40-07 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc Form No 30043
40- 07
Ordinance No. _ Passed
F
L
20
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE SECTION 153.190,
RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS, AND CODE SECTION
153.333 (D) SITE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS, RESIDENTIAL
APPEARANCE STANDARDS (CASE NO. 06- 121ADM)
WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to amend the Code in order to protect
the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, Sections 153.190 and 153.333 (D) of the Dublin Codified Ordinances
contain the required minimum appearance standards for residential development; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Code modification is to review the Residential
Appearance Code and Site Planting regulations based on the practical implementation
of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the design and architectural appearance of residential structures have an
impact on the overall quality of the City's residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to do this in order to ensure that neighborhood
appearance and established community character is consistent with the high quality
image of the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Ordinance on May
17, 2007 and recommends the adoption of the Ordinance because it serves to improve
the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by Council of the City of Dublin, State
of Ohio, _ of the elected members concurring, that:
Section 1 . Section 153.190 is hereby amended and shall provide as follows:
RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE REQUIREMENTS.
(A) Residential appearance. The following findings warrant the need for exterior
appearance requirements for residential development.
(1) The Community Plan recommends promoting a high quality built
environment.
(2) Providing for compliance with appearance regulations will assist in
creating quality development within residential neighborhoods.
(3) Limiting the garage appearance within the front elevation limits the
negative visual impact.
(4) A balance of natural and synthetic building materials allows for design
creativity and promotes quality development.
1
(5) Trim around windows completes the appearance on every elevation.
(6) Placing windows, doors, porches, and other features on each elevation
enhances the visual environment and contributes to the overall
architectural diversity of a neighborhood.
(7) The lack of detailing, architectural features, and trim on elevations
detracts from a dwelling and reduces the visual quality of a
neighborhood.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc Form No 30043
Ordinance No
40-07(Amended) passed
Pag %2
(B) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide design requirements that are
applicable to single, two, and three- family dwelling units. For purposes of this
section, a single, two, and three- family dwelling unit will be defined as a
"house." These requirements are designed to increase the quality of
neighborhoods, to promote positive architectural appearance within residential
areas, to encourage design flexibility and creativity, and to establish an
interesting, aesthetically pleasing residential environment. It is also the intent
of this section to promote durable, quality materials that will allow residential
neighborhoods to endure and mature for future generations in the City.
(1) Minimum requirements. These requirements are minimum appearance
requirements applicable to all houses in all districts, including Planned
Development Districts, except as may be specifically approved in the
Planned Development District ordinance.
(2) Planned Development Districts. Residential appearance objectives for
Planned Development Districts shall be adopted by City Council. These
objectives explain more general intents regarding appearance in order
to allow for creativity in meeting them through the Planned
Development District process. Planned Development District proposals
must demonstrate how the proposal addresses the residential
appearance objectives and replace these minimum requirements.
(C) Applicability.
(1) These requirements shall apply to the construction of all new houses,
unless designated as exempt in Section 153.190 (C)(3).
(2) These requirements shall apply to any addition or alteration of an
existing house constructed in compliance with the regulations of this
section.
(3) Houses in districts described below are exempt or must comply with
these requirements as follows:
(a) Houses located within a planned district approved after the
effective date of this section shall comply with the requirements of
this section, or with specific substitute residential appearance
requirements contained in the adopted planned district ordinance.
These residential appearance requirements shall apply unless
specifically stated substitute requirements are approved in the
planned district ordinance. In the case of absent, or non - specific
requirements in the planned district ordinance, the more restrictive
requirement will apply.
(b) Those houses located within the Architectural Review District or
listed in § 153.170(A) and (B) are exempt from the requirements of
this section. These residential units shall be regulated by the
architectural review section of this Code of Ordinances.
(D) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) BLANK ELEVATION. An elevation that lacks the minimum required
openings and architectural features, such as windows, doors, exterior
chimneys, or other similar architectural features.
(2) CHIMNEY. A structure projecting from the exterior wall of a house
and enclosing or appearing to enclose a flue that carries off smoke. It
may or may not extend vertically to the eaves line or have a
foundation/connection to ground.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc Form No 30043
Ordinance No.
40- 07(Amended)
Passed
Paq
1
1
(a) CANTILEVERED CHIMNEY. A chimney that projects from the
exterior wall and does not have a foundation or extension to the
ground.
(b) SHED -TYPE CHIMNEY. A chimney that does not extend full
height vertically to the eaves line. A shed chimney typically
includes a direct vent outlet in the chimney wall.
(3) CORBEL. A build out of one or more courses of brick or stone from
the face of a wall, traditionally to form a support for timbers.
(4) CORNICE. Overhang of a pitched roof at the eaves line, usually
consisting of a fascia board, a soffit for a closed cornice, and
appropriate moldings.
(5) DIRECT VENT OUTLET. An outlet through an exterior wall
associated with the air supply and /or exhaust of a fire burner. It may or
may not occur in a projecting box /chimney.
(6) DORMER. A window set vertically in a structure projecting through a
sloping roof; also the roofed structure containing that window.
(7) EAVES. The margin or lower part of a roof projecting over the wall.
(8) ELEVATION. A geometric projection of the front, side, or rear outer
surface of a building onto a plane perpendicular to the horizontal; a
vertical projection.
(9) FA (7ADE. The front, sides or rear faces of a building.
(10) FASCIA. A horizontal piece (such as a board) covering the joint
between the top of a wall and the projecting eaves; also called fascia
board.
(11) FRIEZE BOARD. A decorated band along the upper part of an
exterior wall. In house construction a horizontal member connecting
the top of the siding with the soffit of the cornice.
(12) FOUNDATION CLADDING. An aesthetic enhancement to the
foundation concealing exposed portions with an approved material.
(13) GABLE.
(a) The vertical triangular end of a building from cornice or eaves to
ridge.
(b) The similar end of a gambrel roof.
(c) The end wall of a building.
(d) A triangular part of a structure.
1
(14) MASONRY. Natural or natural - appearing stone or brick.
(15) PLINTH. A continuous, usually projecting course of stone or brick
forming the base or foundation of a wall.
(16) PROJECTION. Any component of a structure that extends out from
the main building.
(17) QUOIN. Corner stones that anchor the edge of the building wall or
decorative feature to imitate corner stones, which wrap around the
corner of an elevation and join two abutting walls.
(18) SOFFIT. The exposed undersurface of any overhead component of a
building.
(19) STUCCO. A coarse plaster composed of portland or masonry cement,
sand, and hydrated lime mixed with water and applied in a plastic state
to form a hard exterior covering.
(20) TRIM. The finished woodwork or similar architectural element used to
enhance, border or protect the edges of openings or surfaces, such as
windows or doors.
(21) VINYL SIDING ACCESSORIES. Exterior design elements that serve
to provide more visual interest and complement the primary home
design.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc Form No 30043 1
40- 07(Amended)
Ordinance No. Passed
Pago
(22) WATER TABLE. A projecting brick or stone stringcourse, molding or
ledge placed to divert rainwater from a building.
u
(E) Residential design requirements.
(1) Design requirements. In addition to all applicable zoning and
development requirements, the following design requirements shall
apply as outlined in Section 153.190(C).
(a) Chimneys. All chimneys must extend full height, from ground and
vertically past the eaves line. Cantilevered and shed -type chimneys
are prohibited. Chimneys must be finished in masonry or stucco but
need not match the background wall in material or color.
(b) Finish building materials. Wood board or shake, brick, stone,
cultured stone, fibrous cement siding, stucco, glass block and vinyl
siding are the permitted finish building materials. Asphalt
dimensional shingles, slate, tile, standing seam metal, wood
shingles or shakes are the permitted roof materials.
1
1
1. When a change in materials occurs at corners, the change must
occur at the inside corner unless the masonry on the street -
facing facade extends at least two feet past the outside corner. If
a house has a side gable and a material change occurs on the
outside corner, or if two different materials are used on the
facades of main and upper floors, rather than extending the
materials around the corner, a quoin or minimum 5 I /4 -inch wide
corner board must be used along the vertical length of the non -
masonry corner.
2. The number of materials used as major facades, excluding
fenestration, shall not exceed three materials.
(c) Foundations. There shall be no exposed, unfinished foundation
walls. All exposed foundation concrete or concrete must be
finished with one of the following: brick, veneer brick, stone,
cultured stone designed by the manufacturer for at -grade or below -
grade installation, split face block, cast -in -place brick pattern
concrete, or decorative concrete block.
(d) Four -sided architecture. All sides of a house shall display a high
level of quality and architectural interest. The majority of a
building's architectural features and treatments shall not be
restricted to a single facade. Blank facades are not permitted for any
detached garages or accessory structures. All sides of a house
should be articulated through the use of bays, insets, balconies,
porches, or stoops related to entrances and windows.
(e) For the purpose of four -sided architecture, houses on corner and
through lots have more than one street - facing elevation. Each
elevation must contain at least two design elements, and each street -
facing elevation must contain at least three design elements, in any
combination. Provided further that all of the following must be met:
1. At least one design element must be present in each equal one -
half vertical division of the subject elevation;
2. At least one design element shall occur from the first floor level
to nine feet above the first floor level;
3. If there is any upper wall area greater than 24 feet wide and nine
feet high (measured at nine feet above the first floor level), at
least one design element must be located predominately at least
nine feet above the first floor of that elevation.
4. Acceptable design elements include:
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc Form No 30043
1
Ordinance No.
40- 07(Amended)
Passed
Pag5
a. A door of at least 17 square feet in area.
b. A window at least six square feet in area. A set of adjacent
windows, such as a double or bay window, count as one
design element, however, horizontal bands of immediately
adjacent window units count as one design element for
every horizontal eight feet of run.
c. A chimney located along an exterior elevation.
d. An articulated decorative gable vent of at least four square
feet in area.
e. A porch.
f. A similar significant permanent architectural feature
consistent with the style of the house.
5. Unacceptable design elements include:
a. Foundation cladding.
b. Water tables.
c. Sides of porches.
d. Rooflines.
e. Interior chimneys.
(f) Garage doors. Garages are usually the dominant feature of most
houses when seen from the street. Side - loaded and recessed garages
are encouraged.
1
I
1. Front - loaded garages shall be permitted. A garage is considered
front - loaded when the vehicular access doors are primarily
oriented towards the same street right -of -way or private street as
the front facade of the house. Additionally, a garage is front -
loaded when it is visible from the street and angled less than 60
degrees to the front lot line or street tangent line. The street
front for a corner or through lot is determined by the facade
with the entry or primary elevation of the house.
2. Detached front - loaded garages located more than 22 feet behind
the front -most plane of the house are exempt from the
maximum percentage of elevation requirements. Detached
front - loaded garages 22 feet or less from the front -most plane of
the house shall be calculated within the elevation.
3. All garage doors must meet the following requirements:
a. No single garage door opening shall be wider than 18 feet.
b. No combination of garage door openings shall be wider than
36 feet.
c. A maximum of one 18 -foot wide garage door will be
permitted.
d. Garage door openings shall not be higher than nine feet.
e. Color. The initial installation or replacement of garage doors
must be of a low - contrast color that is the same, or similar in
hue and tonal value, as the primary color of the house.
Garage door trim shall match garage doors or the primary
trim color of the house.
4. Front - loaded garages must meet the following additional
requirements:
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc Form No 30043
40- 07(Amended)
Ordinance No. Passed
Pag&
1
a. Not more than two garage doors may be located on the same
plane. Three and four garage doors must be located on two
different planes with a minimum separation of 16 inches.
b. Garage door openings totaling 18 feet in width or less shall
not make up more than 35% of the linear distance of the
front elevation nor project more than 12 feet from the
adjacent vertical wall plane. Open uncovered porches shall
not be considered a vertical wall plane.
c. Garage door openings totaling more than 18 feet to 36 feet
in width shall not make up more than 45% of the linear
distance of the front elevation nor project more than ten feet
from the adjacent vertical wall plane. Open uncovered
porches shall not be considered a vertical wall plane.
(g) Roof pitch. The main architectural roof of a house must have a
minimum 6:12 pitch. Flat roofs may be permitted, but not as the
main architectural roof. Dormers, porches, and other similar
secondary architectural features may have roofs with a minimum
4:12 pitch. Deep eaves and overhangs are encouraged.
(h) Vinyl homes. Any predominately vinyl -sided home must include
complementary accessories and detailing where vinyl sided
elevations occur, as follows:
F�
1. A detailed main entryway by use of a minimum eight inch wide
three- dimensional door - surround system;
2. Minimum six inch wide frieze or fascia boards; and
3. At least two of the following accessory types must be utilized
per home. The selected accessory type must occur on each
vinyl -sided elevation as indicated on the following table.
Additional accessories may be utilized in addition to the
minimum requirements.
Minimum Accessories
for Vinyl -Sided Homes
Selected Accessory Type Must Occur (At Least)
When the Exterior Wall Elevation is Vinyl
Select Two Accessory Types
Front
Side
Shutter Pairs
x
x
Mantels
x
x
Gingerbread
x
Masonry Water Table and Plinth
x
Gable Vent
x
x
�1
a. Shutter pairs must occur at least on all the single and
doublewide windows of any front and side vinyl -sided
elevations, where wall area permits them. Shutters shall be
full height and at least one -half the width of the single or
one - quarter the width of the double window. Shutters used
to meet the normal window trim requirements may count
towards these requirements.
b. Mantels must occur at least above all windows in front and
side vinyl -sided elevations.
c. Gingerbread. A set of gingerbread decorations such as
cornices, corbels, columns, or similar three- dimensional
elements must occur at least in the front vinyl -sided
elevation, and shall occur in a consistent arrangement and
according to style of the home.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc Form No 30043
40- 07(Amended) Pag 7
Ordinance No. Passed . �0_
e
1
1
d. Masonry water table and plinth must occur at least along the
front - facing fagade of the vinyl -sided house. The height of
this feature shall be at least two feet as measured from
grade.
e. Gable vents must be articulated decorative gable vent(s) of
at least four square feet in area and occur in at least the
front, or side of vinyl -sided elevations.
(i) Windows. Shutters or trim will be required with all windows on any
elevation.
a. Shutters shall be sized to fully cover the window and shall
be operable or appear as such, and utilize appropriate shutter
hardware including s -clips and hinges. Shutters shall be
louvered, raised or flat paneled or board and batten and
made of painted wood, vinyl, painted synthetic, PVC or
Hardiplank.
b. Trim shall be required when shutters are not used. Trim
shall include either a top and bottom finish of soldier course,
rowlock, lintel or sill; or a minimum 3 -1/2 -inch board
around all sides of the window.
(2) Building material specifications. Unless otherwise specified, all
permitted building materials must be manufactured and built to industry
standards and must have a minimum 30 -year life expectancy.
(a) Vinyl. All vinyl materials must have a minimum thickness of 44
mils, and must be applied over minimum one -half inch thick
oriented strand board or plywood. The siding must have a low-
gloss finish. All vinyl must be properly installed according to the
manufacturer's specifications to prevent warping or separation.
(b) Asphalt dimensional shingles. Asphalt dimensional shingles must
be a 25 -year "true" dimensional shingle. Painted shadows are not
permitted. Shingles must have a minimum weight of 240 pounds
per 100 square feet and be installed according to the manufacturer's
specifications.
(c) Garage doors. Garage doors must be of a durable material that does
not sag, warp, deteriorate, or de- laminate under normal use and
weather conditions. Materials such as particle board or Masonite
are prohibited.
(Ord. 59 -03, passed 11 -3 -03)
Section 2 . Section 153.333(D) is hereby amended and shall provide as follows:
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.
(D) Additional Site Landscaping Requirements. All new developments, regardless
of type, and all alterations or expansions to existing developments, shall
provide site landscaping in addition to any previously required perimeter
landscaping. Site landscaping shall consist primarily of new tree planting or
the preservation of existing trees or hedges within the development site.
(1) Preservation of wooded areas: Efforts shall be made to preserve
natural vegetation areas. Streets, lots, structures and parking areas shall
be designed to avoid the unnecessary destruction of heavily wooded
areas or outstanding tree specimens. Whenever possible, heavily
wooded areas may be designated as park reserves. (Refer to §§ 153.140
- 153.148 Tree Preservation.)
(2) Site planting requirements.
(a) Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to provide landscaping to
enhance the appearance and customer attraction of commercial and
industrial areas, to enhance the architectural character and
aesthetics of residential neighborhoods, and to enhance the beauty
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc Form No 30043
Ordinance No.
1
1
I
40-07(Amended)
Passed
Pag5
of the city. This section pertains to additional landscaping located
around the building and other portions of the site. It does not
include landscape material that has been provided to fulfill the
planting requirements for interior landscaping, vehicular use area
perimeters, property perimeters, and street trees.
(b) For all new development the following landscape requirements
shall apply:
Lot Width
Requirement
Use
Up to 59.9 feet
R -4, R -10, R -12,
There shall be tree plantings equal to one -inch in tree trunk size for every
and PUD Districts
300 square feet or fraction thereof in ground coverage by a multi - family
60 -90.9 feet
structure.
1 medium tree plus 1 small tree
There shall be landscaped areas equal to 2% of the building ground
Business and
coverage area, or fraction thereof. Landscaped areas shall contain trees,
Community
planting beds, hedges, fences, walls, earth mounds, benches or other
Shopping (per lot)
materials designed and located in a manner complementary to the
architecture of surrounding buildings.
Office -
There shall be tree plantings equal to one inch in tree size for every 1,500
Institutional
square feet of building round coverage, or fraction thereof.
Industrial
There shall be tree plantings equal to one inch in tree size for every 2,000
square feet of building round coverage, or fraction thereof.
Front yard trees are required on every single family lot at the quantity and
size specified in the following table. The trees to be planted shall be an
approved front yard tree as listed in Appendix H (Approved Front Yard
Single Family
Trees for Dublin, Ohio) and have a minimum truck caliper of no less than
2 inches. Trees shall be located in front of or along any front- facing fagade
of the home, no closer than three feet to a side property line. Corner and
through lots shall meet these requirements on all street frontages.
Lot Width
Front Building Setback
Tree Size and Quantity
Up to 59.9 feet
Less than 20 feet
1 small tree
20 feet or more
1 medium tree
60 -90.9 feet
Less than 20 feet
1 medium tree plus 1 small tree
20 feet or more
1 large tree plus 1 medium tree
91 feet or more
Less than 20 feet
1 large tree plus 2 trees of any size
20 feet or more
2 large tree plus 1 tree of any size
(c) Parking lots: See division (B) of this section.
(d) New tree plantings shall not be required if the aggregate trunk sizes of
existing trees meet or exceed the requirements set forth in this chapter
and providing that the trees are evenly distributed throughout the
developed area and not confined either to dense clusters or to the
perimeter of the developed area. A tree preservation plan to include
location of tree fencing, fertilization and pruning techniques, and utility
placement must be submitted. The minimum tree size for existing trees
shall be no less than two inches in trunk diameter. Trees to be preserved
shall be subject to review by the Director of Land Use and Long Range
Planning or a designee.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc Form No 30043
1
G
1
40- 07(Amended) Pag 9
Ordinance No. Passed �0
Appendix H
Approved Front Yard Trees for Dublin, Ohio
Scientific name Common name
Large Trees (50 ft. or greater)
Acer x freemani
Acer platanoides
Acer rubrum
Acer saccharum
Carpinus caroliniana
Celtis laevigata
Celtis occidentalis
Cercidiphyllum japonicum
Eucommia ulmoides
Ginkgo biloba
Gymnocladus dioicus
Lyquidamber styraciflua
Liriodendron tulipifera
Metasequoia glyptostroboides
Platanus x acerifolia
Quercus bicolor
Quercus coccinea
Quercus imbricaria
Quercus macrocarpa
Quercus muehlenbergii
Quercus phellos
Quercus rubra
Quercus shumardii
Taxodium distichum
Tilia tomentosa
Ulmus x spp
Ulmus parvifolia
Zelkova serrata
Medium Trees (30 -50 ft.)
Acer campestre
Acer truncatum
Betula platyphylla var. japonica
Betula nigra
Carpinus betulus `Fastigiata'
Cladrastis lutea
Corylus colurna
Crataegus phaenopyrum
Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis
Halesia carolina
Koelreuteria pan iculata
Nyssa sylvatica
Phellodendron amurense
Prunus sargentii
Pyrus spp.
Quercus acutissima
Styphnolbium japonicum
Tilia americana Redmond'
Small Trees (10 -30 ft.)
Acer buergerianum
Acer ginnala
Freeman Maple
Norway Maple
Red Maple
Sugar Maple
American Hornbeam
Sugar Hackberry
Hackberry
Katsura Tree
Hardy Rubber Tree
Ginkgo (male forms only please)
Kentucky Coffeetree
Sweetgum
Tuliptree, Yellow Poplar
Dawn Redwood
London Planetree
Swamp White Oak
Scarlet Oak
Shingle Oak
Bur Oak
Chinkapin Oak
Willow Oak
Red Oak
Shumard Oak
Baldcypress
Silver Linden
Hybrid Elm
Lacebark Elm
Japanese Zelkova
Hedge Maple
Purpleblow Maple
Whitespire, Heritage Birch
River Birch
Upright European Hornbeam
American Yellowwood
Turkish Filbert
Washington Hawthorn
Thornless Honeylocust
Carolina Silverbell
Goldenraintree
Black Gum
Amur Corktree
Sargent Cherry
Pear
Sawtooth Oak
Japanese Pagodatree
Redmond Linden
Trident Maple
Amur Maple
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank. Inc Form No 30043
Ordinance No
1
1
40-07(Amended)
Passed
Acer tataricum
Amelanchier canadensis
Amelanchier x grandifolia
Amelanchier laevis
Chionanthus retusus
Chionanthus virginicus
Cornus kousa
Cornus mas
Crataegus crusgalli `Crusader'
Crataegus punctata var. inermis
Crataegus viridis
Malus species
Ostrya virginiana
Prunus serrulata
Prunus virginiana
Syringa reticulata
Pag5
Tatarian Maple
Shadblow Serviceberry
Apple Serviceberry
Allegheny Serviceberry
Chinese Fringetree
White Fringetree
Kousa Dogwood
Corneliancherry Dogwood
Crusader Hawthorn
`Ohio Pioneer' Hawthorn
`Winter King' Hawthorn
Crabapple
American Hophornbeam
`Kwanzan' Cherry
`Canada Red Select' or `Schubert' Cherry
Japanese Tree Lilac
i. Clump form and multi -stem trees are permitted. Minimum height requirement
at installation: medium and large trees = 12 -feet; small trees = 8 -feet.
ii. Cultivars shall meet mature height parameters. Trees not listed must be
approved by Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning or designee.
iii. Evergreen trees are not permitted.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect on the earliest date provided by law.
Passed this day of , 2007.
L
Mayor — Presiding Officer
ATTEST:
Clerk of Council
1
CrrY OF DUBLIN_
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1006
Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490
Memo
TO: Members of City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
DATE: June 27, 2007
INITIATED BY: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning
Summary
RE: Ordinance 40 -07, Amending Code Section 153.190 Residential Appearance Standards and
Code Section 153.333 (D)(2)(b) Site Planting Requirements. (Residential Appearance
Standards Case No. 06- 121ADM).
Ordinance 40 -07, a request for Code modification to Section 153.190 Residential Appearance
Requirements and Section 153.333(D) Site Planting Requirements, was introduced at the June 18, 2007
Council meeting. Members of City Council discussed the proposed modifications to the Code and
requested additional information.
Foundation Cladding Sample
The proposed Code includes the use of decorative concrete block as one of the approved foundation
cladding materials. Council requested a sample of the material, which will be provided at the July 2,
2007 Council meeting. Photographs of the material sample and its use on existing homes are also
included in this packet (see attached photos).
Front - loaded Garages
The proposed Code limits the garage doors openings to 45 percent of lineal distance of the front
elevation for three- and four -car, front - loaded garages. Council questioned whether this provision
would create a front elevation of the house that is dominated by the garage door openings when a four -
car, front - loaded is used. The 45 percent remained unchanged from its original use for three -car, front -
loaded garages, as it would make the construction of a four -car, front - loaded garage more difficult.
Council also inquired about the number of four -car, front - loaded garages recently approved. Since the
implementation of the Appearance Code in December 2004, no four -car, front - loaded garages of the 719
residential permits were approved or constructed.
Window Shutters
The proposed Code states that shutters shall be full height and at least one -half the width of a single or
one quarter the width of a double window. Council discussed the addition of detailed language within
the Code to require full size shutters that are more architecturally integrated into the design of the home.
Planning has provided a revised version of this section of the Appearance Code for Council's review and
discussion (see attached revision).
Recommendation
Approval of Ordinance 40 -07 at the second reading /public hearing on July 2, 2007.
Proposed Window Trim and Shutter Revisions
Current Proposal
(i) Windows. Shutters or trim will be required with all windows on any
elevation. Shutters shall be full height and at least one -half the width of a
single or one quarter the width of a double window. Trim shall be required
when shutters are not used. Trim shall include either a top and bottom finish
of soldier course, rowlock, lintel or sill; or a minimum 3 board around
all sides of the window.
Potential Modification
(i) Windows. Shutters or trim will be required with all windows on any
elevation.
a. Shutters shall be sized to fully cover the window and shall be operable or
appear as such, and utilize appropriate shutter hardware including s -clips
and hinges. Shutters shall be louvered, raised or flat paneled or board and
batten and made of painted wood, vinyl, painted synthetic, PVC or
Hardiplank.
b. Trim shall be required when shutters are not used. Trim shall include
either a top and bottom finish of soldier course, rowlock, lintel or sill; or a
minimum 3 board around all sides of the window.
f it
Decorative Concrete Block Sample
CITY OF DUBLIN_
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway - Dublin, OH 43017 -1006
Phone: 614- 410 -4400 - Fax: 6144104490
Memo
TO: Members of City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Managers
DATE: June 14, 2007 21 3
INITIATED BY: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning
RE: Ordinance 40 -07, Amending Code Section 153.190 Residential Appearance Standards
and Code Section 153.333 (D)(2)(b) Site Planting Requirements. (Residential
Appearance Standards Case No. 06 -121 ADM).
Summary
The purpose of this Code modification is to review the Residential Appearance Code and Site
Planting regulations based on the practical implementation of the Code by Planning. This request
pertains to Section 153.190 Residential Appearance Requirements and Section 153.333(D) Site
Planting Requirements. The most significant modifications pertain to the applicability of the
Appearance Code, foundation cladding and window trim requirements, and front yard tree
requirements.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the current Code and the proposed modifications at
work sessions on February 15, 2007 and May 3, 2007. Planning asked the Commission a series of
questions regarding specific topics within the current Appearance Code in order to generate
guidelines for updating the Residential Appearance Code and Site Planting requirements.
Consensus was gained among the Commission members on each topic and the Code was modified
to reflect the Commission's comments. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval to City Council at the May 17, 2007 regular meeting. The Record of Action and minutes
from the work sessions and meeting have been included with this memo.
The public hearing/second reading of this ordinance will be scheduled for July 2, 2007.
Recommendation
Planning recommends that Ordinance 40 -07 be approved at its public hearing/second reading on
July 2, 2007.
ALL NEW TEXT IN BLUE
153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE REQUIREMENTS.
(A) Residential appearance. The following findings warrant the need for exterior
appearance requirements for residential development.
(1) The Community Plan recommends promoting a high quality built
environment.
(2) Providing for compliance with appearance regulations will assist in
creating quality development within residential neighborhoods.
(3) Limiting the garage appearance within the front elevation limits the
negative visual impact.
(4) A balance of natural and synthetic building materials allows for design
creativity and promotes quality development.
(5) Trim around windows completes the appearance on every elevation.
(6) Placing windows, doors, porches, and other features on each elevation
enhances the visual environment and contributes to the overall
architectural diversity of a neighborhood.
(7) The lack of detailing, architectural features, and trim on elevations detracts
from a dwelling and reduces the visual quality of a neighborhood.
(B) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide design requirements that are
applicable to single, two, and three - family dwelling units. For purposes of this
section, a single, two, and three- family dwelling unit will be defined as a "house."
These requirements are designed to increase the quality of neighborhoods, to
promote positive architectural appearance within residential areas, to encourage
- design flexibility and creativity, and to establish an interesting, aesthetically
pleasing residential environment. It is also the intent of this section to promote
durable, quality materials that will allow residential neighborhoods to endure and
mature for future generations in the city.
(1) Minimum requirements. These requirements are minimum appearance
requirements applicable to all houses in all districts, including Planned
Development Districts, except as may be specifically approved in the
Planned Development District ordinance.
(2) Planned Development Districts. Residential appearance objectives for
Planned Development Districts shall be adopted by City Council. These
objectives explain more general intents regarding appearance in order to
allow for creativity in meeting them through the Planned Development
District process. Planned Development District proposals must
demonstrate how the proposal addresses the residential appearance
objectives and replace these minimum requirements.
(C) Applicability.
(1) These requirements shall apply to the construction of all new houses,
unless designated as exempt in Section 153.190 (C)(3).
(2) These requirements shall apply to any addition or alteration of an existing
house constructed in compliance with the regulations of this section.
(3) Houses in districts described below are exempt or must comply with these
requirements as follows:
(a) Houses located within a planned district approved after the effective
date of this section shall comply with the requirements of this section,
or with specific substitute residential appearance requirements
contained in the adopted planned district ordinance. These residential
appearance requirements shall apply unless specifically stated
substitute requirements are approved in the planned district ordinance.
In the case of absent, or non - specific requirements in the planned
district ordinance, the more restrictive requirement will apply.
(b) Those houses located within the Architectural Review District or listed
in § 153.170(A) and (B) are exempt from the requirements of this
section. These residential units shall be regulated by the architectural
review section of this Code of Ordinances.
(D) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) BLANK ELEVATION. An elevation that lacks the minimum required
openings and architectural features, such as windows, doors, exterior
chimneys, or other similar architectural features.
(2) CHIMNEY. A structure projecting from the exterior wall of a house and
enclosing or appearing to enclose a flue that carries off smoke. It may or
may not extend vertically to the eaves line or have a
foundation/connection to ground.
(a) CANTILEVERED CHIMNEY. A chimney that projects from the
exterior wall and does not have a foundation or extension to the
ground.
(b) SHED -TYPE CHIMNEY. A chimney that does not extend full height
vertically to the eaves line. A shed chimney typically includes a direct
vent outlet in the chimney wall.
(3) CORBEL. A build out of one or more courses of brick or stone from the
face of a wall, traditionally to form a support for timbers.
(4) CORNICE. Overhang of a pitched roof at the eaves line, usually
consisting of a fascia board, a soffit for a closed cornice, and appropriate
moldings.
(5) DIRECT VENT OUTLET. An outlet through an exterior wall associated
with the air supply and /or exhaust of a fire burner. It may or may not occur
in a projecting box/chimney.
(6) DORMER. A window set vertically in a structure projecting through a
sloping roof; also the roofed structure containing that window.
(7) EAVES. The margin or lower part of a roof projecting over the wall.
(8) ELEVATION. A geometric projection of the front, side, or rear outer
surface of a building onto a plane perpendicular to the horizontal; a
vertical projection.
(9) FA('ADE. The front, sides or rear faces of a building.
(10) FASCIA. A horizontal piece (such as a board) covering the joint between
the top of a wall and the projecting eaves; also called fascia board.
(11) FRIEZE BOARD. A decorated band along the upper part of an exterior
wall. In house construction a horizontal member connecting the top of the
siding with the soffit of the cornice.
(12) FOUNDATION CLADDING. An aesthetic enhancement to the
foundation concealing exposed portions with an approved material.
(13) GABLE.
(a) The vertical triangular end of a building from cornice or eaves to
ridge.
(b) The similar end of a gambrel roof.
(c) The end wall of a building.
(d) A triangular part of a structure.
(14) MASONRY. Natural or natural- appearing stone or brick.
(15) PLINTH. A continuous, usually projecting course of stone or brick
forming the base or foundation of a wall.
(16) PROJECTION. Any component of a structure that extends out from the
main building.
(17) QUOIN. Corner stones that anchor the edge of the building wall or
decorative feature to imitate corner stones, which wrap around the corner
of an elevation and join two abutting walls.
(18) SOFFIT. The exposed undersurface of any overhead component of a
building.
(20) STUCCO. A coarse plaster composed of portland or masonry cement,
sand, and hydrated lime mixed with water and applied in a plastic state to
form a hard exterior covering.
(21) TRIM. The finished woodwork or similar architectural element used to
enhance, border or protect the edges of openings or surfaces, such as
windows or doors.
(22) VINYL SIDING ACCESSORIES. Exterior design elements that serve to
provide more visual interest and complement the primary home design.
(23) WATER TABLE. A projecting brick or stone stringcourse, molding or
ledge placed to divert rainwater from a building.
(E) Residential design requirements.
(1) Design requirements. In addition to all applicable zoning and development
requirements, the following design requirements shall apply as outlined in
Section 153.190(C).
(a) Chimneys. All chimneys must extend full height, from ground and
vertically past the eaves line. Cantilevered and shed -type chimneys are
prohibited. Chimneys must be finished in masonry or stucco but need
not match the background wall in material or color.
(b) Finish building materials. Wood board or shake, brick, stone, cultured
stone, fibrous cement siding, stucco, glass block and vinyl siding are
the permitted finish building materials. Asphalt dimensional shingles,
slate, tile, standing seam metal, wood shingles or shakes are the
permitted roof materials.
1. When a change in materials occurs at corners, the change must
occur at the inside corner unless the masonry on the street - facing
facade extends at least two feet past the outside corner. If a house
has a side gable and a material change occurs on the outside
corner, or if two different materials are used on the facades of main
and upper floors, rather than extending the materials around the
corner, a quoin or minimum 5 `/ -inch wide corner board must be
used along the vertical length of the non - masonry corner.
2. The number of materials used as major facades, excluding
fenestration, shall not exceed three materials.
(c) Foundations. There shall be no exposed, unfinished foundation walls.
All exposed foundation concrete or concrete must be finished with one
of the following: brick, veneer brick, stone, cultured stone designed by
the manufacturer for at -grade or below -grade installation, split face
block, cast -in -place brick pattern concrete, or decorative concrete
block.
(d) Four -sided architecture. All sides of a house shall display a high level
of quality and architectural interest. The majority of a building's
architectural features and treatments shall not be restricted to a single
facade. Blank facades are not permitted for any detached garages or
accessory structures. All sides of a house should be articulated
through the use of bays, insets, balconies, porches, or stoops related to
entrances and windows.
(e) For the purpose of four -sided architecture, houses on corner and
through lots have more than one street - facing elevation. Each elevation
must contain at least two design elements, and each street - facing
elevation must contain at least three design elements, in any
combination. Provided further that all of the following must be met:
a
1. At least one design element must be present in each equal one -half
vertical division of the subject elevation;
2. At least one design element shall occur from the first floor level to
nine feet above the first floor level;
3. If there is any upper wall area greater than 24 feet wide and nine
feet high (measured at nine feet above the first floor level), at least
one design element must be located predominately at least nine
feet above the first floor of that elevation.
4. Acceptable design elements include:
a. A door of at least 17 square feet in area.
b. A window at least six square feet in area. A set of adjacent
windows, such as a double or bay window, count as one design
element, however, horizontal bands of immediately adjacent
window units count as one design element for every horizontal
eight feet of run.
c. A chimney located along an exterior elevation.
d. An articulated decorative gable vent of at least four square feet
in area.
e. A porch.
f. A similar significant permanent architectural feature consistent
with the style of the house.
5. Unacceptable design elements include:
a. Foundation cladding.
b. Water tables.
c. Sides of porches.
d. Rooflines.
e. Interior chimneys.
(f) Garage doors. Garages are usually the dominant feature of most
houses when seen from the street. Side - loaded and recessed garages
are encouraged.
i . Front- loaded garages shall be permitted. A garage is considered
front - loaded when the vehicular access doors are primarily
oriented towards the same street right -of -way or private street as
the front fagade of the house. Additionally, a garage is front - loaded
when it is visible from the street and angled less than 60 degrees to
the front lot line or street tangent line. The street front for a corner
or through lot is determined by the fagade with the entry or
primary elevation of the house.
2. Detached front - loaded garages located more than 22 feet behind
the front -most plane of the house are exempt from the maximum
percentage of elevation requirements. Detached front- loaded
garages 22 feet or less from the front -most plane of the house shall
be calculated within the elevation.
3. All garage doors must meet the following requirements:
a. No single garage door opening shall be wider than 18 feet.
b. No combination of garage door openings shall be wider than 36
feet.
c. A maximum of one 18 -foot wide garage door will be
permitted.
d. Garage door openings shall not be higher than nine feet.
e. Color. The initial installation or replacement of garage doors
must be of a low- contrast color that is the same, or similar in
hue and tonal value, as the primary color of the house. Garage
door trim shall match garage doors or the primary trim color of
the house.
4. Front - loaded garages must meet the following additional
requirements:
a. Not more than two garage doors may be located on the same
plane. Three and four garage doors must be located on two
different planes with a minimum separation of 16 inches.
b. Garage door openings totaling 18 feet in width or less shall not
make up more than 35% of the linear distance of the front
elevation nor project more than 12 feet from the adjacent
vertical wall plane. Open uncovered porches shall not be
considered a vertical wall plane.
c. Garage door openings totaling more than 18 feet to 36 feet in
width shall not make up more than 45% of the linear distance
of the front elevation nor project more than ten feet from the
adjacent vertical wall plane. Open uncovered porches shall not
be considered a vertical wall plane.
(g) Roof pitch. The main architectural roof of a house must have a
minimum 6:12 pitch. Flat roofs may be permitted, but not as the main
architectural roof. Dormers, porches, and other similar secondary
architectural features may have roofs with a minimum 4:12 pitch.
Deep eaves and overhangs are encouraged.
(h) Vinyl homes. Any predominately vinyl -sided home must include
complementary accessories and detailing where vinyl sided elevations
occur, as follows:
1. A detailed main entryway by use of a minimum eight inch wide
three- dimensional door - surround system;
2. Minimum six inch wide frieze or fascia boards; and
3. At least two of the following accessory types must be utilized per
home. The selected accessory type must occur on each vinyl -sided
elevation as indicated on the following table. Additional
accessories may be utilized in addition to the minimum
requirements.
Minimum Accessories
for Vinyl -Sided Homes
Selected Accessory Type Must Occur (At Least)
When the Exterior Wall Elevation is Vinyl
Select Two Accessory Types
Front
Side
Shutter Pairs
x
x
Mantels
x
x
Gingerbread
x
Masonry Water Table and Plinth
x
Gable Vent
x
x
a. Shutter pairs must occur at least on all the single and
doublewide windows of any front and side vinyl -sided
elevations, where wall area permits them. Shutters shall be full
height and at least one -half the width of the single or one-
quarter the width of the double window. Shutters used to meet
the normal window trim requirements may count towards these
requirements.
b. Mantels must occur at least above all windows in front and side
vinyl -sided elevations.
c. Gingerbread. A set of gingerbread decorations such as
cornices, corbels, columns, or similar three - dimensional
elements must occur at least in the front vinyl -sided elevation,
and shall occur in a consistent arrangement and according to
style of the home.
d. Masonry water table and plinth must occur at least along the
front - facing fagade of the vinyl -sided house. The height of this
feature shall be at least two feet as measured from grade.
e. Gable vents must be articulated decorative gable vent(s) of at
least four square feet in area and occur in at least the front, or
side of vinyl -sided elevations.
(i) Windows. Shutters or trim will be required with all windows on any
elevation. Shutters shall be full height and at least one -half the width
of the single or one - quarter the width of the double window. Trim
shall be required when shutters are not used. Trim shall include either
a top and bottom finish of soldier course, rowlock, lintel, or sill; or a
minimum 3' /Z -inch board around all sides of the window.
(2) Building material specifications. Unless otherwise specified, all permitted
building materials must be manufactured and built to industry standards
and must have a minimum 30 -year life expectancy.
(a) Vinyl. All vinyl materials must have - a minimum thickness of 44 mils,
and must be applied over minimum one -half inch thick oriented strand
board or plywood. The siding must have a 1 ow -gloss finish. All vinyl
must be properly installed according to the manufacturer's
specifications to prevent warping or separation.
(b) Asphalt dimensional shingles. Asphalt dimensional shingles must be a
25 -year "true" dimensional shingle. Painted shadows are not permitted.
Shingles must have a minimum weight of 240 pounds per 100 square
feet and be installed according to the manufacturer's specifications.
(c) Garage doors. Garage doors must be of a durable material that does
not sag, warp, deteriorate, or de- laminate under normal use and
weather conditions. Materials such as particle board or Masonite are
prohibited.
(Ord. 59 -03, passed 11 -3 -03)
§ 153.133 MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.
(D) Additional Site Landscaping Requirements. All new developments, regardless of
type, and all alterations or expansions to existing developments, shall provide site
landscaping in addition to any previously required perimeter landscaping. Site
landscaping shall consist primarily of new tree planting or the preservation of
existing trees or hedges within the development site.
(1) Preservation of wooded areas: Efforts shall be made to preserve natural
vegetation areas. Streets, lots, structures and parking areas shall be designed
to avoid the unnecessary destruction of heavily wooded areas or outstanding
tree specimens. Whenever possible, heavily wooded areas may be designated
as park reserves. (Refer to §§ 153.140 - 153.148 Tree Preservation.)
(2) Site planting requirements.
(a) Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to provide landscaping to enhance
the appearance and customer attraction of commercial and industrial areas,
to enhance the architectural character and aesthetics of residential
neighborhoods, and to enhance the beauty of the city. This section pertains
to additional landscaping located around the building and other portions of
the site. It does not include landscape material that has been provided to
fulfill the planting requirements for interior landscaping, vehicular use
area perimeters, property perimeters, and street trees.
(b) For all new development the following landscape requirements shall
apply:
Use
Requirement
R11, R -10, R -12, and
There shall be tree plantings equal to one -inch in tree trunksize for
every 300 square feet or fraction thereof in ground coverage by a
PUD Districts
multi-family structure.
There shall be landscaped areas equal to 2% of the building ground
Business and Community
coverage area, or fraction thereof. Landscaped areas shall contain
trees, planting beds, hedges, fences, walls, earth mounds, benches or
Shopping (per lot)
other materials designed and located in a manner complementary to
the architecture of surrounding buildings.
There shall be tree plantings equal to one inch in tree size for every
Office - Institutional
1.500 square feet of building round coverage, or fraction thereof.
There shall be tree plantings equal to one inch in tree size for every
Industrial
2,000 square feet of building round coverage, or fraction thereof.
Front yard trees are required on every single family lot at the
quantity and size specified in the following table. The trees to be
planted shall be an approved front yard tree as listed in Appendix H
Single Family
(Approved Front Yard Trees for Dublin, Ohio) and have a minimum
truck caliper of no less than 2 inches. Trees shall be located in front
of or along any front - facing fapade of the home, no closer than three
feet to a side property line. Corner and through lots shall meet these
requirements on all street fronta es.
9
Lot Width
Up to 59.9 feet
Front Building Setback
Less than 20 feet
Tree Size and Quantity
1 small tree
20 feet or more
1 medium tree
Less than 20 feet
L medium tree plus 1 small tree
60 -90.9 feet
20 feet or more
1 large tree plus 1 medium tree
Less than 20 feet
l large tree plus 2 trees of any size
91 feet or more
20 feet or more
2 large tree plus 1 tree of any size
(c) Parking lots: See division (B) of this section.
(d) New tree plantings shall not be required if the aggregate trunk sizes of
existing trees meet or exceed the requirements set forth in this chapter and
providing that the trees are evenly distributed throughout the developed
area and not confined either to dense clusters or to the perimeter of the
developed area. A tree preservation plan to include location of tree fencing,
fertilization and pruning techniques, and utility placement must be
submitted. The minimum tree size for existing trees shall be no less than
two inches in trunk diameter. Trees to be preserved shall be subject to
review by the Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning or a
designee.
H
§ 153.190
CURRENT APPEARANCE CODE STANDARDS
finds that the decision is contrary to law_ In the event that the Board of Zoning Appeals does not affirm
the decision of the Board, it may reverse, remand or modify such decision of the Board and shall state
the reasons therefore in the minutes of its meetings and shall forward a copy of such minutes to the
Board_ -
(B) Any party to the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals may appeal the decision of the Board
of Zoning Appeals- Such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a written statement setting forth the
grounds for the appeal with the Clerk of Council within 30 days of the decision of the Board of Zoning
Appeals_ Council shall affirm the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals unless it finds that the
decision is contrary to law_ In the event that Council does not affirm the decision of the Boardof Zoning
Appeals, it may reverse, remand, or modify such decision and shall state the reasons therefore -
('80 Code, § 1191.22) (Ord_ 25 -93, passed 9- 13 -93)
REStDEIMAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS
§ 153.00 RESIDENT[AL APPEARANCE STANDARDS.
(A) Residential appearance_ The following Findings warrant the need for exterior appearance
standards for residential development_
(l) The Community Plan recommends promoting a high quality built environment.
(2) Providing for compliance with appearance regulations will assist in creating quality
development within residential neighborhoods.
(3) Limiting the garage appearance the front elevation limits the negative visual impact_
(4) A balance of natural and synthetic building materials allows for design creativity and
promotes quality development.
(5) Trim around windows completes the appearance on every elevation.
(6) Placing windows, doors, porches, and other features on each elevation enhances the visual
environment and contributes to the overall architectural diversity of a neighborhood_
(7) The lack of detailing, architectural features, and trim on elevations detracts from a house
and reduces the visual quality of a neighborhood_
(B) Purpose- The purpose of this section is to provide design standards that are applicable to one,
two, and three - family dwelling units. For purposes of this section, a one, two, and three - family dwelling
unit will be considered a "house -" These standards are designed to increase the quality of
neighborhoods, to promote creativity and positive architectural appearance within residential areas, to
encourage design flexibility and creativity, and to establish an interesting, aesthetically pleasing
2004S-14
300
06- 121ADM
Residential Appearance Standards
CURRENT APPEARANCE CODE STANDARDS
Zoning Regulations § 153.190
residential environment_ It is also the intent of this section to promote durable, quality matetials that will
allow residential neighborhoods to endure and mature for future generations in the city_
(l) Minimum standards_ These standards are minimum appearance standards applicable to all
houses in all districts, including Planned Development Districts, except as may be specifically approved
in the Planned Development District ordinance.
(2) Residential appearance objectives for Planned Development Districts_ Residential
appearance objectives for Planned Development Districts shall be adopted by City Council_ These
objectives explain more general intents regarding appearance in order to allow for creativity in meeting
them through the Planned Development District process_ Planned Development District proposals must
demonstrate how the proposal addresses the residential appearance objectives and should replace these
minimum standards_
(3) Scheduled review - for update_ Within 12 months of the effective date, the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall review the residential appearance standards and residential appearance
objectives for Planned Development Distracts for updating as necessary to continue to meet the needs of
the city_
(C) Applicability_
(t) These standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a 25%
expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration_
(a) A significant exterior alteration is a change in roofline, adding or removing windows
or doors, altering projections and recesses. or changing the exterior building materials
(b) These standards will apply to only the expansion area of the house or the exterior
alteration and will not require the entire house to come into compliance with these regulations.
(2) Houses within spacial districts de.cribed belum, arc czecapt or must comply «ith these
standards as follows:
(a) Those houses located within a planned district that is approved after the effective date
of this section shall comply with these residential appearance standards, or with specific substitute
residential appearance standards contained in the adopting planned district ordinance_ These residential
appearance standards shall apply unless specifically stated substitute standards are approved in the
planned district ordinance_ In the case of absent, or non - specific standards in the planned district
ordinance, the more restrictive standard will apply
(b) Those houses located within a planned district that was approved poor to the effective
date of these residential appearance standards shall be exempt from these residential appearance
standards for a period of twelve months after the effective date of this section. After tilts exemption
period, those houses located within a previously approved planned district shall comply with these-
standards to the degree that the subjects of these start.dards were not specifically addressed in the
previously approved
;00 _k
2004S-14
06 -121 ADM
Residential Appearance Standards
CURRENT APPEARANCE CODE STANDARDS
§ 153.190 Dublin - Land Usage
planned district ordinance_ [a the case o f absent or non -sped fic standards, the more restrictive standard
will apply_
(c) Those houses located within the Architectural Review District or listed in §
153.170(A) and (B) are exempt_ These residential units shall be regulated by the architectural review
section of this Code of Ordinances_
(3) Any building permit application for interior alterations to existing houses or any
application requesting only plumbing or electrical permits is exempt from this section.
(4) All houses for which building permit applications have been submitted at the time of the
effective date of this section are exempt from the requirements of this Code_
(D) Definitions_ For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply=
(1) BLANK ELEVATION_ An elevation that lacks openings and architectural features such as
windows, doors, chimneys, water tables, or other similar architectural features_
(2) CHIMNEY_ For the purposes of these standards, a
structure projecting from the exterior wall of a house and enclosing or
appearing to enclose a flue that carries off smoke_ [t may or may not
extend vertically to the eaves line or have a, foundation/connection to -
ground_ _
(3) CHIMNEY, CANTILEVERED- "Cantilevered" refers to
the characteristic that the chimney projects from the exterior wall and does not
have a foundation or extension to ground_
(4) CHIMNEY, SHED- TYPE. "Shed- type" refers to the characteristic
7 .
that the chimney does not extend full height vertically to the eaves line. r -
(5) A shed chimney -typically include~ a direct "ent outict in the -
chimney wall_ Shed -type chimney
(6) CORBEL. To build out one or more courses of brick or stone from the face of a wall,
traditionally to form a support for timbers_
(7) CORNICE- Overhang of a pitched roof at the eaves hne, usually consisting of a fascia
board, a soffit for a closed cornice, and appropriate moldings_ -
(8) DIRECT VENT OUTLET_ For the purposes of these
standards, an outlet through an exterior wall associated with the air
supply and/or exhaust of a fire burner. It may or may not occur in a
Projecting box/chimney-
(9) DORMER_ A window set vertically in a
structure projecting through a stopmg roof, also: the roofed
structure containing such a window-
JOOA
• •i
:E
Direct
vent
L�
Dormer t•.Aves
06 -121 ADM
Residential Appearance Standards
CURRENT APPEARANCE CODE STANDARDS
Zoning Regulations § 153.190
(l0)EA VES The margin or lower part of a roof projecting over the wall.
(II)ELEVATION- A geometric projection of the front, side, or rear outer surface of a building
onto a 1p ane perpendicular to the horizontal a vertical projection-
(t
2)FACADE. The front of a building or any of its sides or rear faces.
(l3)FACING. An ornamental layer, such as the outer wythe of a masonry wall_
(t4)FASCIA. A horizontal piece (such as a board) covering the joint between the top o f a wall
and the projecting eaves also called fascia board.
(15)FRIEZE BOARD_ A decorated band along the upper part of an exterior wall. [n house
construction a horizontal member connecting the top of the siding with the soffit of the cornice_
(l6)GABLE.
(a) The vertical triangular end of a building from comice or eaves to ridge_
(b) The similar end of a gambrel roof.
(c) The end wall of a building.
(d) A triangular part of a structure_
Gable
(17)1Yt,4S0.JVRY_ Natural or rtatural- appeactng stone or brick_
(18)PROJECTION. Any component of a structure that juts out from the main building.
(19)SOFFIT- The exposed tindersurtace of any overhead component of a building-
(20)STREET- FACING GARAGE DOOR(S)- Garage door which is visible from the street and
is less than 60 degrees to the front lot line or street tangent line. A comer or through lot has one such
street front, which the entry or primary elevation of the house faces-
(2t)TRIM The finished woodwork or similar architectural element used to enhance, border
or protect the edges of openings or surfaces, such as windows or doors_
(22)VINYL SIDING ACCESSORIES_ Exterior design elements that serve to provide more
visual interest and complement the primary home design.
Jr
Door Surround Mantel Decorative Gable Vents Dentil Windows and
Shutte - Molding Corner Trims
2004 S -14 z00B
06- 121ADM
Residential Appearance Standards
CURRENT APPEARANCE CODE STANDARDS
§ 153. l90 Dublin - Land Usage
(23) WA TE'R TABLE. Courses of brick or stone projecting beyond the face of the exterior wall,
typically from grade to first floor bearing or window sill, as a design element and/or to guide water
away From the face of the wall- Such feature should be predominately at least 24 inches high above
grade and located on at least the front elevation of the pridtary house forms, including walls
projecting street -ward.
300C
2004S-14 06- 121ADM
Residential Appearance Standards
CURRENT APPEARANCE CODE STANDARDS
§ 153.190 Dublin - Land Usage
(E) Residential design standards_
(l) Design standards_ In addition to all applicable zoning and development standards, the
following design standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a 25%
expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration_
(a) Chimneys_ All chimneys must extend full height, from ground and vertically past the
eaves line. Cantilevered chimneys are prohibited_ Shed -type chimneys are prohibited Chimneys must be
Finished in masonry or stucco. It need not match the background wall in material or color_
(b) Finish building materials_ Wood board, brick, stone, cultured stone, fibrous cement
siding, stucco, glass block and vinyl siding are the permitted finish building materials_ Asphalt
dimensional shingles, slate, tile, standing seam metal, wood shingles or shakes are the permitted roof
materials_
l _ When a change in materials occurs at corners, the change should occur at the
inside corner. if a material change does occur at the outside corner, then the material on the street- facing
facade trust extend at least two feet past the outer corner_ If a house has a side gable and a material
change occurs on the outside comer, rather than extending the materials around the corner, a quoin or
minimum 3Y: inch wide comer board must be used down the length of both faces of the comer_
2. The number of materials used as major facades, excluding fenestration, shall not
exceed three materials-
3 _ Foundations_ Exposed foundations shall be finished in masonry. The permitted
construction shall have no more than tv!o foundation - facing materials
(c) Four -sided architecture. All sides of a house shall display a level of quality and
architectural interest The majority of a building' architectural features and treatments shall not be
restricted to a single facade Fronts of houses -should be articulated through the use of bays, insets,
balconies, porches, oc stoops related (Q citttaacc, and v utdows For the purpose of four -sided
architecture, houses on comer and through lots hake more than one street- facing elevation- Each
elevation must contain at least two design elements, and each street- facing elevation must contain at
least three design elements, in any combination_ Provided further all of the following tests are met:
There exist, at least one design elernent in each equal one -half vertical division of
the subject elevation;
2. At least one design element occurs between the first floor level and nine feet
above the first floor level
3- If any upper wall area greater than 24 feet wide and nine feet high (measured at
nine feet above the first floor level) occurs, at least one design element must be located predominately at
least nine feet above the first floor in that elevation_
300D
2004S-14
06 -121 ADM
Residential Appearance Standards
CURRENT APPEARANCE CODE STANDARDS
Zoning Regulations § 1 S3. i90
4- Design elements include=
a_ A door of at least l7 square feet in area-
b- A window at least six square feet in area_ A set of adjacent windows, such as
a double or bay window, count as one design element, however, horizontal bands of immediately
adjacent window units count as one design element for every eight feet of run-
c- A chimney_
d. An articulated decorative gable vent of at least four square feet in area-
e_ A water table. Such feature should be predominately at least 24 inches high
above grade and located on at least the front elevation of the primary house forms, including walls
projecting street -ward_
E A similar significant permanent architectural feature consistent with the style
of the house_
(d) Garage doors, street - facing- Garages are usually the dominant feature of most houses
when seen from the street_ Side - loaded and recessed garages are encouraged. For the purpose of
determining street - facing garage doors, comer and through lots have one such street front, which the
entry or primary elevation of the house faces- Detached street - facing garages located more than 22 feet
behind the 6ront -most -plane of the house structure are exempt from the maximum percentage of
elevation standards- Detached street- facing garages 22 feet or less from the front -most plane of the house
structure shall be calculated within the elevation. Street- facing garage doors must meet the following
standard
No single garage door opening shall exceed two car widths or l8 feet-
No combinatton o t garage dooropentngs tray exceed three car widths or a total of
26 feet
Garage doors shall be recessed or set forward of adjacent garage doors at least 16
inches
4- Garage door openings may not exceed nine feet in height-
5_ Garage door openings totaling two or less car widths shall not constitute more
than 35% of the linear distance of the front elevation nor project more than 12 feet from the- adjacent
vertical wall plane- Open uncovered porches shall not be considered a vertical wall plane-
6_ Garage door openings totaling three car widths shall not constitute more than 45%
of the linear distance of the front elevation nor project more than ten feet from the adjacent vertical wall
plane_ Open uncovered porches shall not be considered a vertical wall plane-
2004S-14
300E
06- 121ADM
Residential Appearance Standards
CURRENT APPEARANCE CODE STANDARDS
§ t53-190 Dublin - Land Usage
7. Color_ The initial installation or replacement of street - facing garage doors must be
of a low - contrast color that is the same, or similar in hue and tonal value, as the primary color of the
house. Garage door trim is to match garage doors or the primary trim color of the house_
(e) Roof pitch. The main architectural roof of a house must have a minimum 6.12 pitch.
Flat roofs maybe permitted, but not as the main architectural roof. Dormers, porches, and other similar-
secondary architectural features may have roofs with a minimum 4.12 pitch. Deep eaves and overhangs
are encouraged.
(f) Vinyl homes_ Any predominately vinyl -sided home must include complementary
accessories and detailing where vinyl sided elevations occur, as follows_
L A detailed main entryway by use of a minimum eight -inch wide three- dimensional
door - surround system
2_ Minimum six inch wide frieze or fascia boards and
3_ At least two of the following accessory types must be utilized per home_ The
selected accessory type must occur on each vinyl -sided elevation as indicated with an ")C'- Accessories
may be utilized in addition to the minimum.
MINIMUM ACCESSORIES FOR
VI/VYL -SIDED IfOMES
Select Two Accessory Types-
a) Shutter Pairs
b) Mantels
c) Gingerbread
d) Masonry Water Table
SELECTED ACCESSORY TYPE MUST
OCCUR (AT LEAST) WMEN THE EXTERIOR
WALL ELEVATION IS VINYL
Front
K
X
x
X
e) Gable Vent x
! Stdc tt.:ir
X
X
X I x
a_ Shutter pairs_ Must occur at least on all the single and doublewide windows
of any front and side vinyl -sided elevations, where wall area permits them. Shutters shall be full height
and at least one -half the width of the single or one - quarter the width of the double window. Shutters
being used to meet the normal window trim requirements may count towards these requirements-
b_ Mantels- Must occur at least above all windows in front and side vinyl -sided
elevations
30OF
2004S-14
06 -121 ADM
Residential Appearance Standards
CURRENT APPEARANCE CODE STANDARDS
Zoning Regulations § 153 -200
c- Gingerbread- A set of gingerbread decorations such as cornices, corbels,
columns, or similar three - dimensional elements must occur at least in the front vinyl -sided elevation,
provided they occur in a consistent arrangement and according to style of the home-
d- Masonry water table- Must occur at least in the dominate walls of the front
vinyl -sided elevation and street -ward projections there from_
e. Gable vents_ Must be articulated decorative gable vent(s) of at least four
square feet in area and occur in at least the front, rear or side vinyl -sided elevations.
(g) Windows- Shutters or trim will be required around all windows within any elevation
constructed of vinyl, stucco, wood, or fibrous cement siding. Shutters shall be frill height and at least
one -half the width of the single or one - quarter the width of the double window. Trim must be at least
3.5 inches in width. Special brick detailing, such as soldier course or rowlock, will be used on the top
and bottoms of windows within a back elevation. Windows within an elevation constructed of stone or
cultured stone will use lintels and sills to create a "trim" on the top and bottom of the windows_
(2) Building material specifications- Unless otherwise specified, all permitted building
materials must be manufactured and built to industry standards and must have a minimum 30 -year life
expectancy_
(a) Vinyl_ All vinyl materials must have a minimum thickness of 44 mils, and must be,
applied over minimum one -half inch thick oriented strand board or plywood The siding must have a
low -gloss finish_ All vinyl crust be properly installed to prevent warping or separation_
(b) Asphalt dimensional shingles_ Asphalt dimensional shingles must be a 25 -year "true"
dimensional shingle. Painted shado« s are tint pcnnittcd. These slim must hake -I minimum weight of
240 pounds per square and an exposure that is no more titan 5 -5/8 inches in length_
(c) Garage doors, street - facing. Garage doors must be of a durable material that does not
sag, ti4aq), deteriorate, or dc- tattuttate undo ttunual use and ktcatltct cmidittons Materials such as
particle board or i/lasonite are prohibited.
(Ord. 59 -03, passed It -3 -03)
F- STREET PARK NG AND L0 --WLVG
§ 153.200 FlNtTIONS.
For the purpose of this subch r, the following definitions shall y unless the context clearly
indicates or requires a diffe meaning_
A[SLE_ T portion of the off- street parkin loading area that provides act o parking,
stackin oading spaces, exclusive of driv ys and parking and loading spat inimum aisle
2004S-14
3 0OG
06 -121 ADM
Residential Appearance Standards
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.dublin.oh.us
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
MAY 17, 2007
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
1. Residential Appearance Standards
06- 121ADM
Administrative Request
Request: Review and approval of modifications to Code Section
153.190 Residential Appearance Standards and Code
Section 153.333 (D)(2)(b) Site Planting Requirements.
Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planner.
MOTION: To approve this Administrative Request to modify Code Sections 153.190 and
153.333, as requested in the revised draft ordinance.
VOTE: 7-0.
RESULT: This Administrative Request to modify Code Sections 153.190 Residential
Appearance Standards and 153.333(D)(2)(b) Site Planting Requirements was
approved as presented in the draft ordinance and in the presentation. It will be
forwarded to City Council with an approval recommendation.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
f
Gary'P. Gunderman
Planning Manager
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
DRAFT Meeting Minutes — May 17, 2007
Page 3 of 9
1. Residential Appearance Standards — Administrative Request
06- 121ADM
Rick Gerber said the Commissioners discussed this at the work session a couple of weeks ago
and staff took their comments and has brought them back to the Commission for approval.
Mr. Gunderman said he needed clarification only on a couple of items that changed. He said all
the items Planning presented previously and the Commission agreed with had been included in
this draft, and he would not make any remarks about them. He said the first point of clarification
is related to finish building material and the placement of a wider board down the corner of the
house when two different finishes come together. He said the trim board is generally called a lx
6. He said the Code was revised to six inches because the Commission said six inches in the
discussion, but in reality a lx 6 is actually 5% or 5 1 /4 inches wide. He said if the Commission is
content with the typical 1x6 board the language would be changed to a minimum width of 5 1 /4
inches. Mr. Zimmerman confirmed that was what was meant. Mr. Gerber said that was fine.
Mr. Gunderman said there was a long discussion regarding foundations which concluded with
the top two courses requiring cladding. He said typically a course would be related to a course
of concrete block, which would be eight inches in height. He said at the work session the
Commission identified that the top two courses be clad, which would be 16 inches. He said that
is a little more foundation than most of the houses typically reveal. He said Planning wanted to
clarify whether the Commission wanted the 16 inches. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the intent
was the top 16 inches would be finished but not necessarily seen. Mr. Fishman agreed and said
the Commission was trying to limit what can be seen. Mr. Gunderman said the language would
need to be revised based on this clarification.
Mr. Gunderman said the work session discussion regarding approved materials for foundation
cladding resulted in three or four options. He said following the work session Planning
discussed with the inclusion of additional materials that were similar to the original options. One
of the additions is a new product and is a cultured stone that can be installed at or below grade
and does not void the manufacturers' warranty. Mr. Gunderman said that in addition to the
options of real brick or preformed decorative block, a thin brick attached to the concrete were
also added. He said the biggest change was adding the option of putting in the cast- in- place-
brick pattern concrete wall. He verified that all these options as drafted were agreeable with the
Commission. The Commission agreed with the additional materials.
Mr. Gunderman said a change discussed at the work session regarding vinyl siding states that it
could be installed according to manufacturer specifications, but the language requiring a half -
inch board underneath the siding was put back into the Code.
Mr. Gunderman said the front yard tree requirements and approved tree list were discussed at the
work session. He said the Commission decided that in order for existing trees to count towards
the front yard tree requirement they must be a minimum of 2.5 caliper inches. He said
discussion with Dublin's landscaping staff identified that the tree survivability is frequently
better with 2 inch caliper trees and the variety of trees available is greater at this size. He said
the draft Code reflects the change to 2 -inch caliper trees. The Commissioners generally agreed
with this change.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes —May 17, 2007
Page 4 of 9
DRAFT
Motion and Vote:
Mr. Gerber made the motion to forward this request to City Council with a favorable
recommendation with the one addition discussed earlier. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion,
and the vote was as follows: Mr. Walter, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes;
Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 7 —
0) Mr. Gerber thanked Mr. Gunderman, Planning, and the Commissioners for all their patience
and input.
PLANNING REPORT
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 17, 2007
SECTION I - CASE INFORMATION:
1. Residential Appearance Standards
Administrative Request
Case Number: 06- 121ADM
Request: Review possible modifications to Code Section 153.190
Residential Appearance Standards and Code Section 153.333(D)
Site Planting Requirements.
Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planner.
Update:
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this case at the May 3, 2007 Work Session and
requested further modifications to the Appearance Code and Landscape Code. The Codes have
been revised to reflect the feedback provided by the Commission. This report deals only with
these changes. In keeping with the original approach of involving the Building Industry
Association (BIA) in the creation of the Appearance Code, Planning has provided the BIA with a
copy of this revision. Any correspondence received will be forwarded to the Commission.
Case Summary:
The Residential Appearance Code was first approved by City Council on November 3, 2003.
The approved ordinance states that the Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the
residential appearance standards for updating as necessary. This request for modifications
pertains to Section 153.190 Residential Appearance Code and Section 153.133(D) Site Planting
Requirements. Attached to this report is a draft of the proposed modifications and Planning
recommends that the Commission recommend approval to City Council.
Modifications:
Applicability
The existing Code requires that houses requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a
significant exterior alteration comply with the appearance standards. A significant exterior
alteration is defined as changing a roofline, adding or removing windows or doors, altering
projections and recesses, or changing the exterior building materials. Previous discussion with
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2007 Planning Report
Case No. 06- 121ADM
Page 2 of 4
the Planning and Zoning Commission centered on the clarification of a significant alteration and
the difficulty in determining when a nonconforming structure should comply with the Code for
the entire building.
The Commission decided that buildings constructed prior to the adoption of the Appearance
Code that are expanded or altered will not be required to comply with the Code. The discussion
centered on the fact that in these instances the intent for high quality architectural is not met
when only the addition must comply. In addition, the Commission stated that it was neither
practical nor fair to require that the entire house comply with the Appearance Code.
Accordingly, the Code has been modified to apply only to the construction of new homes and
any addition or alteration of a home already complying with the Appearance Code.
Finish Building Materials
The Code states that when a material change occurs at the outside corner of a house the material
must be wrapped at least two feet past the corner. At the Work Session, Planning stated that this
requirement creates an undesirable aesthetic when two different materials are used for each floor.
Planning modified the Code to include that under these circumstances, a minimum 3% -inch wide
corner board should be required along the length of the corner. The Commission agreed with
the modification to require a corner board in these circumstances, but requested that a 6 -inch
wide board be used instead of a 3V2-inch board.
Foundation
The Code requires that exposed foundations be finished in masonry. Planning outlined the
proposed modifications, which stated that all finish building materials that expose four inches or
less of the foundation do not require foundation cladding, and all finish building materials that
expose more than four inches of the foundation would require foundation cladding. The
modification clarified that the foundation cladding could be of masonry construction or cultured
stone.
At the Work Session, the Commission directed Planning to simplify the foundation cladding
requirements and modify the Code to state that the top two courses of foundation or 16 inches,
measured from grade, must be finished in brick, stone, split face block or cast -in -place brick
pattern concrete. In addition to these materials, Planning has added veneer brick, cultured stone
designed by the manufacturer to be installed at or below - grade, and decorative concrete block as
other options for foundation cladding.
Four -sided Architecture
The Code requires at least three design elements on elevations facing a street and two design
elements for all other elevations. Specific architectural features qualify as a design element. At
the Work Session the Commission agreed that foundation cladding, water tables, sides of
porches, rooflines, and interior chimneys were to be eliminated as approved design elements.
Garage Doors
The Code states that no combination of garage door openings may exceed three car widths or a
total of 26 feet. Based on previous discussions the Commission agreed to allow a combination
of garage door openings totaling four car widths or 36 feet, and to include that only one double-
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2007 Planning Report
Case No. 06- 121ADM
Page 3 of 4
loaded door would be permitted when three and four garages are proposed. In addition, the
garage door portion of the Code was modified to apply to all garage doors.
Window
The Code requires shutters or 3 %a -inch trim around all windows on an elevation constructed of
vinyl, stucco, wood, or fibrous cement siding. Windows on a brick elevation are required to be
finished with a soldier course or rowlock. Lintels and sills are required for windows on an
elevation of stone or cultured stone. Planning noted these requirements do not always
accommodate the diversity of architectural styles found in some single- family neighborhoods.
At the Work Session, the Commission agreed to a revision that allows shutters or any trim option
with any building finish. A further clarification was added to ensure that the trim would be
placed on the top and bottom of the window when soldier course, rowlock, lintel or sill is used
and around all sides of the window when 3 %2 -inch board is used.
Vinyl Siding
The Code requires that vinyl materials must have a minimum thickness of 44 mils and be applied
over minimum one half -inch thick oriented strand board or plywood. At the Work Session,
Planning recommended that this requirement be replaced with language requiring that vinyl
materials be installed according to both the manufacturer's specifications. The Commission
directed Planning to retain the original language, which stated that vinyl siding must be applied
over minimum one -half inch thick oriented strand board or plywood.
Site Planting Requirements
As part of the adoption of the Appearance Code, the Landscaping Code was modified to require
that a minimum number of trees be planted on single - family lots based on minimum lot width
and a minimum of seven feet from the side property line. The Commission agreed with
proposed modifications to base the required number and size of front yard trees on lot width and
depth, and to reduce the side property line requirement to three feet. A list of approved front yard
tree species was added.
The Commission also directed that existing trees count toward with the front yard tree
requirement when it measures at least 2%2 caliper inches, which is consistent with the street tree
requirement. The City's Landscape Inspectors and Landscape Architect have recommended that
this be reduced to 2 inches to increase tree survival and establishment following transplant, and
to allow for a wider of variety of trees to be used. The recommendation extends to the planting
of new trees as well.
Additional Modifications
In addition to the proposed changes discussed at the February Work Session, Planning has made
additional modifications to the Appearance Code regulations. These modifications include
additional definitions, clarification of terms within individual paragraphs, and grammatical
corrections.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2007 Planning Report
Case No. 06-121 ADM
Page 4 of 4
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." The Commission should review the modifications, provide input where necessary, and
vote on the changes. The draft amendments will then be forwarded to City Council for final
review and approval.
Purpose and Goals:
Code Section 153.190 (A) and (B) detail the purpose and goals for the creation of the Residential
Appearance Standards. These goals should be considered when discussing the issues mentioned
above.
(A) Residential Appearance. The following findings warrant the need for exterior
appearance standards for residential development.
(1) The Community Plan recommends promoting a high quality built
environment.
(2) Providing for compliance with appearance regulations will assist in creating
quality development within residential neighborhoods.
(3) Limiting the garage appearance within the front elevation limits the negative
visual impact.
(4) A balance of natural and synthetic building materials allows for design
creativity and promotes quality development.
(5) Trim around the windows completes the appearance on every elevation.
(6) Placing windows, doors, porches, and . other features on each elevation
enhances the visual environment and contributes to the overall architectural
diversity of a neighborhood.
(7) The lack of detailing, architectural features, and trim on elevations detracts
from a house and reduces the visual quality of a neighborhood.
(B) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide design requirements that are
applicable to one, two, and three - family dwelling units. For purposes of this section, a
one, two, and three- family dwelling unit will be considered a "house." These
requirements are designed to increase the quality of neighborhoods, to promote
creativity and positive architectural appearance within residential areas, to encourage
design flexibility and creativity, and to establish an interesting, aesthetically pleasing
residential environment. It is also the intent of this section to promote durable, quality
materials that will allow residential neighborhoods to endure and mature for future
generations in the city.
SECTION III — PLANNING OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION:
In Planning's opinion, the proposed modifications to the current Appearance Code Standards and
the Site Planting Requirements meet the purpose and goals outlined by the Appearance Code.
Planning recommends that the Commission recommend approval of the proposed changes to
City Council.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 3, 2007 Work Session Minutes
Page 7 of 18
Mr. Phillaba> said the project wil a cXhe ur ases: Data Collecti and Analysis,
= ic In ,Real Estate and M et Anentatton of Findings. e explained how
p se would be conduc , and thation the final mar assessment finding
wil a presented to Cit ouncil. He e R evitalizatio lan is brought bac o
tinning. Commissto a results of tsessment a the public input be
incorporated.
Mr. Langwo y said this project w address the privat of the Dist t and what the
Z d and private sectors c i do to promote he irict.
recalle that t local businesses in e Franklin, Tennesse tstoric area had hat � develop tl) i own sign package, c. to help their busi ses needs and also at
that with the city's j ective to be more h` oric with a certain t e.
Mr. Langwo y said it was hope that the business o ers and operators wx use this as an
opportun' to find common g nd. He said he th ght it would be ver valuable since the
assess ent is conducted by outside source.
r. McCash asked h this study took into ccount the Request Proposals that the y had
issued for the no est corner of Brid and High Streets, what the timeline s for that
project. He al asked if the analysi would consider any 'gher density reside 'al usage and
how that mi t affect the local ec omy of Historic Du ' . Mr. Phillabaum d that it will be
consider in the study. Mr. L gworthy said the con tants realize this is que area.
M._ Langworthy assure at this Z�p,-- clude prior to real ivity happening wit he
design of the project.
Mr. Gerber sat e hoped that nicould be c sidered, and suggest th at it could
deviate fro he vernacular that is ted in several of the newer fill projects.
> r-Xalter sZbaum e of architecture s being continued ong SR 161 with t
gapes at Ring center. Mr. rber said he did not port that project.
Mr. Gerber thm an said it was a good j . He said he looke orward to receiving the y.
4. Residential Appearance Standards - Administrative Request
Case Number: 06- 121ADM
Jennifer Rauch said the proposed modifications to the Residential Appearance Code, as well as
the site planting requirements within the Landscape Code reflect the discussion at the February
Work Session, as well as, input gained from Planning during their practical implementation of
these Code Sections. She said in addition to the more significant content changes within the
Code, changes were made to the definitions, clarifications were made within individual
paragraphs, and any grammatical errors were corrected. She said the format of this presentation
will be similar to previous Code revision presentations, providing a slide for each topic and
allowing for comment from the Commission.
Applicability
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 3, 2007 Work Session Minutes
Page 8 of 18
Ms. Rauch said the current Code requires that houses requesting a 25 percent. expansion or
alteration of the livable area, or significant exterior alteration must comply. She said a
significant alteration was termed as a roofline change or the addition or subtraction of windows.
She stated that at the February Work Session, the Commission was asked if the Code should be
,changed to allow for some discretion by the Director, as well as, if the percent of square feet of
expansion or alteration should be increased before compliance was required with this Code. Ms.
Rauch said a result of the previous Work Session discussion was the 25 percent significant
alteration did not result in high quality architecture. She said based on that discussion, Planning
looked at creating another method for meeting the intent of the Appearance Code. She said the
applicability is now divided into three classifications. The first classification is new
construction, which is exactly like the current Code in that all new construction will be required
to comply with the Appearance Code. She said the second classification is continued
compliance which means that any alteration or expansion to a structures that currently meet the
Appearance Code, must continue to comply with the Code. Ms. Rauch said the third
classification is non - conforming, which meant that any structure that currently does not meet the
Appearance Code is now considered non - conforming and any expansion or increase of the area
of total facade below the roofline by more than 70 percent will require that the entire house come
into compliance.
Ms. Rauch said Planning's reason for this change was based on the fact that the current Code
only applies to a 25 percent expansion of the square footage of livable area and only the addition
needs to comply with the Appearance Code. She said the current Code is circumvented, and they
were not meeting the intent of high- quality architecture outlined in the Appearance Code. She
said the proposed modification applies to a 70 percent expansion of the total facade below the
roofline, which would result in the whole house having to comply. Planning thought this would
help more successfully met the intent.
Tom McCash asked if 70 percent of the facade area would be replacing siding or painting. Mr.
Gunderman said it would not be painting, but apply to the replacement the siding, windows, or
remodeling. Mr. McCash asked if replacing windows like for like in the same size would require
that the entire house be brought up to the Architectural Appearance Standard. Mr. McCash said
in his neighborhood, almost every house had all of its siding replaced due to the hailstorm. He
asked if they would be told to bring the house up to the Architectural Appearance Standards, and
add windows and other architectural treatments to it. Steve Langworthy said if it was a
hailstorm, it was an Act of God which meant they would not have to comply. Mr. McCash asked
if then, 60 to 70 percent of Dublin's housing stock was non - conforming now. Mr. Langworthy
said for this particular type, yes.
Chris Amorose Groomes asked the intent of the proposed Code. Mr. Langworthy said this was
just a change in the measure.
Mr. Walter said he thought their intent was talking about room additions and things like that.
Mr. Fishman agreed. He said looking at a facade, adding a sunroom on the front. Mr.
Langworthy said that was part of the problem they identified to Planning was that now there is
25 percent of the house and that is the only part that has to comply, and now they have to comply
with four -sided architecture, for 70 percent of the house.
Mr. Walter said if that was followed and a sunroom was added, that was not 70 percent of the
facade. He said the sunroom and whole facade did not have to comply.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 3, 2007 Work Session Minutes
Page 9 of 18
Mr. Langworthy asked the Commission what they would rather see. Mr. Gerber asked for
comments from the Commissioners.
Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested some disclosures or exceptions with respect to siding
replacing or upgrading from siding to cedar.
Mr. Langworthy said the key element was what triggered the change and to what extent did that
change have to be. He agreed that an Act of God would be in a separate category.
Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested replacement versus remodel. Mr. Gerber said he thought
things like replacement of vinyl siding or cedar were excluded.
Ms. Husak said Planning's intent was an expansion or increase and not replacement.
Mr. McCash read the bullet point — Expansion or increases in the area of the total fagade below
the roofline. He asked how you changed the area of the walls below the roofline if you do not
change the roofline.
Ms. Rauch said that the language spoke to an expansion or increase, not a change. Mr. McCash
said replacing siding was not expanding or increasing the area of the fagade. Ms. Rauch agreed.
Mr. Langworthy asked if there were a fagade of 1,000- square -feet existing and an addition was
added that expanded it to 1,800 square feet (80 percent), would then the other 1,000 square feet
have to be brought into compliance, plus the 800 square feet. Mr. Walter asked what was being
called a fagade. Mr. Langworthy said it was defined in the ordinance as an exterior wall of the
home. He asked what triggered the change and to what extent does that change have to take
place.
Mr. Walter read the definition for facade: The front of a building or any of its sides or rear faces.
Mr. McCash said if the addition met the Appearance Code provisions; the existing house is left
alone unless the siding is being replaced as part of the addition. He said when placing all the
Appearance Code requirements on the existing home, the layout of the floor plan may not work.
Mr. Langworthy asked if the Commission wanted Planning to write a regulation that at some
point requires the entire home to be brought up to Code. Mr. McCash said no, and gave the
addition on the back of Donato's Pizza in Historic Dublin as a perfect example. He asked if an
addition was done on the back, would the front have to be torn down so that it all looks the same.
Mr. Langworthy said that was a basic policy question that the Commission needed to answer.
Mr. Gerber said the Commission did not want to change these homes. He said if there are any
changes, they will have to be a large percentage. Mr. Fishman and Ms. Amorose Groomes
agreed that 70 percent was a lot.
Mr. Fishman said he thought they were trying to avoid for example, a larger vinyl -sided addition
on a brick house that met Code looking nothing like the rest of the house.
Ms. Husak said Historic District Guidelines require additions to not make it seem as though they
match the house. She said it was intended to make certain that they look like additions and not
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 3, 2007 Work Session Minutes
Page 10 of 18
like the original building to keep the integrity of the original building intact. She said that would
most likely be allowed today.
Mr. Fishman suggested making the new addition conform with the rest of the house more than
saying that the addition has to conform with the present -day Code.
Mr. Langworthy said if the current house is in compliance, and an addition is built, that addition
also has to be in compliance.
Mr. Walter said that 68 percent was a huge amount of the house that would be non - conforming
and maybe the number is too high, and suggested a 40 percent range.
Mr. McCash asked if an addition and modifications could be divided between two years to meet
Code. Mr. Langworthy said that was identified as a problem with the current Code.
Mr. Walter suggested that if the number was kept at 70 percent, and if you went over, the rest of
the house would have conform, but if you went under 70 percent, you have to make the addition
match the house.
Mr. Gerber said the basic premise last time was that they wanted the addition to conform,
however if they were backing off that, it was fine.
Mr. McCash said he thought upgrading the existing house when there is an addition to it made no
sense.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she agreed with Mr. McCash. She said she did not know how it
could be expected for them to go back and change the original structure. She said that would
really be causing a hardship on those individuals.
Mr. Langworthy said that was the direction needed if that was what they were interested in
doing.
Mr. Fishman said he thought they wanted to make sure that the addition is compatible and blends
with the house materials. He did not think all the siding on the house needed to be changed, but
the Code should require that the new siding matches the old siding or at least be determined
compatible by Planning.
Mr. Walter recalled being shown pictures where doors and windows were changed and
discussing those types of changes at the work session, and he said now they were talking about
doubling the size of the house and what do they do about that.
Mr. Gunderman said there are two sections of the current Code and one is just what Mr. Walter
was talking about which was very ill- defined. He said they felt like they needed to either get rid
of it, or do something to make it functional. He said the current Code was 25 percent, which
they had discussed as well.
Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested a design review board could make the decision. Mr. Gerber
asked under what criteria would the determination be made. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 3, 2007 Work Session Minutes
Page 1 l of 18
would probably have to be a minimum square foot addition. Mr. McCash suggested it be done
the same way the architecture on final development plans come before the Commission. Mr.
Langworthy said they could deal with that, but a house by house was not practical. Mr. Gerber
said from a policy standpoint, he did not think that was where the Commission wanted to go.
Mr. Fishman said as the community ages there will be additions and the houses are close
together in Dublin and the neighbors will look at these additions that not only blend with their
houses, but also the neighbors. He said they needed to come up with a compromise.
Mr. McCash asked how to deal with issues when the Residential Building Code complicates it as
far as percentage of openings you can have in windows, based upon distance from site property
lines. He said they are changing some of those provisions from three feet to five feet and he
expected it to go to six or seven feet. He said they are dealing with some alternative housing
neighborhoods that there may be an addition, and Dublin's Appearance Standards may say 30
percent glass or openings are required on the side. He said the Building Code requires for fire
safety issues, no more than 15 percent can be done. Mr. Langworthy said that was easier to deal
with than internal conflicts.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked how many sunrooms were built in Dublin. Mr. Gunderman
estimated that there 50 permits per year when this becomes a consideration.
Mr. McCash said Dublin's current standard addresses window replacements and trim, and there
is an enforceability issue with what is being written.
Mr. Gunderman said Planning came away from the last work session feeling like there was not a
high priority on getting a high degree of additional compliance for the additions, so they
basically tried to set a standard where most people could do a lot of additions and not be held to
compliance with the Code.
Mr. Walter asked if it is expected that the rate of compliance will increase because the standard
is so high that people do not have to meet the Appearance Code. Mr. Gunderman agreed
compliance increases because demand to conform to this Code would be lessened.
Mr. Langworthy asked if this was the right number, was it needed at all, or should the 70 percent
compliance criteria be eliminated.
Mr. Gerber asked if the Commissioners wanted to eliminate the 70 percent compliance criteria.
Five Commissioners agreed and Mr. Gerber said that appeared to be the direction.
Finished Building Materials
Ms. Rauch said the current requirement states that when a materials change occurs at the outside
of a house, that the material must be wrapped at least two feet past the corner. She said Planning
recommended that a 3'V2 -inch trim board be used along that outer corner when there are different
materials on each floor, and the Commission agreed and the Code has been modified to reflect it.
Mr. Gerber asked if there were any objections. Mr. McCash said he would bump the trim up to
larger than a 2 by 4. He said he would like to see at least a six inch trim because it was nicer-
looking and gave a little more mass. The Commissioners agreed to a six -inch trim board.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 3, 2007 Work Session Minutes
Page 12 of 18
r
Foundation Cladding
Ms. Rauch said the current Code states that any exposed foundation must be finished in masonry.
She said at the work session, Planning discussed and asked whether this should be modified to
require that the first four inches from grade be finished in brick, stone, or an approved substitute,
because stucco and stucco -like products were being used for this and the Building Code requires
four inches of clearance. She said at the work session, the Commission direction was that four
inches or less would not require cladding, but anything more than four inches of exposed
foundation would require cladding of a masonry-type material which would be brick or stone or
cultured stone. She said the Code proposal had been modified.
Mr. Gunderman said he had talked to the building department and was informed that builders
will take advantage and find ways to bring their siding material down over some of the concrete
so that they get to four inches.
Mr. McCash suggested requiring that the top two courses of the masonry foundation be a split -
faced material, or if the basement is poured, brick texture or require foundation plantings on
three sides of the house that are visible from the public street.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said the best solution was that there be four inches or less.
Mr. Fishman said a stucco foundation should not be allowed because it falls off when mulch is
put against it.
Mr. Gunderman agreed and said they were in agreement that stucco material down to the ground
as the cladding cannot be used.
Mr. Langworthy asked if the Commission was okay with the four inches as it stands. The
Commissions all agreed, except Mr. McCash who said he thought it will cause problems later on
when the homeowner has problems.
Mr. McCash suggested that the top two courses had to be either split faced block or brick, or if a
poured basement, textured brick. Mr. Gerber said to do that.
Four -sided Architecture.
Ms. Rauch said the current Code discusses a specific number of design elements on street
elevations, and then other elevations and lists out specific things that are considered an approved
design element. She said the Commission agreed to revise the Code to eliminate such features as
foundation cladding, water tables, sides of porches, rooflines, and interior chimneys as design
elements and those elements have been eliminated within this proposed Code. She asked for
confirmation that was correct and the Commissioners agreed.
Garage Doors
Ms. Rauch said the current Code states that no combination of garage door openings may exceed
three car widths or a total of 26 feet. She said the focus of the work session discussion, was the
accommodation of a four -car garage, as well as the maximum width of a door. She said
Planning asked whether or not the Code should be modified to allow four car widths and if it
should be modified to allow only one double loaded door. Ms. Rauch said the Commission
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 3, 2007 Work Session Minutes
Page 13 of 18
agreed with these modifications and the Code has been changed accordingly. However, she said
the percentage of lineal distance of front loading garages was not changed with the increase of
number of doors, so if there are three or four doors, they still can only constitute 45 percent of
that front distance as well. Ms. Rauch pointed out a typographical error on page 7, number 3 that
should read 18 to 36 feet wide, as opposed to 27 to 36 feet wide had been corrected. Mr.
Gunderman said there was a mistake in the old Code, that there could be four garage openings in
at least two different planes. Ms. Rauch said the intent was to have only one double door and
other doors for a three or four car garage each would have to be single. Mr. Gunderman said
once you go to 90 degrees, none of this applies.
Mr. McCash asked if there was a two car garage, would the width of the garage be 45 percent
maximum. Mr. Gunderman said with two cars, it would be 35 percent maximum. Mr. McCash
said he would like to see a minimum square footage requirement (probably 24 feet wide) for
garages be written, based upon an acceptable car and space for storage of trash containers
considered in the future. Dan Phillabaum suggested that more depth would achieve the same
thing and the street appearance is not compromised. Mr. Fishman said he was in favor of more
depth instead of width. Mr. Gerber suggested this topic be included in the November work
session.
Ms. Rauch clarified that this applies to all garage doors, which was a change from the current
Code where it was just street facing garage doors. Mr. Gerber asked if it applied to detached
garages as well. Mr. Langworthy said any face of the house could be dominated by garage
doors.
Window Trim
Ms. Rauch said the current Code specifies what type of trim can be used based on the finish
building material. She said the Commission agreed to modify these to allow any trim or shutter
combination to be used with any finish building material, and the proposed Code has been
modified accordingly. There being no objections or comments, Ms. Rauch continued with the
next area.
Vinyl Siding
Ms. Rauch said the current Code specifies a minimum thickness of material, as well as a
minimum construction or installation. She said the Commission decided that they would like to
see the minimum thickness of the siding retained, but the installation could be according to the
manufacturers' specifications and the revision reflects that.
Mr. McCash said one of the problems will be that 44 mil vinyl siding will be installed over
inexpensive board that can not be nailed into, and studs will be missed and the siding will blow
off in a windstorm. Mr. Fishman agreed. Mr. Walter recalled the discussion that by doing it so
that it is idiot - proof, would in fact, damage the siding more than inspecting it so that it was
installed appropriately. Mr. McCash said that was not true, he said vinyl siding could be put
over OSB or plywood and it did not affect the siding at all. He said there are no City inspections
on the siding installation done in Dublin.
Mr. Langworthy said Planning is not married to this and if the Commissioners wanted to keep
the original, they would.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 3, 2007 Work Session Minutes
Page 14 of 18
Mr. Fishman and Ms. Amorose Groomes indicated they were in favor of the original backing
material Code. Mr. McCash said he had no problem with the installed per manufacturers'
instructions, but the base, the plywood OSB should be kept.
Ms. Rauch confirmed that the old Code backing material should be added back in to what was
proposed. Mr. McCash agreed and said to add that it had to be over the OSB or plywood. Mr.
Gerber said he would like to check with Mr. Tyler because he was against removing this
requirement because he had seen problems. Mr. Gunderman said if Jeff Tyler has an issue with
it, he can come to the next meeting. Ms. Rauch read from the minutes what Mr. Tyler said: That
siding can warp with thicker backing material if it is not applied correctly. Ms. Rauch said
Planning will talk to Mr. Tyler about this issue.
Site Planting Requirements
Ms. Rauch said the current Code specifies the number of trees based on the width of lots, so 90
feet or more requires three front yard trees, 90 feet or less requires two, and there is also a
minimum location within seven feet of the side property line. She said at the work session, the
Commission discussed increasing the lot width requirement and decreasing the side property line
requirement. Ms. Rauch said the Commission wanted to ensure that the quality and growth of
these trees is maintained and that a variety of sizes and maybe species could be used. She said
Planning worked with the Landscape Inspectors and came up with a table. She said it outlined
the lot detail and the size of tree and quantity that would be required within that size lot. Ms.
Rauch said the focus was on newer products with smaller lots and Tartan West, Tartan Ridge,
Oak Park, Greystone Mews, that were in some instances were getting really crowded and the
health of these trees. may be comprised by these smaller lots and requiring these three trees to be
there.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she felt there was more under planting than over planting in Dublin.
She asked if this was exclusive of street tree planting. Ms. Rauch said that was covered
elsewhere in the Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she would like to see minimum distances
that planted material can be based to foundations added. Ms. Rauch asked if it should be
included in this section, or within the update of the Landscape Code.
Mr. McCash suggested that some standard landscape practice could be referenced that would
address it in this provision. He said he would like to see a minimum caliper on this rather than
just large, medium, and small. Ms. Rauch said it did and it had to meet standards within the
Code. Mr. McCash said he was referring to the definitions of large, medium, and small trees.
Ms. Husak said they are required to be street tree size, which is 2%2 caliper inches.
Mr. McCash referred to the 1' /z -inch trunk diameter mentioned on page 12 on D. He questioned
why it said "minimum tree size for existing trees shall be no less than..." He asked why it said
"existing" instead of 2 1 /2 - inches. Ms. Rauch said she believed that "existing" had to do with
existing trees on site to count towards this requirement.
Mr. McCash asked if the existing trees, in order to be counted, also need to be larger than that.
Mr. Gunderman said it could be changed. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it would make it more
consistent. Mr. Gerber said to make it 2 caliper inches.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 3, 2007 Work Session Minutes
Page 15 of 18
Mr. McCash asked if the new Code was getting rid of tree locations. Mr. Gunderman said no.
Mr. McCash said his preference was if it was three trees, he would not necessarily say five feet
in here, three feet in here because each house will be slightly different. Mr. Gunderman said
they were at seven feet, and they were having a lot of trouble getting three trees in all cases, so
they are reducing that number down for more flexibility on the lot. Ms. Rauch said the original
Code did not specify sizes.
Ms. Rauch asked if the Commission was okay with this revision of the Code. [They indicated
that they were.]
Mr. Gerber requested that this be brought back at the next regular meeting for a vote. Mr.
Langworthy said Planning will just bring back the issues that were not decided.
Driveway Materials
Ms. Rauch said when the driveway changes to the Code went to City Council, it was brought up
about brick, pavers, or Hollywood drives as seen in Franklin. She asked for feedback or
direction from the Commission regarding that type of finish on driveways. Mr. McCash did not
recall Council's discussion regarding the driveways. Mr. Gunderman said Council's discussion
focused on the appearance of driveways and directed staff to look into requiring different types
of material for driveway pavement. Mr. Walter asked if the conversation was around mixed
materials or requiring a list of alternative materials. Mr. Gunderman said an alternative to
concrete and asphalt. Mr. McCash said pavers were a problem if not 'installed properly. Mr.
Langworthy clarified that he wouldn't say there was any insistence that it be changed. Mr.
Fishman said a Hollywood drive done with asphalt was attractive. Ms. Amorose said it would
not look good with grass growing between it. Overall, the Commissioners agreed that no
limitation would be added to the Code. Ms. Rauch said Planning would send a follow -up to City
Council reflecting the discussion.
5. Discussiopel
Mr. Lan rthy said he had met wit r. Gerber and discuss re ' processes and finding ys
to sh n the process without li ng the results that are de ' ed from that process. H aid one
a ect was the concern pressed by some C issioners that when ey see a
recommendation, he tho t that they maybe did n lways see it psychologic y in their minds
as a recommendati only. He said Planning ' try to alter their wordin , , little on the reviews
to the Commis ' n and make it clear that at is being given is PI a g's opinion and provide
its reasons e said it will still be it the Commission to ma a final determinations. r.
Lan by said Planning never 'tended and hoped that t Commission never felt t they
W held to follow Plannin ' action because that ce i ly was not the intent. said there
ill be times when a mmissioner may find t selves on the other s' of Planning's
recommendation an iat is a situation that ju appens from time to tit . He said Planning
will be okay wi iat and they want the Co issioners to be okay wi at.
Mr. 7_1er Gerber id the reports have evol over time and he thou they had become
friendl . e said it was very nice t Planning reviews the C e and criteria.
Mr. Langworthy said wh a Commission does say roposal does not meet eview criteria,
the reason why is ne sary because that is part what Planning has top n the record so that
they do not get ' o situations where the y record is what Planni s opinion was and the
Commissio oes not have their opinia an record because it was ver stated. Mr. Gerber
the ye e felt that the Commiss' had been good with crc, g that record.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes — February 15, 2007
Page 1 of 11
3. Administrative Request 06- 121ADM — Residential Appearance Standards
Judson Rex presented this administrative request for potential changes to the Residential
Appearance Code, Section 153.190. He explained that each issue would have a slide
shown with graphics, which include the current requirements, and then a question will be
asked regarding the issue. He encouraged questions.
Application of the Appearance Code Standards
Current Requirement:
Mr. Rex said Code requires that houses requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable
area, or a significant exterior alteration must comply with the appearance standards. He
said the definition of a significant exterior alteration is defined in the Code as a change in
roofline, adding or removing windows or doors, altering projections and recesses, or
changing the exterior building materials. He said some of these changes that are
specifically listed in the Code could be interpreted to be minor. He said simply replacing
a window with a door opening with the current Code language could be applied and the
entire Appearance Code would have to be complied with.
Mr. Rex asked the Commissioners:
Should the Code be modified to allow the Director of Land Use and Long Range
Planning the ability to make a determination on what is a significant exterior alteration,
and should the Code be modified to increase the amount of expansion before compliance
is required?
Mr. Gerber confirmed that Dublin's minor modification rules apply with 25 percent or
less and this would be consistent with that. Mr. Rex said there have not been as many
issues with the 25 percent rule as with the definition of a significant exterior alteration.
Mr. Gunderman said Planning has made some house expansions comply because they
met the 25 percent rule, and there were second thoughts as to if that was necessarily a
good thing to have done. He said there was no resistance on it, but in terms of requiring
cladding around the foundation just on the addition and not the rest of the existing house,
there is the question whether or not that was necessarily the best move.
Mr. Gerber said he could envision a situation where someone decides to add in their
backyard an enclosure such as a Florida room that is more than 25 percent of the house
size and perhaps no one will ever see it.
Mr. Gunderman said it was probably the cladding of the foundation, because that was
something that clearly changed on the existing portion of the house and it was noticeable.
He said the fact that there are windows or doors, etc., may not be a deviation that is so
perceptible from the rest of the house, but there have been cases where Planning has
looked at the cladding and said that it may not have been a real improvement to the area.
Mr. Gerber said there could be situations where just a little something in front was being
modified, that could alter the exterior. Mr. Gunderman said whatever percentage is used,
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes — February 15, 2007
Page 2of11
at some point, it will seem too big or small. He said there is not always a magic number.
However, he said that some in Planning felt 25 percent was too small.
Mr. Gerber asked if the Director does not make the determination, would it come to the
Commission for a decision. Mr. Gunderman said the Commission reviews the Code, but
any deviations to a straight zoning would go to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Mr.
Rex said there have been instances where additions have gone to the BZA for approval,
and Planning believes that is not necessarily the best outlet because the hardship and
review criterion the BZA uses does not relate much to architecture. Mr. Zimmerman
noted that the BZA had been approving these cases. Mr. Rex agreed.
Mr. Gunderman said if the expansion is more than 25 percent of the total livable area,
then the expansion will have to comply with all the Appearance Code standards of which
the cladding may be the one that would catch your eye.
Mr. Gerber said he is more concerned about significant exterior alternations. Mr.
Gunderman said that was an even bigger issue for this particular question in terms of
getting some feedback from the Commission because the slopes of roofs on additions and
things like that are more problematic. Mr. Gerber said he did not know how to define it.
Mr. Gunderman said Planning was not looking for an iron clad definition from the
Commission, tonight. He said it was just a question of whether Planning should try to
draft a code that would give the Director some discretion to deal with it, or have
something that is absolutely black and white.
Mr. Gerber said he thought it was unfair to just use a percentage. He said the bigger issue
is whether it is a significant exterior alteration or not. Mr. Fishman said "significant" was
in the eyes of the beholder. Mr. Gerber said language to define a significant exterior
alteration needs to be found.
Mr. Walter suggested using a percentage, and if the addition falls above that, it causes
review by the Director of Planning to make a determination if it falls inside the Code.
He said below that, it needs to be determined if the Director of Planning will be allowed
the ability to determine that the particular addition is a significant exterior alteration.
Mr. Fishman said he would much rather see the foundation cladding match. Mr.
Gunderman said that could be part of this and it could be worked into the Code.
Ms. Jones asked at what point when there is an addition would the entire structure have to
become in compliance with the Appearance Code. Mr. Gunderman said there is nothing
that would require every window and other detail to match the addition. Mr. Fishman
and Mr. Gerber said they thought the whole structure would have to match the addition.
Mr. Gunderman said they did not have to match, however in other areas there is such
language. He said now, they are only addressing the Appearance Code.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes — February 15, 2007
Page 3 of 11
Mr. Walter suggested that there be a threshold that causes review and give the Director
the ability to make a determination. Ms. Jones added that the Director's determination is
final and the applicant needs to comply. Mr. Gunderman said there will always be an
appeal process.
Mr. Gunderman asked the Commissioners if they wanted Planning to draft a Code that
gives some level of discretion to the Director in terms of making these determinations on
a lot of the potential additions, and do they feel the 25 percent is the right figure for a flat
requirement as opposed to raising it. Mr. Gerber suggested a definition around
something that significantly altered the exterior is the trigger. Mr. Fishman said that was
real debatable. Mr. Gerber suggested guidelines be posted.
Mr. Langworthy said the decision should be made with defined guideline criteria so that
it is not left totally open to discretion.
Mr. Gerber suggested that even an expansion of two percent could affect something or if
it were 98 percent, it may not. He said it was more the criteria to determine what is a
significant exterior alteration. Mr. Gunderman confirmed that Mr. Gerber was saying do
not deal with the percentage at all — find criteria that would define "significant." Mr.
Walter said he agreed conceptually, but he thought it was very vague. Mr. Gerber said
that was why the criteria were very important. Mr. Fishman said the criteria needed to be
strong. He said numbers were clearer.
Mr. Walter asked if clear guidelines to help homeowners could be written without
numbers to make that determination. Mr. Langworthy said Planning could do it, but it
would still be a judgment on the Commission's part.
Mr. Gerber said with respect to the homeowners, they do not want to go to government
every time they want to change their house, but by the same token the government is
saying that they want certain appearance standards maintained. He said there is going to
be a balance between these two.
Mr. Fishman said he would like to see the criteria before he gave up the 25 percentage
requirement. He said some residents will have different interpretations of the criteria.
Mr. Gerber said he did not like the number because a number is sometimes arbitrary. He
did not think in every case, a review is not necessary.
Mr. Fishman said he liked Mr. Walter's idea, but he did not know what percentage should
be used. Mr. Fishman and Mr. Gerber requested Planning draft clear criteria. Mr.
Fishman said he would not give up on the 25 percent.
Mr. Zimmerman asked if there had been occasions where there were 24 percent
expansions proposed. Mr. Rex said that was one of the downfalls of having a set
percentage. -
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes — February 15, 2007
Page 4 of 11
Ms. Jones confirmed that the Commissioners were comfortable with letting the Director
of Planning have discretion.
Mr. Gerber reminded the Commissioners that they would see this again at the next
workshop.
Four -sided Architecture
Current Requirement:
Mr. Rex said three design elements are required on street facing elevations and two
elements on all other elevations. He said a "design element' is defined in the Code as
anything consistent with the architecture of the house. He said Planning has recognized
that this is an issue and may detract from the idea of getting true four -sided architecture
with design elements.
Mr. Rex asked: Should the Code be revised to eliminate features such as foundation
cladding, water tables, sides of porches, rooflines, and interior chimneys from being
considered a design element?
Mr. Gunderman said now, it is not clear in all cases what a design element is. He said a
front porch could be a design element, the way the Code is currently worded.
Mr. Waiter and Mr. Fishman agreed that foundation clad as a design element should be
eliminated. Mr. Walter clarified that they were discussing windows, doors, gables, vents,
chimneys, shutters, etc.
Ms. Jones said the Commission had been driving for more architectural ambiance.
Mr. Gerber confirmed that the Commissioners agreed to eliminate the features listed as
being considered design elements. Mr. Gunderman asked if this loophole should be
closed. [The Commissioners responded affirmatively.] Mr. Langworthy agreed to
present the closure at the next work session.
Foundation Cladding
Current Requirement:
Mr. Rex said Code requires that exposed foundations must be finished in masonry. He
said stucco products had been used to meet this requirement. He said the Building Code
and manufacturers specifications for installing this material requires a four -inch clearance
above the grade for stucco or stucco -like products, resulting in a small portion of the
foundation that is going to be exposed.
Mr. Rex asked the Commissioners: Should the Code be modified to require that the first
four inches from grade be finished in brick, stone, or an approved substitute?
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes — February 15, 2007
Page 5 of 11
Jeff Tyler, Chief Building Officer, said this is a technical requirement that will be a real
issue 20 years from now because there will be rotted seal plates where the ground water
has wicked up since the stucco or stucco- stone -like material was brought to grade.
Mr. Gerber said he thought when they worked on the Appearance Code they tried to
eliminate stucco. Mr. Gunderman said they did not give any attention to eliminating
stucco. He said a lot of what was seen now that appears to be stone is stucco - stone. He
said it is a manufactured stone with a porous nature that wicks the same way as stucco.
Mr. Gunderman said one of the three ways of solving the cladding issue was the stucco -
stone product. He said it had been substantially used in the community and it cannot be
continued. He said stucco products need to be up to four inches from grade. He said the
question that remains in terms of a policy direction, what should be done with the
remaining four inches.
Mr. Walter he thought what was being suggested was brick, stucco - stone, and then
cladding be used.
Mr. Rex said he thought the Code could be formatted in this requirement by stating that
the first four inches of the foundation be real brick or real stone and the primary elevation
material can continue from there.
Mr. Gerber said it made sense to make this new requirement because it was causing
problems.
Mr. Walter asked how the stucco -stone should be treated in the slide shown where the
sheathing came down and then there was a two -foot stucco -stone band on the ground.
Mr. Rex said that would void the manufacturer's specifications and it could not be
installed that way. He said it was the intent of the Code to do this, but since the stucco
product was used in place of real brick or real stone, the installation was not done
correctly.
Mr. Walter suggested that instead of "...that the first four inches from grade be finished
in brick, stone, or an approved substitute" it should say: "...that the first four inches from
grade be finished." Mr. Rex and Mr. Gunderman agreed that would take care of it.
Mr. Gunderman asked if after bringing the real stucco down to four inches, does the
Commission still want what remains cladded with real brick, real stone, or some kind of
concrete product. Mr. Zimmerman said four inches would be two bricks. Mr. Fishman
said he was not in favor of cladding because four inches from the ground is one -half of a
cement block. He said when a house gets finished and there is landscaping, it is not
seen. He said brick foundations are often hidden by mature landscaping. He did not
think there was anything wrong with four inches of cement block showing.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes — February 15, 2007
Page 6of11
Mr. Gunderman said the likelihood was that if cladding is required with real material, it
will probably be done for more than four inches. He said otherwise, he thought
everything Mr. Fishman said was exactly the thought process Planning had been through.
Mr. Fishman said he preferred the money be spent elsewhere on the house. He said he
was in favor of leaving the block exposed.
Mr. Gunderman said the Code could be rewritten that said there must be cladding if the
exposure is more than four inches, to which will result in a lot of housing that now
always comes down to four inches.
Mr. Fishman asked if stucco was allowed to touch the ground. Mr. Tyler said it was not.
He pointed out that the manufacturers' installation instructions required a weep screen,
which was like a flashing behind the material. He said Code is explicit saying that if a
weep screen is used, then it has to be at least four inches from grade or two inches from
pavement. He said a concrete drive could be as far down as two inches because there is
not the ground water affect. However, he said there is still the necessity to keep relief
because you are actually taking the moisture behind the material and out to grade.
Mr. Walter asked if the water table was considered a design element. Mr. Rex said
presently, it was considered a design element.
Mr. Gunderman said in terms of the last discussion, they thought eliminating that
loophole was a good idea.
Mr. Gerber said there may be an option that if you have more than four inches, then
cladding is necessary and with what is recommended, if you are not four inches or more,
leave it as it is.
Mr. Gunderman suggested if it is four inches or more, leaving it with a revised Code that
says it has to be real brick, real stone, or a concrete product. Mr. Gerber, Ms. Jones, and
Mr. Fishman agreed.
Mr. Gerber asked that the options be included because it was easy to take out of the
Code.
Window Trim
Current Requirement:
Mr. Rex said Planning had seen a lot of cases dealing with window trim. He said
currently, Code requires shutters or 3 % inch trim on stucco /siding finishes, soldier course
or rowlock on brick finishes, and lintels or sills for stone finishes. He said Planning has
seen scenarios where there is a stucco finish with a brick trim which is currently not
permitted by Code.
Mr. Rex asked: Should the Code be modified to allow any of the finish types above
regardless of the material used on the elevation? He asked if they wanted to open up to
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes — February 15, 2007
Page 7 of 11
the builder to decide which trim type to put on which finish. Mr. Zimmerman said yes,
because it would provide a variation of appearance. [The Commissioners all agreed.]
Garage Doors
Current Requirement:
Mr. Rex said Code states that no combination of garage door openings may exceed three
car widths or a total of 26 feet. He said Planning has seen a lot of homes requesting more
than three cars. He said the current Code also requires either to recess or project the
additional third door on a different vertical plane.
Mr. Rex asked should the Code be modified to allow:
A. A combination of garage door openings that total four car widths?
B. Only one double - loaded door — all others must be single and on a different
vertical plane?
Mr. Gerber asked what was wrong with wanting a four -car garage for an 8,000- square-
foot house and wanting the garage to be uniform with the rest of the house in some way.
Ms. Jones asked if there could be four individual bays. Mr. Rex said yes, and Planning
would like to encourage that because it breaks up the garage door openings. Mr.
Zimmerman said two double doors on an 8,000 square foot house did not look out of
place, where it would on a 2,000 square foot house. Ms. Jones and Mr. Gerber said four
individual garage doors looks nice.
Mr. Rex said Planning's thought was allowing one double - loaded door, but anything in
addition to that must be single doors so there is not two double doors next to each other
or anywhere on the lot.
Mr. Zimmerman asked if the garage door arrangement could be single, double, and
single. Mr. Rex said yes.
Mr. Zimmerman asked if another garage was put on an angle, could a double door be
used.
Ms. Jones said there is a five -car garage on a 3,000 square foot house across the street
from her and there was a double -door, double -door, and then a single -door. She agreed
that was a lot of garage for that size of a house, but it would look fine on an 8,000 square
foot house.
Mr. Walter noted that the proposed Code said "all others must be single and on a
different vertical plane." He asked if that meant that the projection was still wanted. Mr.
Rex said the projection provides relief from the larger door and helps break it up.
Mr. Gerber asked if an architectural design could be envisioned where it would be okay
to do.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes — February 15, 2007
Page 8of11
Mr. Rex said if it was an 8,000 - square -foot house. Mr. Saneholtz said architectural relief
on the 8,000 - square -foot house would still make that side of the house more interesting.
Ms. Jones said she was not opposed to four single -doors on one plane, but she did not
want to see a double -door and then more doors.
Mr. Gunderman said he did not think they had a difficult time across the front of the
house getting the different planes. He said most people either seem to want to do it in the
first place, or they at least do not find it terribly inconvenient when the City requires it.
Ms. Jones said she definitely did not think two double -doors should be together on any
elevation.
Mr. Fishman asked if a deviation was required on a four -car garage where a garage has to
be pushed back. Mr. Gunderman said a four -car arrangement would need three doors and
three planes.
Mr. Gerber confirmed that this Code not only applies to new construction, but also for
remodeling additions. Mr. Gunderman said if a garage was added on the side, that was
true. Mr. Walter said he did not like the varying planes. However, he said he could see it
on a three -car garage. He said a four -car garage would be messing with the symmetry by
having all of them on different planes. Mr. Fishman agreed about the four -car garages
being on different planes, but he would like to see four doors, rather than two double
doors. Mr. Langworthy said the most doors allowed would be a double door and two
single doors. Mr. Gunderman said there could be four one -car doors. Ms. Jones clarified
that there could not be two double -wide doors.
Mr. Gunderman asked if the Commissioners would be more comfortable with four garage
spots and two planes. [The Commissioners agreed.]
Wrapping of Materials
Current Requirement:
Mr. Rex said the Code states that when a material change occurs at the outside corner of a
house that the material must be wrapped at least two feet past the corner. He said it was
not shown on the slide, but there were instances where there is one material on the main
floor and a second material on the second floor. He said if the brick was wrapped around
two feet, it created an aesthetic that may not necessarily be what we are looking for. He
said a trim board used on each corner could possibly substitute for wrapping the material
and provide a better stopping point.
Mr. Rex asked the Commissioners: Should the Code be modified to eliminate the
wrapping when different materials are used on each floor? [The Commissioners agreed.]
Ms. Jones requested that there be a transition used. Mr. Rex said that would be worked
into the Code revision.
Vinyl Siding
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes — February 15, 2007
Page 9 of 11
Current Requirement:
Mr. Rex said vinyl materials must have a minimum thickness of 44 -mils and must be
applied over minimum one half -inch thick oriented strand board or plywood. He said
when dealing with vinyl siding, there is warping, etc. that they are trying to eliminate and
minimize. He said the best way to do that is to install the siding according to the
manufacturer's specifications.
Mr. Tyler said it was not necessarily an issue of the backing material, because the siding
can warp with thicker backing material if it is not applied correctly. He recommended
that they look at the proper installation of vinyl siding as opposed to trying to fix it with a
backing material that may or may not work.
Mr. Gunderman said when this ordinance was originally adopted, they wanted the vinyl
siding to look right and not warp. He said if the vinyl siding is installed the way the City
says and the manufacturer's specifications are not followed, then the warranty is void.
He said if it is installed according to the manufacturer's specifications, the City will
achieve what they were looking for. Mr. Fishman said they should keep the 44 -mils
minimum thickness requirement in the Code. Ms. Jones and Mr. Zimmerman agreed.
Mr. Rex asked: Should the Code be modified to require that vinyl materials be installed
according to manufacturer's specifications rather than specifying the size and type of
construction material?
[The Commissioners agreed the Code should be modified to require vinyl materials to
have a minimum thickness of 44 mils installed according to manufacturer's
specifications.]
Site Planning Requirements
Current Requirement
Mr. Rex said lots of 90 feet more are required to plant three trees within the front yard,
and lots less than 90 feet wide must have two trees. Trees must be at least seven feet
from the side lot line. He said the Landscape Inspectors have found that with the seven -
foot side setbacks, it is difficult in some instances to plant three trees on a ninety -foot lot
with a driveway close to the side lot line.
Mr. Zimmerman confirmed that the tree problem happened at maturity, not during
planting. He asked if all the trees needed to be located in the front, or could they be
located on the lot. Mr. Rex said as Code is now written, the trees must be located within
the front setback. He said there is also the option of using smaller trees, changing the
species to include ornamental trees.
Mr. Gunderman recalled that when the special committee on the Appearance Code
reviewed all the photographs presented, they concluded in terms of the appearance of the
neighborhood, that landscaping was more important than all the rest of the items put
together. W. Gerber agreed.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes — February 15, 2007
Page 10 of 11
Mr. Rex asked: Should the Code be modified to increase the lot width requirement, and
decrease the side property line requirement?
Mr. Fishman said he was not in favor of decreasing the number of trees. Mr. Gerber said
he wanted to make sure those trees, after five years, are flourishing. Mr. Walter said it
did not make sense to decrease the side property line if there is no longer a mature tree
existing so he did not like that idea. He said he also did not like reducing the tree count.
He said he was curious to see what the requirement would be from a width standpoint, or
should they change the species as suggested. Mr. Zimmerman said if it is kept at three
trees for a 90 -foot wide lot, the species should be changed so three trees of some kind
will be able to be placed on the lot. Ms. Jones did not want to see it changed to where
there would be three small trees.
Mr. Zimmerman suggested requiring that at least one tree that is from a larger species and
a minimum of one or two ornamental trees. Ms. Jones suggested that requirement be for
lots between 90 and 135 feet wide but over 135 feet would still be the three larger trees.
Mr. Rex said that was good direction that Planning can take and work with the City's
Landscape reviewers to come up with some good guidelines.
Mr. Rex said Planning will draft an ordinance and bring it back to the Commission at a
work session or a future meeting for review, approval, and a recommendation to City
Council. He said the Planning Report included the real purpose and goals of the
Residential Appearance Code which pertained to continuing the high quality residential
neighborhoods that we want in Dublin. He said with the Commission's feedback and by
working with Planning, that is what they are trying to achieve. Mr. Rex said the
Commissioners' guidance was appreciated.
4. Admini ative Request 07 10ADM — Zoniu ode Updates
Judson said Planning h- been working we Jeff Tyler on to ng some land us
orient e language out of t Building Code an putting it into the oning Code. He d
a s ion was taken o of the Building ode dealing wit residential and p vate
rence mming pools and nother section not entered in the ap opriate place deal g with
around swi ming pools, and n ving th/into section in the Zo ng Code.
He said it is app priately placed un r AccessoStructures. Mr ex said the
Code regulat the permitted t e, size, locatback, requir fencing, and
associated ool equipment. H aid in additionmitting an different types of
review r uired for swimmi pools.
Mrerber asked abOLk6lot tubs. Mr. Rex id lan/wimminer g hot tubs and
mporary swimmin ools was include
Mr. Gerber ask what was the pre nt fencing reg ols. Mr.
Rex said fou eet high with a to ing gate and fo posts Mr. Gerber
asked if t fence could be on a perimeter of the ack rd). Mr. Rex said