said he thought separating the buildings would be better. Ms. Scott said when Planning first met with Mr. Kortsen, they were looking at using the Historic Business District standards, which allow up to four residential dwelling units along with another use on the property, and one of the requirements was that they had to be attached. She said there could be one separate building on that property, but the balance had to be attached. However, she said the Building Standards, with the mercantile use in the front, prefers it to be detached because otherwise you would have to have.firewalls. Mr. Bryan asked if this was being built for resale or as a rental project. Mr. Kortsen said the units will be $600,000 fee-simple dwellings. Mr. Bryan co~rmed that as the Guidelines are written, one unit could be detached, but there could not be two units under the same footprint detached. Mr. Souders suggested a small connection might be a solution. Mr. Currie said he was concerned about the possibility of having three or four units detached from the original structure_ He said he did not think that would work in the community. However, he did not disagree with the concept of two units being detached_ Dan Phillabaum said when Planning met with Mr. Kortsen with his broad proposal they were trying to identify which zoning district might best accommodate it. He said in theory, HB, Historic Business District seemed to work, but perhaps a clarification was needed. He said the HB District does permit dwellings, one family- through four-family dwelline units. tncludul~ residences and detached accessary structures, i.e. carriage hous Q tV'~J V -O I / lJ Rezoning 54 S. High Street Architedatsl Review Bosid November 28, 2007 - M"m~rtes Page 9 of 9 conjunction with structures containing other uses. He said clarification was needed to see if ' thec+e was a possibility that they all could be detached. Mr_ Bryan suggested that having totally detached residential units on these properties might be a problem with the residents from the standpoint of the number of rental properties potentially being created along Blacksmith Lane. Mr_ Kortsen pointed out that Dublin's parking regulations would prevent the problem because two parking spaces per residential unit are required. He said parking was the biggest issue in development of that particular area. Ms. Scott added that the existing four parking spaces on this properly for the business are there by a variance granted to reduce the number of spaces. She said a lot of businesses seek parking reduction variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals due to site constraints. Mr. Kortsen confirmed that standing seam roofs are permitted in the District if they are not too modem in style. Mr. Bryan said on historic properties, standard standing seam roofr have greater than 16-inches between the seams. Mr_ Currie said he thought the cupola shown would be appropriate. He also said he -liked the ,gables shown. Mr_ Bryan noted that the original building's roof ridgeline that ran east and west was slightly higher than the erne that ran north and south. Ms_ Scott clarified that the rear of the historic structure was a more recent addition_ Mr_ Bryan said with the addition, it would be a shame to leave the sway-back barn roof ridge_ Mr. Kortsen asked if the historic building could be re-roofed. Mr. Bryan explained the roof could be re-done with sinulaz materials. He pointed out that in the past, an approved, composition slate roofing has been used instead of cedar shingles. Mr. Kortsen was reminded that the any roof materials must be approved by the Boazd. Mr. Holton noted that most buildings in the District did not have window shutters as shown on this proposal. ' Mr. Currie asked if there could be a hedge along the Lane so that the neighbors to the east would not see the public parking lot from their yards. Ms. Scott said vehicle use screening is required to buffer parking lots from view. Mr. Holton agreed another Informal Review would be useful since due the changes in the proposal and the number of outstanding issues. The meeting was adjourned at 10:21 p.m Respectfully submitted, Z , -^'. Libby Fazl~v Administ 08-019L Rezoning S4 S. High Street