17-07 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES
Da Lecy nk
al Bla, Inc.
C-
Ordinance No. 17-07
Form No. 30043
Passed .20
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 153.002,
153-072 AND 153,210 OF THE DUBLIN CODIFIED
ORDINANCES (ZONING CODE) REGARDING
RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS (CASE NO, 06-133ADM).
WHEREAS., it is necessar from time to time to amend the Code in order to protect
the health,, safet and welfare of the citizens of the Cit of Dublin and
WHEREAS, Sections 153.002, 153.071, 153.072, and 153.210 of the Dublin Codified
Ordinances contain the applicable development standards for the creation and use of
residential drivewa and
WHEREAS, the desi and appearance of drivewa has an impact on the overall
q ualit y of the Cit residential nei and the safet of vehicular and
pedestrian movement and
WHEREAS, the Cit desires to do this in order to ensure that all drivewa are
constructed or modified in a consistent manner and
WHEREAS., the Plannin and Zonin Commission reviewed the Ordinance on
Februar 15, 2007, and recommends the adoption of the Ordinance because it serves
to improve the health, safet and welfare of the citizens of the Cit of Dublin
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED b Council of the Cit of Dublin, State
of Ohio,, of the elected members concurrin that:
Section 1. Section 153.002 is hereb amended to include the definitions as follows:
BUILDING SETBACK LINE. Aline determined b the zonin district in which
a lot is located establishin the minimum allowable distance between the nearest
portion of an buildin and the side and rear lot lines and the ri line of
an street when measured perpendicularl thereto.
CURB LINE. The face of a curb alon a curbed public or private street.
DRIVEWAY The hard paved surface of a lot that is specificall desi and
reserved for the movement of motor vehicles to and from a public or private street.
This definition includes the area from the street providin access to and from the
lot and an maneuverin areas.
GARAGE. An accessor buildin or part of a principal buildin used primaril
for the stora of passen vehicles as an accessor use.
GARAGE, ALLEY-LOADED. A g ara g e with vehicular access from a public or
private alle or drive t from the rear of the propert
GARAGE, COURTYARD-STYLE. A g ara g e with vehicular access throu an
enclosed or partiall enclosed pavement area that is located to the front of a
principal structure t providin access to a side-loaded g ara g e.
GARAGE, FRONT-LOADED. A g ara g e with vehicular access doors primaril
oriented toward the same street rl'aht-of-wa or private street as the front fa of
the principal structure.
GARAGE, SIDE-LOADED. A g ara g e with vehicular access doors pn*maril
oriented toward one of the side lot lines or a secondar public ri or
private street.
Da Leg nk
L Bia. Inc.
C�
e 17-0,7
Ordinanc No.
Form No. 30043
Passed Pa 2 of 6 20
Section 2. Section. 153.071 is hereb amended and shall provide as follows:
LOT AND YARD SPACE REQUIREMENTS.
(A) Plattin Re No use shall be established or altered and no structure
shall be constructed or altered except upon a lot that has been platted in
accordance with or which otherwise meets, the re of the
subdivision re Development re are minimum
re for the arran of lots and spaces to be achieved in all
developments.
(B) Lot area and space preserved. The lot area and y ard space re for a
use or structure shall be maintained durin its life and shall not be reduced
below the minimum re occupied b another use or structure, or
counted as y ard space for an other use or structure.
(1) Open y ards re The y ard space re for a use or structure
shall, durin its life, remain free of all uses or occupanc except as
follows:
(a) Fences, walls and landscapin shall be permitted in an
re y ard, or alon the ed of an y ard, provided that no
fence or wall between a street and a front buildin setback line
is more than three feet in hei except as re in § 153.130
throu 153.138 or in accordance with an approved final
development plan of a Planned Development District.
(b) Eaves, cornices,, window sills and belt courses ma pro into
an re y ard a distance not to exceed two feet.
(c) Open and uncovered porches ma project be the front
buildin setback line or into a re rear y ard a distance not
to exceed five feet.
(d) Drivewa shall be setback at least three feet from a side lot line
or adjacent to the side lot line where a sin common drive is
provided for two adj oinin lots as listed in § 15 3.2 10.
( e ) All vehicular use areas, includin drivewa in Industrial
Districts shall be located at least 15 feet from an Residential
District lot line as listed in § 153.016.
( 2 ) Yards not otherwise re Yard space not otherwise re but
provided shall be five feet or more in width.
(3) Yards maintained. All y ard space shall be maintained in accordance
with one or more of the followin provisions:
( a ) Fenced as permitted or re
(b) Landscaped b lawns, shrubs, trees and other plantin
maintained in a neat and orderl natural state, or used for
permitted accessor or ancillar use.
( c) Paved for parkin drivewa or other vehicular uses as
permitted.
(4) Maximum lot coverage.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Da Le Blank, Inc.
Fnrrn NJn IW)dl
Ordinance No. 17-07 Passed Pa 3 of 6 20
(a) Structures, parkin drivewa vehicular use areas, service
areas, pedestrian areas,, and other hard-surfaces or paved areas
shall not cover more than 70% of the total lot area within the
followin zonin distn*cts:
. -12 Urban Residential District
SO, Suburban Office and Institutional
NC, Nei Commercial
CC, Communit Commercial
RI, Restricted Industrial
L1,1 Limited Industrial
G1, General Industrial
OLR, Office, Laborator Research
Excavation and Quarr
Oil and Gas
Exceptional Uses
(b) Structures, k*nor ar, drivewa vehicular use areas, service
P I ztp
areas, pedestrian areas and other hard-surfaces or paved areas
shall not cover more than 80% of the total lot area within the
followin zonin districts:
CC C, Central Communit Commercial
CB, Central Business District
( c ) The lot covera contained herein are maximums and should
not be interpreted to restrict or otherwise limit an other
re of this Code or the authorized discretion of the
Cit Boards, Commissions or Cit Council. This maximum
lot coveraue subsection shall not appl to sites which have
previousl approved final development plans or a certificate of
zonin compliance or other similar final approval b the Cit
prior to the date this division takes effect.
(d) Structures, parkin drivewa vehicular use areas, service
areas, pedestrian areas,, and other hard-surfaces or paved areas
shall not cover more than 45% of the total lot area within the
followin Residential Districts:
R- 1 . Restricted Suburban Residential District
R-2,, Limited Suburban Residential District
R-3, Suburban Residential District
R-4, Suburban Residential District
-1 , Two-Famil Residential District
( e ) Unless otherwise re in an approved Planned
Development, structures, parkin drivewa vehicular use
areas, service areas, pedestrian areas, and other hard-surfaces or
paved areas shall not cover more than 45% of the total lot area
within a residential PtM, Planned Unit Development District.
Section 3. Section 153.072 is hereb amended and shall provide as follows:
BUILDING SETBACK LINES ALONG PUBLIC RIGHTS-O&WAY OR
PRIVATE STREETS.
I Ir
(A) Re buildin setvack defined. The re buildin setback is that area
between the buildin setback line and the street ri or the proposed
ri in the Thorou Plan adopted b Council, as amended from
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Da Le Blank, Inc.
FnrTn Nn IM-41
Ordinance No. 17-07 Passed Pa 4 of 6 20
time to time, whichever is g reater. Unless otherwise permitted b this Code
no structure or other use of land,, except parkin and drivewa shall be
located in the re buildin setback. Unless otherwise permitted b this
Code, the re buildin setback shall be at least 30 feet.
(B) Parkin within the re buildin setback from public ri or a
private street. Open parkin or loadin spaces shall be permitted to extend
i nto the re buildin setback for not more than a distance e to 40%
of the re buildin setback distance. Parkin areas shall be at least 15
feet from an established or proposed fi or private street easement.
( C ) Platted setback. Na structure or other use shall be located between the public
street ri or private street and the platted buildin setback line
unless otherwise permitted b this Code.
, Setback alon freewa or expresswa The setbacks for all principal and
accessor buildin parkin drivewa and all other vehicular use areas
alon freewa and expresswa ri shall be a minimum of 50 feet.
(E) Si trian Si visibilit trian define areas at public or private
street intersections and at curb cuts where visibilit must be maintained for
safet of the motorin public. Landscapin and other site appurtenances ma
be limited in these areas. The Cit En shall develop and maintain an
administrative polic that defines accepted si visibilit trian at
intersections and curb cuts.
Section 4. Section 153.210 is hereb amended and shall provide as follows:
(A} Each drivewa shall be located and desi in a manner that provides for the
safet of motorists and pedestrians.
(B) A drivewa servin a residential parkin area or lot shall be re as
follows:
(1) Curb Cuts. The location of curb cuts or points of in shall
be restricted to promote traffic safet and limited to one per sin
two-, or three-famil dwellin Two curb cuts ma be permitted onl
after the review and approval of the Director of Land Use and Lon
Ran Plannin in accordance with the followin criteria:
Z:�
(a) A maximum of 40% of linear curb distance alon the lot
fronta ma be removed for drivewa curb cuts except as
otherwise limited in this Section.
(b) All impervious surface area, includin but not limited to,
buildin drivewa vehicular use areas, patios, decks, and
other accessor structures ma not exceed 60% of the lot.
(c) The desi function and appearance of drivewa leadin from
an additional curb cut shall be compatible with and
complementar to the buildin it serves as well as the
surroundin nei b the use of consistent pavin
materials.
( d ) The curb cuts shall be located to provide ade distance from
ad properties or intersectin streets to prevent vehicle and
pedestrian conflicts. The placement of an additional curb cut
shall not conflict with existin utilit or infrastructure
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Da Legal Blank, Inn.
Form No. 30043
Ordinance No- 17-07
Passed Pa 5 of 6 20
improvements includin but not limited to curb inlets,
manholes, y ard drains, meter sets, and valves.
(2) Setbacks. Drivewa shall be set back at least three feet from a side lot
line. Where a sin common drive is provided for two adjoinin lots
no drivewa setback is re alon the common propert line.
(3) Pavement Width.
(a) Curb Line. All drivewa shall have a minimum width of 10
feet and maximum width of 20 feet in addition to two, 3-foot
flares, one on each side, measured at the curb line or ed of
pavement for uncurbed streets.
( b ) Ri Line. All drivewa shall have a minimum width
of ten feet and a maximum width of 20 feet as measured at the
public or private street ri
(4) Front-loaded Gara
(a) Pavement Width.
Ri Line to Gara Fa ade. Drivewa for ftont-
loaded g ara g es shall not exceed 30 feet in width between the
ri line and the nearest portion of the front fa of
the g ara g e. Drivewa width in addition to pavement width
measured at the ri shall be tapered toward the lot line
nearest the g ara g e. The taper shall not exceed 45 de as
measured from the centerline of the existin or proposed-
drivewa No drivewa pavement shall. be permitted to extend
be the front fa of the g ara g e.
(b) Landscapin The unpaved tapered area between the sidewalk
and/or n' of-wa shall be landscaped. A minimum of 75% of
the area formed b the taper shall contain plant material which
ma consist of a mix of shrubs, ornamental g rasses, and/or
perennials with a minimum plantin of three shrubs. Mature
plant material hei shall be a maximum of 30 inches with
% of the plant material at a minimum mature hei of 12
inches. Lawn art, sculptural pieces., decorative fountains,
ed material taller than six inches, and similar features or
structures are prohibited in this area.
(4) Side-loaded Gara
(a) Side-loaded g ara g es on comer lots are subject to the same
provisions as front-loaded g ara g es except for the followin
(b) Pavement Width.
1. Ri Line to Buildin Setback Line. The width
of pavement between the public or private street n*
of-wa and buildin setback lines shall not exceed 20
feet.
2. Be the Buildin Setback Line. Drivewa for side-
loaded g ara g es shall not exceed 30 feet in width as
measured from the g ara g e vehicle openin to the
opposin ed of pa ement.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
17-07
Passed Page
(5) Court Gara
( a ) Pavement Width.
1. Ri Line to Buildin Setback Line. The width
of pavement between the ri and buildin
setback lines shall not exceed 20 feet.
2. Be the Buildin Setback Line. The width of
drivewa for court g ara g es shall not exceed
85% of the width of the fa of the primar structure,,
not includin the g ara g e.
( b ) Landscapin Landscapin shall be used to screen pavement in
the court area from the public street ri or private
street. A landscape bed with a minimum width of four feet shall
extend from the ed of drivewa pavement towards the street
and shall contain plant material which ma consist of a mix of
shrubs and deciduous trees, ornamental g rasses, and/or
perennials. Mature plant material hei shall be a minimum of
30 inches.
(6) Front Yard Lot Covera Lot covera in the y ard space between the
public street ri -of-wa or private street side propert lines, and
buildin setback lines shall not exceed 35%.
(7) Pavement MateriaL The primar pavement material on drivewa and
an drivewa additions shall be identical. Approved primar pavement
materials include asphalt, concrete, brick, concrete pavers, colored and
imprinted concrete,, or natural stone pavers or fla The use of
g ravel as a drivewa material is not permitted. Secondar materials
such as brick or stone ma be used for drivewa borders or insets.
(C) A drivewa servin a commercial parkin area or lot shall be re as
follows: drivewa shall be desi so that vehicles enterin or leavin such
parkin lot will be travelin in a forward motion. Drivewa shall have a
maximum width of 30 feet at the street ri line and a maximum
width of 40 feet at the curb line,, includin two 10-foot radii curb returns.
Drivewa exclusive of curb returns, shall be ten feet or more from the side
lot line and 20 feet or more from another access drive measured at the street
ri -of-wa line. Drivewa shall be limited to one per lot or parcel of land
or shall be limited to one for each 200 feet of fronta
(D) Exceptions to an divisions of (B) throu (C) above re review and
approval b the Director of Land Use and Lon Ran Plannin or
desi
Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect on the earliest date provided b law.
Passed this da of 5 2007.
V
Ma — Presidin Officer
ATTEST:
Clerk of Council
Davton Leal Blank. Inc.
Form No, 30043
CITY OF DUBLIN.
Office of the city Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1005
Phone: 514 -410 -4400 • Fax: 514- 410 -4490
To: Members of City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam �' S (�
DATE: March 12, 2007
Memo
INITIATED BY: Steve Langworthy, Director Land Use and Long Range Planning
RE: ordinance 17-07 - An ordinance Amending sections 153.002,
153.071 153.072, and 53.210 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances
(Zoning Code) regarding Residential Driveways (Case 05- 133ADM)
Summary
The purpose of this code modification is to establish clear regulations for the design and
placement of residential driveways. Planning has recognized a need to update this section
due to the substantial number of driveway additions being requested in the City's older
neighborhoods. The Code sections proposed to be modified include 153.002 Definitions,
153.071 Lot and Yard Space Requirements, 153.072 Building Lines along Public Rights-
of-way, and 153.210 Driveways. While the most significant modifications pertain to
Section 153.210 Driveways, minor changes to other Code sections were necessary to
maintain consistency within the Code.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed current Code and policies regarding
residential driveways at a work session on November 9, 2005. Planning asked the
Commission a series of questions intended to generate specific guidelines and criteria for
regulating residential driveways (see November 9, 2005 meeting minutes). In general, a
consensus was reached on each of the issues and the code has been modified to reflect
the Commission's comments. The Planning and Zoning commission reviewed the
proposed modifications at a work session on February 15, 2007 and recommend approval
to the City Council. The Record of Action and minutes from that work session have been
included with this memo.
The public hearing /second reading of this ordinance will be scheduled for April 9, 2007.
Recommendation
Staff recommends passage of ordinance 17 -07 at its second reading/public hearing on
April 9, 2007.
Ordinance 17 -07
Proposed Text
§ 153.002 DEFINITIONS.
BUILDING SETBA LINE. Aline determined by the zoning district in which a
lot is located establishing the minimum allowable distance between the nearest portion of
any building and the side and rear lot lines and the right -of -way � f line of any street
when measured perpendicularly thereto.
CURB LINE. The face of a curb along a curbed public or private street.
DRIVEWAY. The hard paved surface of a lot that is specifically designated and
reserved for the movement of motor vehicles to and from a public or private street. This
definition includes the area from the street providing access to and from the lot and any
maneuvering areas.
GARAGE. An accessory building or part of a principal building used primarily for
the storage of passenger vehicles as an accessory use.
GARAGE, ALLEY- LOADED. A garage with vehicular access from a public or
private alley or drive typically from the rear of the property.
GARAGE, COURTYARD - STYLE. A garage with vehicular access through an
enclosed or partially enclosed pavement area that is located to the front of a principal
structure typically providing access to a side - loaded garage.
GARAGE, FRONT- LOADED. A garage with vehicular access doors primarily
oriented toward the same street right -of -way or private street as the front fagade of the
principal structure.
GARAGE, SIDE - LOADED. A garage with vehicular access doors primarily
oriented toward one of the side lot lines or a secondary public right -of -way or private
street.
1 of 10
§ 153.071 LOT AND YARD SPACE REQUIREMENTS.
(A) Platting Required. No use shall be established or altered and no structure shall
be constructed or altered except upon a lot that has been platted in accordance
with or which otherwise meets, the requirements of the subdivision regulations.
Development requirements are minimum requirements for the arrangement of
lots and spaces to be achieved in all developments.
we IFINIFIN OLWI-M ELM
■. ,.
■ ! f
(B) Lot area and yard space preserved. The lot area and yard space required for a
use or structure shall be maintained during its life and shall not be reduced below
the minimum requirement, occupied by another use or structure, or counted as
yard space for any other use or structure.
(1) Open yards required. The yard space required for a use or structure shall,
during its life, remain free of all uses or occupancy except as follows:
(a) Fences, walls and landscaping shall be permitted in any required
yard, or along the edge of any yard, provided that no fence or wall
between a street and a front building setback line is more than
three feet in height, except as required in § 153.130 through
153.138 or in accordance with an approved final development plan
of a Planned Development District.
(b) haves, cornices, window sills and belt courses may project into any
required yard a distance not to exceed two feet.
(c) Open and uncovered porches may project beyond the front
building setback line or into a required rear yard a distance not to
exceed five feet.
(d) Driveways shall be setback at least , hut
�e three feet or more from a side lot line or adjacent to the
side lot line ��Pe�t�'in� where Q �e '6 Ar ° a
single a °=� °'�� °a ��� „ +'•� °° °common drive is provided for two to
adjoining lots as listed in § 153.210.
(e} All vehicular use areas, including driveways, sh.all 4)e
• Y d eve l ene d in Industrial '
Districts shall be located at least 15 feet from of a any
Residential District r p� °� �� °� °�� 1-""
lot line as listed in § 153.016.
(2) Yards not otherwise required. Yard space not otherwise required but
provided shall be five feet or more in width.
2of10
(3) Yards maintained. All yard space shall be maintained in accordance with
one or more of the following provisions:
(a) Fenced as permitted or required.
(b) Landscaped by lawns, shrubs, trees and other plantings, maintained
in a neat and orderly natural state, or used for permitted accessory
or ancillary use.
(c) Paved for parking, driveways, or other vehicular uses as permitted.
(4) Maximum lot coverage.
(a) Structures, parking, driveways, vehicular use areas, service areas,
pedestrian areas, and other hard - surfaces or paved areas shall not
cover more than 70% of the total lot area within the following
zoning districts:
R -1 2 Urban Residential District
SO, Suburban Office and Institutional
NC, Neighborhood Commercial
CC, Community Commercial
RI, Restricted Industrial
LI, Limited Industrial
GI, General Industrial
OLR, Office, Laboratory, Research
Excavation and Quarry
Oil and Gas
Exceptional Uses
(b) Structures, parking, driveways, vehicular use areas, service areas,
pedestrian areas, and other hard - surfaces or paved areas shall not
cover more than 80% of the total lot area within the following
zoning districts:
C C C, Central Community Commercial
CB, Central Business District
(c) The lot coverages contained herein are maximums and should not
be interpreted to restrict or otherwise limit any other requirements
of this Code or the authorized discretion of the City's Boards,
Commissions or City Council. This maximum lot coverage
subsection shall not apply to sites which have previously approved
final development plans or a certificate of zoning compliance or
other similar final approval by the City prior to the date this
division takes effect.
3 of 10
(d) Structures, parking, driveways, vehicular use areas, service areas,
pedestrian areas, and other hard - surfaces or paved areas shall not
cover more than 45% of the total lot area within the following
Residential Districts:
R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District
R -2, Limited Suburban Residential District
R -3, Suburban Residential District
R -4, Suburban Residential District
R -10, Two - Family Residential District
(e) Unless otherwise required in an approved Planned Development
tom, structures, parking, driveways, vehicular use areas, service
areas, pedestrian areas, and other hard - surfaces or paved areas
shall not cover 'More than 45 of the total lot area within a
�lr} : residential PUD, Planned
Unit Development District.
('80 Code, § 1183.02 )(Ord. 21 -70, passed 7- 13 -70; Am. Ord. 33 -93, passed 6- 21 -93; Am.
Ord. 142 -99, passed 2- 22- 00)(Am Ord. 75 -03, passed 5 -3 -04) Penalty, see § 153.999
4of10
§ 153.072 BUILDING SETBACK LINES ALONG PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY
OR PRIVATE STREETS.
r a M Ji a+ ii t - i a� di. -7 R.i7l■aF lip A 1 it
!■ - i 1 .� ' r ! J s r. i i i T ■ - J W - _ w'.a. '� yl ,■ 04
n L - rt rn a I. MTV _ ■ i i - i '..■ . i i �: �i _ r i� R , , �1 ; - -■ . ,i
M -k i mm
i. f ■..Il. ib r ' i, a Y i. - ii ■
(A) Required building setback defined. The required building setback is that area
between the building setback line and the
street right -of -way or the proposed right -of -way in the Thoroughfare Plan
adopted by Council, as amended from time to time, whichever is greater. Unless
otherwise permitted by this Code, no structure or other use of land, except
parking and driveways, shall be located in the required building setback. Unless
otherwise permitted by this Code, In n^ ^ LJ° III the required building setback
shall be at least 30 feet.
(B) Parking within the required building setback from public right -of -way or a
private street. Open parking or loading spaces shall be permitted to extend into
the required building setback for not more than
a distance equal to 40% of the required
building setback distance. ai
y
I no
e as e s hall lainir nart of Q Parking areas shall be at least h
15 feet to from any established or proposed public street right -of -way or private
street easement.
(C) Platted setback. No structure or other use neh* ttg _ shall be located
between the street right -of -way and the platted building setback line unless
otherwise permitted by this Code.
(D) Setback nic buildfin.gc. along freeways or expressways. The setbacks for all
principal cgs and accessory buildings, parking, driveways, and all
other vehicular use areas along freeway and expressway rights -of -way shall be a
minimum of 50 feet.
Sight triangles. Sight visibility triangles define areas at public or private street
intersections and at curb cuts where visibility must be maintained for safety of
the motoring public. Landscaping and other site appurtenances may be limited
in these areas. The City Engineer shall develop and maintain an administrative
policy that defines accepted sight visibility triangles at intersections and curb
cuts.
MA MM
Rns M M.
IL
ii E
� s �
5of10
m ill II if vm.R
Wig 9 VIIIIIIIIIIIIII All, MCI ZT-111- 2 -Mv ME
kMms I U L -1`2 IR 4E T
IIIIII&ILv,110511 41FAI, 1 qLq! 16
AIIN
Ww�j ~49-
a
OAWALW� 111 UP �V
rill
0 104111111 IIIIIELO�M
!
9
of ILWILM2 q% 9 9
- V �,W%X We - F Mffq
I A p7m Alblbib'b�* A
VVE%X1.2
40 & V ]b 49
vkw2 9 LA 6 N,
AMA a "T Tra-1
M M v
WA
■
'AW'Wf 0 %WWII 9 wA*AWM
a -"%;L
-AL
No."I Mill.
•
a IN III
T aL
P
WA W 9 1v%q-R11 9
Ow. MOVIOMMOVOC IF
M
NO
--F26111M
iffo,". .
L dil
( '80 Code, § 11 83.03)(Ord. 3 5-85, passed 8-5-85) Penalt see § 153.999§
6 of 10
153.210 DRIVEWAYS.
AMWA IM246 plip I
W qW 41101" 0 FA AMR
'W I'
(A) Each drivewa shall be located and desi in a manner that provides for the
safet of motorists and pedestrians.
( B) A drivewa servin a residential parkin area or lot shall be re as follows:
nPrIC-i"a ntuA - O*e to iaight
.F L4A ILILIALA II %.f" r IL4A'L116& LA I L A LAq64 T M W
A f ion f - m
WA , _t be no LI Than-throa faIII 4:-,
%,%PO.LJL ■ A-1-MLIL T %01 VIF "_7 0 %1Y.L.L"'LL %..I 16AJLq64LA q6AAA-.I Lvftf%dL LL %-PL LL %J.& %A %d A %J III A ..L Ae e At
a ( AIJ Qidip ]At lina urbara n Qinal JL fo!
&JLJL%d "A%A%W A%.I& JL&J1,JL1%W vVAA%/LW t4 %JAAX6AW-O LJ V K%.FVJL%4%0%.& AM tw()
Adininina h & jA glidtlq -Af tchn 4�Nqat anti :4
f� at t lip iQtr_iII Um MrszLwzraus shall ha-ve
WL "OM L1W A A ,, W 6_p % A, AL L 5 J.L III W X V V " L ALL L A V vaf V T J&4_7 o, L" k X L&A A k L
a Milo 16 -P-pt And fa im widtla ef-�)6 f-eet in a] ud *
L4 A&AJLAJ TIF A%�&LAA %I& J6 W A6%OIWL L4AL%A %I A A %*Vlk WL A-%.O'WL ALAWL%4%*&A&5 tVV "I
LALNW %0%.46A&.,F AAAKIW4 A.AL AL%.F L4II.J%ol IJLLF414LL %1KIL1W TV L%,&%,AA WX %Xx
fi EML IIhLL Sji%EIIPWl A the e-11-94v�ine in no-Case Quall tue vridt-L of the
LL
46W LLL%o'
in to the sti7eet
.1 1A V V L L k A L67A L&4A A 164 %.0 A I X I V T A %-& LA AL & L IIII AL AL %JL.& � L4 %J.% F "L X%AA AL L4J, No L4
af_XXtn3JX ighall lip apnarnilu rogtriotpid ta
%I AL TV L4 61 AS A L LJ W A. LA A & 'WL�F"l %W %OfL67k�P LYAJLq64AA 4-,F%O 6%-fLk%OA L4LAJ
J A
4nr_ja= QP&Eat314
F A %JAAA%J AAA%d &J"AL%OL J ) L4AA %A L,%-f %J.Ll%d LJAA-L JL%&A.LALJL JL%OOA%A%OJLA4I
( 1 ) Curb Cuts. The location of curb cuts or points of in shall be
restricted to promote traffic safet and limited to one per sin two-, or
three-famil dwellin Two curb cuts ma be permitted onl after the
review and approval of the Director of Land Use and Lon Ran
Plannin in accordance with the followin criteria:
9% /
(a) A maximum of 40/o of linear curb distance alon the lot fronta
ma be removed for drivewa curb cuts except as otherwise
limited in this Section.
(b) All impervious surface area, includin but not limited to, buildin
drivewa vehicular use areas, patios, decks, and other accessor
structures ma not exceed 60% of the lot.
(c) The desi function and appearance of drivewa leadin from an
additional curb cut shall be compatible with and complementar to
the buildin it serves as well as the surroundin nei b
the use of consistent pavin materials.
( d ) The curb cuts shall be located to provide ade distance from
adjacent properties or intersectin streets to prevent vehicle and
pedestrian conflicts. The placement of an additional curb cut shall
not conflict with existin utilit or infrastructure improvements
includin but not limited to curb inlets, manholes, y ard drains,
meter sets, and valves.
7 of
(2) Setbacks. Drivewa shall be set back at least three feet from a side lot
line. MIhere a sin common drive is provided for two adjoinin lots no
drivewa setback is re alon the common propert line.
( 3 ) Pavement Width.
(a) Curb Line. All drivewa shall have a minimum width of 10 feet
and a maximum width of 20 feet in addition to two Moot flares,
one on each side, "measured at the curb line or ed of pavement
for uncurbed streets.
(b) Ri Line. All drivewa shall have a minimum width of
ten feet and a maximum width of 20 feet as measured at the private
or public street ri line.
(4) Front-loaded Gara
(a) Pavement Width.
Ri Line to Gara Fa Drivewa for front-
loaded g ara g es shall not exceed 30 feet in width between the
ri line and the nearest portion of the ftnt fa of
the g ara g e. Drivewa width in addition to pavement width
measured at the fi g ht-of-wa y shall be tapered toward the lot
line nearest the g ara g e. The taper shall not exceed 45 de
as measured from the centerline of the existin or proposed
drivewa No drivewa pavement shall be permitted to extend
be the, front facade of the g ara g e.
( b ) Landsc The unpaved tapered area between the sidewalk
and/or fi g ht-of-wa y shall be landscaped. A minimum of 75% of
the area formed b the taper shall contain plant material which
ma consist of a mix of shrubs, ornamental g rasses, and/or
perennials with a minimum plantin of three shrubs. Mature plant
material hei shall be a maximum of 30 'Inches with 50% of the
plant maten'al at a minimum mature hei of 12 inches. Lawn art,
sculptural pieces, decorative fountains, ed material taller than
six inches, and similar features or structures are prohibited in this
area.
(5) Side-loaded Gara
( a ) Side-loaded g ara g es on comer lots are sub to the same
provisions as front-loaded g ara g es except for the followin
( b ) Pavement Width.
O"IT".J
1. Ri Line to Buildin Setback Line. The width of
pavement between the public or private street ri
and buildin setback lines shall not exceed 20 feet.
2. Be the Buildin Sethack Line. Drivewa for side-
loaded g ara g es shall not exceed 30 feet in width as
measured from the g ara g e vehicle openin to the opposin
ed of pavement.
(6) Court Gara
(a) Pavement Width.
1. Ri - q f-wa y Line to Buildin Setback Line. The width of
pavement between the ri and buildin setback
lines shall not exceed 20 feet.
2. Be the Buildin Setback Line. The width of drivewa
for court g ara g es shall not exceed 85% of the
width of the fa of the primar structure, not includin
the g ara g e.
( b ) Landscapin Landscapin shall be used to screen pavement in the
court area from the public or private street ri A
landscape bed with a minimum width of four feet shall extend
from the ed of drivewa pavement towards the street and shall
contain plant material which ma consist of a mix of shrubs and
deciduous trees, ornamental g rasses, and/or perennials. Mature
plant material hei shall be a minimum of 30 inches.
( 7) Front Yard Lot Covera Lot covera in the y ard space between the
public or private street ri side propert lines, and buildin
setback lines shall not exceed 35%.
(8) Pavement Material. The primar pavement material on drivewa and
an drivewa additions, shall be identical. Approved primar pavement
materials include asphalt, concrete, brick, concrete pavers, colored and
imprinted concrete, or natural stone pavers or fla The use of
g ravel as a drivewa material is not permitted. Secondar materials such
as brick or stone ma be used for drivewa borders or insets.
( C ) A drivewa servin a commercial parkin area or lot shall be re as
follows: drivewa shall be desi so that vehicles enterin or leavin such
parkin lot will be travelin in a forward motion. Drivewa shall have a
maximum width of 30 feet at the street ri line and a maximum width
of 40 feet at the curb line includin two 10 -foot radii curb returns. Drivewa
exclusive of curb returns, shall be ten feet or more from the side lot line and 20
feet or more from another access drive measured at the street ri -of-wa line.
9 of 10
Drivewa shall be limited to one per lot or parcel of land or shall be limited to
one for each 200 feet of fronta
(D) Exceptions to an divisions of (B) throu (C) above re review and
approval b the Director of t. ALL t A Land Use and Lon Ran
Plannin or desi Annianbz=w r 6a p- n d a tn th ja R c4 ard ck f- 7nn i n a A 1 IQ
A X XAA" %-F%d AJLAL%.4%A%.* q6%,r ILLJLI%W A-A%JU4L%* WA. X—J%aXIALL L IIL
A %0 %kd V T A I.A L Z5 A
('80 Code, § 1193.11) (Ord. 12-89, passed 2-21-89) Penalt see § 153.999
1 0 of 10
CITY OF DUBLIN..
Land Use and
Long Range Planning
5800 Shier -Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
Phone: 614 -410 -4600
fmc: 614 -410 -4747
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
FEBRUARY 15, 2007
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
2. Administrative Request 06- 133ADM -- Residential Driveways
Request: Review of City Code and Policies regarding residential driveways.
Staff Contact: Judson J. Rex, Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410- 46541jrex @dublin.oh.us.
MOTION: To approve the changes and revisions to the driveway ordinance and to
forward this revised ordinance to City Council as presented.
VOTE: 6-0.
RESULT: The revised ordinance regarding residential driveways was approved and
will be forwarded to City Council.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
t
J u n J. Rex(/
Pla er
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Training workshop Minutes — February 15, 2007
Page 3 of 23
2. Administrative Request 06- 133ADM -- Residential Driveways
Judson Rex said after receiving Commission input at the November work session, Planning has
revised the driveway ordinance. He said the Zoning Code Definition, Lot and Yard Space
Requirements, Building Lines along Public Rights -of -way, and Driveway Sections have been
revised. He said other sections in addition to the Driveway Section are being revised due to the
fact that other sections refer to it. He said in the Definitions Section, definitions have been added
relating to curb line, driveway, and the different types of garages. Mr. Rex said the Lot and Yard
Space Requirements Section was subject to minor modifications to coordinate with the Driveway
Section, dealing with setbacks and lot coverage. He said in the Building Setback Lines Along
Public Rights -of -way and Private Streets Section the definition of Building Setback needed
modified to coordinate with changes to allow parking on driveways within the building setback,
which was previously prohibited by Code. Mr. Rex said the site triangle portion of this section
was also updated to reflect the City Engineer's most current policy.
Mr. Rex said Chapter 153.21 0 — Driveways is now organized into eight subsections. He said the
first was curb cuts and the existing administrative policy of how additional curb cuts are handled
has been implemented into the Code, including the four criteria that must be met. He said the
second subsection, setbacks, was another existing policy that requires a three -foot setback to be
maintained except where there is a common drive between two lots. He said the pavement width
section remains unchanged, but it has been separated out for quick reference. He said the curb
line and rights -of -way line maximum and maximum widths section has not changed. Mr. Rex
said the two sections for front - loaded garages restrict the pavement width to a maximum of 30
feet and require a taper where the driveway is wider than at the right -of-way line. Landscaping
will also be required in the unpaved tapered area. He said for side - loaded garages, the pavement
width is restricted to 20 feet from the right -of -way line to the building line, and then 30 feet is
the maximum beyond the building setback line. Mr. Rex said for courtyard -style garages, the
pavement width is restricted to 20 feet, similar to side - loaded garages, and the pavement width
beyond the building setback line has been revised to not exceed 85 percent of the width of the
house. The area within the courtyard will be required to be screened from the public or private
street. He said the Front Yard Lot Coverage has not changed, but has been separated for easy
reference. He said 35 percent is the maximum front yard lot coverage. Mr. Rex said the
pavement material types have been limited to asphalt, concrete, brick pavers, and concrete
pavers, and the secondary material allowed to be used for borders, insets, and other accents on
the driveway. He concluded his presentation.
Mr. Walter noted that a driveway was defined as a hard -paved surface. He asked how that
applied to unpaved driveways, such as gravel driveways. Mr. Rex said gravel was not a
permitted driveway surface material. He said existing gravel driveways were legally non-
conforming and would have to come into compliance or get a variance if any changes were
proposed.
Mr. Zimmerman asked about the new crushed stone hard surface product being used. Mr. Rex
said it was not defined in the revised Code, but it could possibly be approved administratively if
material specifications were provided and the appropriateness for the neighborhood was
considered. Ms. Jones said the new material might be a solid surface hybrid that would work.
Mr. Rex said a chip and seal process had been used before and he thought it was close to a hard -
paved surface. He said it would be considered administratively. Mr. Langworthy said loose
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Training Workshop Minutes — February 15, 2047
Page 4 of 23
gravel was difficult to maintain due to drainage problems and necessary grading. He said a
product that looked like gravel, but was locked in place would be fine.
Mr. Gerber asked how many driveway improvement permits were issued per year. Mr.
Gunderman estimated perhaps 20 to 30 driveway improvements per year.
Mr. Fishman asked if the driveway shape remained the same and only the material was changed
Was a permit necessary. Mr. Gunderman did not think so.
Mr. Fishman asked if a driveway was rebuilt, does it have to be brought into compliance. Mr.
Gunderman said if the driveway is rebuilt, with new material underneath it, they should get a
permit and comply with the Code.
Mr. Saneholtz asked if the permit process also involved whether or not the apron was removed
next to the right -of -way. Mr. Gunderman said the removal of the apron area requires an
Engineering review.
Mr. Fishman confirmed that Planning was in favor of expanding driveways beyond the garage
door. Mr. Gunderman said the ability to make the width of the driveway pavement wider than
the door opening was included in the Code.
Mr. Gerber said that all the Commissioners' concerns had been addressed and Mr. Rex did a very
good job. Mr. Rex said all of Planning had assisted him.
Motion and Vote:
Mr. Gerber moved to approve the changes and revisions to the Driveway Ordinance and to
forward this revised ordinance to City Council. Mr. Saneholtz seconded the motion, and the vote
was as follows: Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr.
Saneholtz, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 5 — 0.)
Kudso dministrative Regr 06- 121ADM — lewd tra l Appearance S to rds
Rex presente Iiis administrative re es.t for potential cha es to the Residential
A earance Code ction 153.190. He ex ned. that each issue wo d have a slide shown w
pp � �"
graphics, which ' d ude the current re u i r s eats, and then a q ue s n i he asked reg rd i th e
issue. He enraged questions.
Applic on o t a ,p gran e dep .Standards
Cur nt a uirement*
Rex said Code requir that houses zvque t � II a 25 percent expansion the livable area, or
a significant exterior to ration must comp with the appearance and ards. He said the
definition of a si * icant exterior al t�e rati is defined in the Co as a change in roofl' ,
adding or retno g windows or doors., r e��ing projections and � ses, or changing the e crior
building ma gals. He said some of Esc changes that are s + ifically listed in the C could
be interp ed to be minor. He d simply replacing a dow with a door oe g with the
curre Code language could c applied and the ent' Appearance Code w d have to be
con lied with.
CITY OF DUBLIN_
Land Use and
Long Range Planning
5800 Shier -Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
Phone: 614- 410 -4600
fox: 614 -41 -4747
web Siie: www.dublin.oh.us
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 9
1. /i Live Request 06 -1 ADM — Resident Driveways
2. tive Request 3 - 0 3 .DM — endruents to tinning and Z rig
q
n Rules and gi lations
3. leq t 04- 08oADM Amendments to a Corridor Dvrnent DS)
Administra B sines
Chair Rick Ge er call to order at 6 : p. m. other Co rn issioners prese
inclined: T d Zimmerho lt, Rayna ,1. es and Kevin W er. Tom McCash
Warren man were members � ew included: i Gunderman, Je ifer ute ad ler Tarnrn dkins, as is Husak, J�a d s Rex, Joanne och;`� Frank
y � y iar i and Flora Ro ,e
1. Administrative Request 06- 133ADM -- Residential Driveways
Judson Rex presented this administrative request. He said it was reviewed at the September 21,
2006 meeting and the Commission asked staff to review criteria for residential driveways. He
said that the current regulations are Sections 153.071(B), 153.072(A) (3), and 153.210(A). The
current regulations prohibit parking within the required yards, and limit the width of driveways
to a maximum of 20 feet and minimum of 10 feet at the right -of -way line and a maximum of 26
feet and a minimum of 16 feet with at the curb line. The current Code also reads that in no case
shall the width of the drive way exceed the width of the garage entrance. Mr. Rex said that staff
does not recommend the width at the right- of-way and curb lines be changed.
Mr. Rex said that he will ask specific questions about each of the issues associated with
driveways and include a recommendation and graphics with each question. He said staff would
like to get a consensus or direction on each question.
Front -- loaded Garages
Question g g 1: Regarding front - loaded garages and the issue of parking within the required front
yard and staff believes that the current Code regulation is not reasonable because it does prohibit
parking on the driveway pavement within the front yard setback.
Should the Code be modified to allow parking on driveways within the front yard for front
loaded garages?
06- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission workshop
Meeting Minutes — November 9, 2006
Page 2 of 21
The Commission agreed that parking on driveways within the front yard should be permitted.
Question 2: Regarding the width of the driveway, the current Code reads that it can not exceed
the opening on the garage door, and staff believes that a wider driveway than the garage opening
is useful and is a convenience for the residents.
Should the Code be modified to allow a driveway to be wider than the opening on a front - loaded
garage?
The Commission agreed.
Question 3: Regarding the addition of parking and back -out space for front - loaded garages, staff
believes that it should an option extended to homeowners who can comply with reasonable rules.
Should the Code be modified to allow parking and back -out space in addition to regular
driveway width?
The Commission agreed.
Question 4: Regarding the location of driveway additions on both sides of the driveway, staff
believes it should be restricted and recommends that additions be extended from the driveway to
the nearest side property line.
Should the Code be modified to restrict driveway additions only toward the nearest side property
line?
The Commission agreed that the addition should only be on one side; however it may be allowed
on either side depending on the situation.
Question 5: The current pavement setback of three feet which staff believes is an adequate
requirement and recommends that it continue. Shared driveways would be an exception.
Should the Code continue to limit the pavement setback to three feet?
The Commission agreed upon the three -foot setback.
Question 5: Regarding the maximum driveway width, staff believes that the maximum driveway
width should be 30 feet.
Should the Code be modified to restrict the maximum width of driveway pavement?
The Commission agreed.
Question 7: Regarding landscaping, staff believes that some landscaping is useful if it does not
limit visibility.
Should the Code be modified to require some landscaping when driveway additions are
proposed?
The Commission agreed that landscaping should be encouraged but be subject to the approval of
the Director, based on safety and other considerations.
Question 8: Regarding pavement beyond the garage, staff believes that parking space behind the
front facade of the garage should not be permitted.
Should the Code be modified to limit driveway pavement beyond_ the front facade of front - loaded
garages?
The Commission agreed.
06- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
Dublin Planning and Toning Commission Workshop
Meeting Minutes — November 9, 2006
Page 3 of 21
S ideloaded/Courtyard Garages
Question 9: Regarding parking within required side yards, staff believes that the current Code
regulation is not reasonable.
Should the Code be modified to allow parking on driveways within the side yard?
The Commission agreed.
Question 10: Regarding parking and turnaround keys, staff believes that parking and turnaround
keys should be an option available to homeowners who can comply with reasonable rules.
Should the Code be modified to allow parking and turnaround keys in addition to regular
driveway width?
The Commission agreed.
Question 11: Regarding driveway pavement setbacks, staff believes the existing limitation of a
three -foot setback for pavement from a side property line is adequate.
Should the Code continue to limit the pavement setback to three feet?
The Commission agreed.
Side-loaded Garay
Question 12: Regarding the maximum driveway width for side - loaded garages, staff believes the
overall width of a driveway and any additional pavement should be limited to 30 feet.
Should the Code be modified to restrict the width of pavement beyond the building line from the
face of the garage to the side property line?
The Commission agreed and requested that it be clarified that it be within the building envelope.
A minimum width of 22 feet was suggested by staff.
Cou and -st le Garages
Question 13: Regarding the maximum driveway width for courtyard -style garages, staff believes
that some pavement beyond 30 feet in width would be appropriate.
Should the Code be modified to restrict the width of pavement face of a courtyard - -style garage?
The Commission agreed that for courtyard -style garages, going beyond 30 feet may be
permitted. It was suggested that the courtyard -style driveway material be of concrete, pavers, or
asphalt, at the discretion of the Director.
Question 14: Regarding landscaping for courtyard -style garages, staff believes that some
landscaping forward of the driveway may be appropriate if it does not limit visibility.
Should the Code be modified to require landscaping forward of a courtyard -style driveway?
The Commission agreed.
General Regulations
Question 15: Regarding front yard lot coverage, staff believes that lot coverage forward of the
building line should be limited to a maximum of 35 percent.
Should the Code be modified to restrict lot coverage forward of the building line?
The Commission agreed.
Question 16: Regarding pavement material, staff believes that the primary pavement material
should be the same throughout driveways and driveway additions.
05- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission workshop
Meeting Minutes — November 9, 2006
Page 4 of 21
Should the Code be modified to restrict the primary pavement material?
The Commission agreed.
Mr. Gerber suggested that this issue should be discussed at the next workshop.
Mr. Rex said the next step would be for staff to draft amendments to the Code. He said they will
be presented to the Commission at a future work session for review and recommendations to
Council. He said the final ordinance will require the approval of the City Council.
Mr. Gerber asked if a back -out space on a front - loading lot with a 25 -foot setback would be
permitted. Mr. Gunderman said as long as it complies with the 35 percent lot coverage
requirement is not closer than three feet to the side property line, and the total width at its widest
point is no more than 30 feet.
Mr. Ciarochi added if the property owner works with staff on the angle of the taper.
Mr. Rex added that they could soften the edges and put in landscaping.
Mr. Gerber said he did not want to see this.
Ms. Jones said it was a backup pad, and she did not like it.
Mr. Rex said these are not as common as the parking taper spaces on the side.
Mr. Gerber said he would not like to see this.
Mr. Walter did not think a backup pad was necessary for a two -car garage.
Mr. Saneholtz asked if with the new Code, is it still possible for a developer to come in and put
homes, even with a 25 -foot setback to the building, a 25 -foot driveway with a two -car garage
coming off the front.
The group agreed.
Mr. Saneholtz said he would love to do something to back homes up enough that these
driveways could accommodate what they would really like to see in their neighborhoods.
Mr. Gerber said a lot of the housing the Commission has seen includes side -load garages. He
said the Commission had been encouraging that for the last six to seven years.
Mr. Saneholtz said-there is a certain market price where you will not be able to have side -load
garages.
Mr. Gunderman said that an 80 -foot wide lot is required for a side - loaded garage.
Mr. Saneholtz asked if the Code could be ad j usted so that there are not situations where the
driveway flows out into the yards.
Mr. Gunderman said yes; however the difficulty and the difference between this issue and a lot
of other things we typically deal with is the pressure for these comes from people in existing
homes with 25 -foot setbacks.
Mr. Ciarochi said with the bump outs, staff heard the Commission's preference that they did not
like the turnaround on front - loaded garages. He said in this particular case, if someone wanted to
build it, staff could work with them to say that they really can't have that, but they could take an
angle and put another space there.
The Commission agreed that aesthetically, that would look better.
Mr. Ciarochi said he understood the Commission's preference and staff would draft something to
bring back to the Commission.
06- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission workshop
Meeting Minutes — November 9, 2006
Page S of 21
Mr. Gerber said if there was a light agenda sometime between now and the next workshop in
February, this topic should be added and if not, it should be discussed in February.
Mr. Saneholtz asked if man doors on side - loaded garages were ever on the same side of the
garage as the three garage doors.
Mr. Rex said yes.
Mr. Saneholtz asked if this all accommodated the man door coming off the front.
The Commissioners agreed that on a front - loaded garage, they did not like pavement extending
back beyond the front of the house.
Mr. Rex said he appreciated the Commission's input.
2. Administrative Request 03- 053ADM — Amendments to Planning and Zoning
Commission Rules and Regulations
Mr. Gerber said the Commission's current Ex Parte Rule is that Commissioners can speak with
residents. He asked if their office and fax numbers and e-mail addresses were public record.
Claudia Husak indicated that they were given out per request.
Mr. Gerber said he felt it would more appropriate that people's concerns or comments be
forwarded to staff, and then staff can forward the information to the Commission. He recalled
that for a past case, he received an overwhelming number of faxes at his office. Mr. Gerber said
the Commissioners wanted to hear from everybody and review their comments, but not during
work hours which was not appropriate.
Ms. Jones said she received calls at home which she thought was appropriate, but she would not
want to accept such calls at a workplace.
Jennifer Readler said the Ex Parte Rule is that Commissioners can basically talk to everyone
except applicants and their representatives. She said the theory of the rule is that the applicant
can communicate with the Commissioners through the submitted materials and through the
public hearing process. In order to consider modifications to the current rules, the Laver
Director's office was directed to make two different revision drafts.
Ms. Readler said in the first proposal (2B of the memorandum) they could not talk to the
applicant, interested residents, or anyone else. She said it closes all contact. She said anyone
wanting to talk to a member would be limited to the actual bearing before the Commission.
Ms. Readier said the second proposal (2C of the memorandum) prohibits any kind of contact
with a Commissioner, but only in quasi-judicial hearings. She said a list of quasi-judicial type
proceedings are listed in the memorandum. She said in this type of hearing, the applicant and
people participating in the hearing are afforded more protections because they are adjudicating
their rights. Ms. Readler said the applicants and speakers are sworn in and the proceedings are
recorded as required. These are the types of cases where the applicant is given an opportunity to
appeal to court. Therefore in these types of situations they are court -like procedures and do not
permit separate communication similar to a judicial process.
06- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
CITY OF DUBLIN_
Land Use and
Long Range Planning
5800 Shier -Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
Phone: 614 -41 DA600
Fox: 614AI CA747
Web Side: wmdublin.oh.us
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
The g
e Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
} Administrative Request 06- 133ADM — Residential Driveways
Request. R Pp .
• Review and approval of City Code and Policies regarding residential
driveways.
Staff Contact: Todd Corwin, Senior Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410 - 4656 /email: tcorwin a@dublin.oh.us.
MOTION. To table q
this administrative r to allow staff to draft potential criteria to be
Use and Lon Range Plan�auzg Director in considering requests for the
used by the Land U g g
expansion of residential driveways.
VOTE: 5-0.
RESULT: This administrative request was tabled.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
06- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes — September 21, 2006
Page 17 of 21
Mr. Hale armed to the above mo/ified conditions.
M r. err a second a lie mot ' o ��, and t vote was as fo l l Ms . Jones, ye � .
ter es Mr.. Mr `` pan es; and Mr. erber, yes. (ppro d 5 -0.}
Zl cr�nan, yes; Mr. Y a Y
3. Amended H al Development Pi i 06- 118AFDP — T Village at Coffin Park — Post
Road an is overt' Bouleva •
Mr. G cr b p
swore in the a l i c- it Patrick M. Grab i Mr. Grabill agre to the four coedit') e
listed b oNv as contained in e staff report.
titan and rote
pp
M x. Gerber moved r approval of this ended Final Devel ment Plan because x proposed
modifications vvi enhance the o v erg. appearance of this i t e and continue t promote high -
q uality �-
ualit reside � 1 d evelopment, wit four the following r conditions:
} That t
1 applicant submit r i s ed construction d r i n gs for site plan it approval;
pp
pp
the applicant sub its a revised Sto water Managernen Playa for review
2} T��
roval;
}
hat the applicant ta in the hedges sh o is on the plans and corporal i n g stone f Is into
the landscaping . atment along Post ad, subject to staff prcval; and,
That land a ping p
the l d . in Tans be rcvi d to reflect the evil.], ctits in the staff rep , subject to
}
staff appro 1.
Mr. Zi u a a seconded the tio to approve r the vote was as f erows Mr. Fishmai
-
yes; Mr. alter, yes; Ms. Jo �, yes; Mr. Zimmer � y es • , and Mr. , yes. (Approve
0)
4. Final Develop etit Plan 06 -11,5D — Perimeter West Subarea 1 — P - imeter
West office ark — 6700 Perini er Drive
Motion a ate.
VDevepment r moved for tablil due to the wri tte ecluest of the app i ant, Rob Ryan, u Il
Com - an Mr. Zing�-�r�ennai ecoridcd the m�otiof . The vote was as f oars:
P Y� 3r, yes.
yes; Mr. Fi s r� to yes; Mr. a 1 t �, ye s; l r, mme an, yes; and Mr. 5 -0.}
5. Administrative Request 06- 133ADM — Residential Driveways
Todd Corwin said this is a request for review of Dublin policies regarding residential driveways.
He said staff is requesting that the Commission give guidance and feedback regarding the issues
presented tonight. He said the most substantial issue to be discussed is the modification of front -
loaded ara a driveways. Mr. Corwin said other issues deal with width and maneuvering
g g
standards for side - loaded garages. He presented a slide showing a driveway constructed
according Y
cordin to Code. He said the driveway is no wider than the garage door opening. He said a
different type of garage is a side- loading garage on the side of the house and the driveway enters
06- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes — September 21, 2005
Page 18 of 21
it from the side. He said currently, Code states that maneuvering areas are allowed up to within
three feet of the side lot line, however there are no Code requirements about the width of the
pavement from the garage a door opening to .the edge of the pavement on the yard side of the
driveway.
Mr. Corwin said in the p ast, many of the driveways in Dublin were for two -car garages. He said
as houses became larger, three -car garages are built with an extra nine feet of pavement from the
garage to the yard. He presented a series of slides which showed examples of the most prevalent
issue which is the modification of front - loaded garage driveways.
Mr. Corwin said current . regulations allow exceptions to be made per the Director of Land Use
and Lon g Range a Planning, but there are no criteria to address what the exceptions will be. He
presented a slide of a driveway for a two -car garage approved by the Director. He said there
were man y g in the ne i g hborhood and it was not out of character with other such driveways within
that part of the community.
Mr. Corwin said staff is requesting that the Commission provide direction for a potential
resolution of those issues as presented. He outlined the three options listed in the staff report:
Option 1 Direct staff to initiate an amendment to the Code that permits driveways with
p �
front - loaded garages to be widened beyond the width of the garage door opening. This option
would permit the construction of an extra parking space or back -out area.
� administrative app 2
Op tion Maintain the current amnsraroval process for the above referenced
p
modifications, but strengthen the criteria used by the Director of Land Use and Long Range
Planning when approving such exceptions.
• Examp widening must be screened with appropriate'landscaping materials.
p
• Examp The proposed driveway modification cannot be used exclusively as a play area or
"sport court".
• Example: The area encompassed by the proposed driveway modification
N and the existing driveway shall not exceed 40 percent of the front yard area.
Op tion 3 Do not allow driveway modifications to driveways with front - loaded garages
under an circumstances. Staff will also need direction regarding the enforcement of this
y
provision (for both future applications and driveways already modified).
4
Op tion Direct staff to initiate amendments to the Code, which would clarify width and
p �
parking standards for side, court, and split - loaded garages.
Mr. Gerber said he was concerned that if they allowed front - loading garages to be widened,
boats, campers, or large S IJVs could be parked there. Mr. Corwin said there are regulations in
P
the Code which state that commercial or recreational vehicles cannot be parked in driveways.
Mr. Gerber asked if Code covered parking of large SUVs. Mr. Corwin said he did not believe
so.
Mr. Gerber said he recognized that additional parking space is often needed and it is okay as long
as it is done with some aesthetics in mind with landscaping, etc. He also did not want the area to
become a recreation area for sports' courts, etc. Mr. Corwin said he thought writing a provision
that would state that widened areas cannot be used for sports courts, was something that could be
05- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes — September 21, 2006
Page 19 of 21
inserted into the Code. However, he said it may be a more difficult issue to limit the size of the
vehicle. Mr. Gerber said he was not against basketball courts.
Mr. Gunderman said if the Commission wanted to permit some of this, change in the Code was
needed. Mr. Gunderman said the current position is difficult. He said the world had changed
some since many of Dublin's regulations were originally approved. He said now, there is the
ability to build a third garage that faces the street with the driveway leading to all of the stalls.
He said it is comparable to someone with a two -car garage with a third stall driveway on the
side but no ara e. Mr. Gunderman said that was a comparison that he was not sure they had
g g -
always had to contend with. He said with side - loaded garages, there is even more asphalt and it
y
is not a good comparison. He said it did not seem fair to the person that dust wants that extra
third leg on the side.
Mr. Gerber said the issue had been discussed a few years ago with the Appearance Code as to
how much square footage the garage can be mixed with the whole house. He asked if that
applied to this issue in any way. Mr. Gunderman said he did not think there was a direct
correlation with the Appearance Code. He said they discussed the appearance of garage doors
and made changes in the Appearance Code in terms of garages that face the street. He said he
of that dealt directly with the amount of asphalt in the front yard. Mr. Corwin
did not think any said the Appearance Code deals primarily with recessing garages and the total width of the
He said the general development standards in the Code limit the amount of total lot
garages. .
coverage with everything including the house and the driveway.
Mr. Gerber asked if someone wanted to expand their driveway now, what the procedure was.
Mr. Corwin said the procedure was that the person would come to the office and request it, and
then the Director would decide whether or not to approve it. He said there are no criteria to base
the review upon because the Code is silent on that subject. Mr. Gunderman said that was the
prescribed procedure, but when a teenager decides to drive or people decide to routinely perform
maintenance on their driveway, they widen it by nine feet without a permit issued.
Mr. Gerber said they do not want people to park on the street.
Mr. Walter' suggested a way to regulate this would be to say that the driveway cannot be built out
further than the building was permitted.
Mr. Fishman said he had done this to his driveway because he added a third garage. He said
when he received his building permit, he could only go from the door and he had to come in so
man y feet back. He said he lived in a subdivision where they had even stricter restrictions and
he had to landscape between the driveway and the street. Mr. Fishman would like to see that
driveways do not extend the whole length of the driveway so that it can be landscaped in front.
Ms. Jones said landscaping in front may be a visibility issue for children on the sidewalk as
someone backs out of their driveway. Mr. Fishman said it should not be allowed to come to the
curb.
06- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes — September 21, 2006
Page 20 of 21
Mr. Walter asked wh y there was a difference between building a third bay and not building the
third ba y . y � . He asked why the did not say for a two -car garage, you can have the same amount of
drivewa y that you could have for a three -car garage. Mr. Gerber said you could say that.
Mr. Fishman thought there would be a lot of ugly concrete. Mr. Walter said it was their front
yard and they had another car to park.
Mr. Gerber said when reviewin g the staff report, he thought option 2 was the best because it
p ro vided a little leeway. He suggested they discuss this more at a workshop and see what
parameters staff thinks are appropriate. ro riate Mr. Gunderman said i f the Commission could g 'Ive staff
an idea of a P
couple of options, they could draft something and at another session discuss it in
p
more detail. He said if, for instance Mr. Gerber was saying they want to get rid of all these extra
third ones and if that was the direction they were going, then staff would like to know that.
Mr. Gerber said he could see ermitting it, but at the same time, maybe it was very subjective.
p p
He said it depended upon each location. He said he was very concerned about aesthetics. Mr.
Gerber said he did not want it made so four cars could be parked there, etc. He Wanted to avoid
cars parking on the street. He said if there was adequate landscaping and some creativity to it,
and they were still aware of the boundary lines With adjoining properties, it would be fine. Mr.
Gerber said maybe it should not be a full strip all the way down, it should be a pull -in area.
Mr. Gunderman said b y the time you get to the sidewalk which is on the public right -of -way,
almost all the driveways shown are narrowed because a permit is required when you get onto the
p right-of-way. public ri ht -of -wa . He said that had been pretty consistent; there was only one that seemed to
violate that articular principle. He said the Commissioners could debate whether or not they
P p
liked the appearance when all the widening was done from the sidewalk back. Mr. Fishman said
they Would not let new construction do that.
Mr. Walter said something ould be done where they say they are only allowed as much width as
g
they would to build out the garage like he indicated, and then a percent of landscape to additional
concrete or materials. He said it might be 25 percent more landscape as part of the package. Mr.
Gerber and Mr. Walter agreed that the driveway should not come to the curb. Mr. Fishman said
it should be only one car length so there is room to landscape in front of it. Mr. Walter said he
was not sure where it should be. Mr. Gerber said that would be subject to the Director because
each situation may be different. Mr. Walter suggested that guidance to a percentage would give
y .
the homeowner an idea of how much concrete and landscape material was needed.
Frank Ciarochi said staff reviews about one driveway per week. He said something that he did
not find attractive was where the driveway is bumped out toward the center of the house. He
suggested ested it be kept to the side. Mr. Gerber said the driveway needed to be landscaped and kept
the same width.. Mr. Fishman added that basketball hoops placed in the bump -outs are often
objectionable to the neighbors.
Mr. Ciarochi said staff had an idea of where the Commission wanted them to go. He said staff
would draft something that could be used in the interim.
06- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes — September 21, 2006
Page 21 of 21 .
Mr. Gerber said if the driveway was so short, then perhaps it cannot be done. Mr. Ciarochi said
staff could look at that and some kind of dimension behind the sidewalk. He said if they do not
have sidewalks, then behind the curb. He said it would have to fan out to one space, or if they
cannot fit one and accommodate that, then they have to say it cannot be done.
Mr. Gerber said he thought the driveways they liked were the ones with wider drives. Mr.
Gunderman said many of the drives now are within the 25 -foot setback arrangement.
Mr. Gerber asked if the y needed to table this request. Mr. Corwin said if the Commission
wanted to discuss this at a future workshop, staff had enough information to draft some proposed
regulations He said the direction received appeared to lean in the direction of having some type
of administrative approval with criteria.
Motion and Vote:
Mr. Gerber made a motion to table this Administrative Request with direction to staff to return
with more specific guidelines, pursuant to the discussion tonight. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the
motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Ms. Jones, yes, Mr. Fishman, yes,
Mr. Walter, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 5 -0.)
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
x
F
o ra Roger s an Libby 'arl ey
Administrative Assistants
06- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
Case: 06- 133ADM
Review of Policies Regarding
Residential Driveways
November 9, 2006
L A N D U S E A N D L O N G R A N G E P L A N N I N G
Current Regulations:
§153.071(B)
Lot area and yard space preserved. The lot area and yard space required for a use or
structure shall be maintained during its life and shall not be reduced below the
minimum requirement, occupied by another use or structure or counted as yard
space for any other use or structure.
§153.072(A)(3)
Platted Setback No structure or other use, including iDarkinz shall be located
between the street right -of -way and the platted building line.
r
illr'M TL
Parking not permitted between
ROW line and Building line
Z�0 -c
06- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
Current Regulations:
§153.210(A)
A driveway serving a residential parking area or lot
shall be regulated as follows: parking areas
containing one to eight parking spaces shall have a
minimum width of ten feet. Driveways shall be no
less than three feet from a side lot line or adjacent to
the side lot line where a single common drive is
provided for two adjoining lots. Driveways shall
have a minimum width of ten feet and a
maximum width of 20 feet at the street
right-of-way right-of-wgy line. Driveways shall have a
minimum width of 16 feet and a maximum
width of 26 feet includin two Moot Hairs
one on each side at the curb line. In no case
shall the width of the driveway exceed the
width of the garage entrance. Driveways
exceeding 20 feet in width shall taper in width from
the garage or parking area to the street right -of -way
line. Curb cuts or points of ingress /egress shall be
generally restricted to promote traffic safety, and,
limited to one per single - family residence.
Front - loaded Garages: Parking Within Required Front Yard
Staff believes that the current Code
regulation is not reasonable.
Should the Code be modified to allow
parking on driveways in the front yard?
Building Line
Right -of -Way Lin
Curb Line / _\
U6- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
Front- loaded Garages: Width of Driveway
Staff believes that a driveway wider
than the garage opening is a useful
convenience for residents.
Should the Code be modified to allow
the driveway to be wider than the
opening on a front - loaded garage?
z
Building Line
Right-of-Way Lin
I
Curb Lin
Front - loaded Garages: Parking and Back -out Space
Staff believes that parking and back -out
space should be an option available to
homeowners who can comply with
reasonable rules.
Should the Code be modified to allow
parking and back -out space in addition
to regular driveway width?
Building Line
Right-of-Way Lin
Curb Line
U6- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
Front - loaded Garages: Driveway Addition Location
Staff believes that the location of
driveway additions should be restricted.
Should the Code be modified to restrict
driveway additions only toward the
nearest side property line?
- - _
Right-of-Way Lin
,a orb Line
Front - loaded Garages: Driveway Pavement Setback
Staff believes the existing limitation of
a three -foot setback for pavement from
a side property line is adequate.
Should the Code continue to limit the
pavement setback to three feet?
BLISI'diai r hZIC
Right- of -W Iv Lill
!curb Line
06- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
Front - loaded Garages: Maximum Driveway Width
Staff believes the overall width of a
driveway and any additional pavement
for parking or back -out space should be
limited to a maximum of 30 feet.
Should the Code be modified to restrict
the maximum width of driveway
pavement?
Building I,Nl F
eight -cf W Lin
Curb Line
Front - loaded Garages: Landscaping
Staff believes that some landscaping is
useful if it does not limit visibility.
Should the Code be modified to require
some landscaping when driveway
additions are proposed?
Right -0- Way Litz
Curie Line
06- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
Front - loaded Garages: Pavement beyond C ar e
Staff believes that parking spaces
behind the front facade of the garage
should not be permitted.
Should the Code be modified to limit
driveway pavement beyond the front
facade of front - loaded garages?
Building Line
s
ght -of -way Lin
Curb Line
Side - loaded /Courtyard Garages: Parking Within Required Side Yard
Staff believes that the current Code
regulation is not reasonable.
Should the Code be modified to allow
parking on driveways within the side
yar d?
r �
v
{
4z INI
Building Lip
or
'}
e .._ Right- Un
- Line
06- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
Side-loaded/Courtyard Garages: Parking and Turnaround Keys
Staff believes that parking and
turnaround keys should be an option
available to homeowners who can
comply with reasonable rules.
Should the Code be modified to allow
parking and turnaround keys in addition
to regular driveway width?
Bui I ding Lime
Ri ht-of . y Lin
'or h J �mL
Side-loaded/Courtyard Garages: Driveway Pavement Setback
Staff believes the existing limitation of
a three -foot setback for pavement from
a side property line is adequate.
Should the Code continue to limit the
pavement setback to three feet?
a
Right -Of-Way -Lin.
CuT Line
06- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
Side - loaded Garages: Maximum Driveway Width
Staff believes the overall width of a
driveway and any additional pavement
should be limited to 30 feet.
Should the Code be modified to restrict
the width of pavement beyond the
building line from the face of the garage
to the side property line.
Building 1_mc
Curb 1_�Tic
Courtyard Style Garages: Maximum Driveway Width
Staff believes that some pavement
beyond 30 feet in width would be
appropriate.
Should the Code be modified to restrict
the width of pavement face of a
courtyard -style garage?
3
u i ] ding Line
i; Al
9(1 # -of - Wad" Lin
i. +1, 44,
— Curb Line
Ri gh i.of-W ay L in
0G- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
�x k.
Courtyard Style Garages: Landscaping
Staff believes that some landscaping
forward of the driveway may be
appropriate if it does not limit visibility.
Should the Code be modified to require
landscaping forward of a courtyard -style
driveway.
lhiiIdirog IAe
0
lol l]t- oI- #Iy Lin
Curb Lime
General Regulations: Front Yard Lot Coverage
Staff believes that lot coverage forward
of the building line should be limited to
35 percent.
Should the Code be modified to restrict
lot coverage forward of the building
line?
y,
Building Line
Righi-of-Way Lin
4 =
Curb Line
06- 133ADM
Residential Driveways
General Re Pavement Material
Staff believes that the primar
pavement material should be the same
throu drivewa and drivewa
additions.
Should the Code be modified to restrict
the primar pavement material?
06-133ADM
Residential Driveways
CITY OF DUBLIN_
Land Use and
Long Range Planning
5800 Shier -Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
Phone: 614 -410 -4600
Fax: 614 -410 -4747
Web Site: www.dubkoh.us
PLANNING REPORT
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 15, 2007
SECTION I - CASE INFORMATION:
2. Administrative Request 06- 133ADM — Residential Driveways
Request: Review of City Code and Policies regarding residential driveways.
Staff Contact: Judson J. Rex, Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410- 46541email: jrex@dublin.oh.us.
Case Summary:
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed current Code and policies regarding residential
driveways at the November 9, 2006 work session. Planning asked the Commission a series of
questions intended to generate specific guidelines and criteria for regulating residential
driveways (see November 9, 2006 meeting minutes). In general, a consensus was reached on
each of the issues and the Code has been modified to reflect the Commission's comments. other
amendments are also required to accommodate these changes.
Proposed Modifications:
The Code sections proposed to be modified include 153.002 Definitions, 153.071 Lot and Yard
Space Requirements, 153.072 Building Lines along Pudic Rights-of-way, and 153.210
Driveways. While the most significant modifications pertain to Section 153.210 Driveways,
minor changes to other Code sections were necessary to maintain consistency within the Code.
A brief description of the proposed modifications is listed below and the complete draft
amendments are attached to this report.
• Definitions
§153.002 DEFIjV7T1O1VS
Several additions are included in this Section in order to clarify language related to
residential driveways throughout the Code. A general definition of a garage and the
different types of garages has been provided. Definitions for Curb Line and Driveway
were also added.
• General Development Standards
X153.071 LOTAND YARD SPACE REQUIREMENTS.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Training Workshop -- February 15, 2007
Case No. 06- 133ADM — Page 2 of 3
Minor modifications are proposed to this Section to coordinate with the setback and lot
coverage restrictions proposed in Section 153.210.
§153.072 B UILDING LINES ALONG P UBLIC FIGHTS-OP' WA Y
The revisions to this Section establish a precise definition of a building setback line as it
relates to parking and driveways. The language was clarified in order to ensure that
parking and driveways are the only permitted uses within the front building setback. In
addition, the sub - section associated with sight visibility triangles has been updated to
reflect City Engineering's most recent policy.
• Parking and Loading
§153.210 DRIVE WA YS'
This Section has been revised significantly according to the input that was received at the
Planning and Zoning Commission work session on November 9, 2006. The text has been
organized into six sub- sections in order to provide specific guidelines for each type of
driveway and garage arrangement.
Curb Cuts: The proposed revisions would codify the existing policy of permitting
only one curb cut for each residence but allowing additional curb cuts after review
by the Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning. Criteria for approving
additional curb cuts have been included within this Section.
Front - loaded Garages: Pavement width, setbacks, and landscaping requirements
are included in this Section consistent with the standards the Commission
previously reviewed. The landscaping requirement includes requirements and
standards for the type and size of plant material to be used to soften the
appearance of wider driveways.
Side- loaded Garages: Pavement width and setback requirements have been
included for side - loaded garages consistent with those previously reviewed. In
addition, language was included to treat side - loaded garages on corner lots as
front - loaded garages.
Courtyard -style Garages: Pavement width, setbacks, and landscaping
requirements have been added_ The courtyard area will be required to be screened
from the public right -of -way.
Front Yard Lot Coverage: The previously discussed requirement of 35 percent lot
coverage within the front yard has been included in this Section.
Pavement Mat erial: This Section has been revised to require identical material for
driveway additions. Permitted material for driveways includes asphalt, concrete,
brick, concrete pavers, colored and imprinted concrete, and natural stone pavers
or flagstones.
SECTION II - REVIEW STANDARDS:
Case Procedure:
Code Section 153.232(B) grants the Planning and Zoning Commission the ability to review
"amendments to the zoning map and to the zoning ordinance and recommendation of action to
Council." Planning has drafted amendments to portions of the City Code associated with
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Training Workshop — February 15, Zoo?
Case Igo. 06-- 133ADM — Page 3 of 3
residential driveways. The Commission should review the modifications, provide input where
necessary, and vote on the changes. The draft amendments will then be forwarded to the City
Council for final review and approval.
SECTION III - RECOMMENDATION:
After receiving input from the Commission regarding residential driveways, Planning has drafted
amendments to the Code Sections associated with driveways. The proposed modifications
provide specific criteria for administratively approving additional curb cuts. In addition, the
revisions incorporate appropriate regulations for each type of garage. Planning recommends that
the Commission approve the proposed changes.