48-08 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES
48-08
Ordinrnace No.
Passed , 20
AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 0.55
ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HIGH STREET
WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT FROM CB, CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT TO HB, HISTORIC BUSINESS
DISTRICT (HISTORIC DISTRICT -CASE NO. 08-042Z).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
State of Ohio, ~ of the elected members concurring:
Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit
"A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned CB, Central
Business District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in
Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City of Dublin
Zoning Code and amendments thereto.
Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B," including the list of contiguous and affected
property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Exhibit "C," are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and
said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith.
Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the
earliest period allowed by law.
Passed this [ p-~~ day of , 2008.
ll n~ ~/~ _ _ ~ ..
Mayor -Presiding Officer
Attest:
Clerk of Council
Sponsor: Land Use and Long Range Planning
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1090 M e m o
CITY OF DUBLIN_ Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490
TO: Members of City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Managerc« SSt3
DATE: July 31, 2008
INITIATED BY: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning
RE: Ordinance 48-08 Historic District Rezonings (Case 08-0422)
Summary
The City of Dublin has initiated this application to rezone three properties, 123 South High Street, 95
South High Street, and 45 North High Street from the Central Business (CB) District to the Historic
Business (HB) District. The three properties are located within the boundaries of the Historic District and
are being utilized for various retail and business uses including a catering business, a peanut butter and
pastry retail establishment, and a hair and nail salon.
The purpose of the rezoning is to provide the Historic District with zoning districts that take into
consideration the dense nature of an historic downtown area. The HB District also attempts to integrate a
wide range of land uses to create a mixed use setting, as well as implement design features that promote
pedestrian traffic.
The three properties have been selected for this application based on review processes, either informally
with the City of Dublin or formally by the Architectural Review Board, that have required rezoning to the
Historic Business zoning classification.
History
Property maintenance and redevelopment efforts in Historic Dublin have been challenging. This is due
primarily to the fact that the underlying zoning of the district is suburban in nature and does not reflect the
development patterns within the original village. As a result, the Zoning Code provisions do not adequately
address the Districts unique qualities.
The Historic Residential and Historic Business Districts were adopted in October 2003 in an effort to
address these concerns. The purpose of the districts is to permit the preservation and development of
homes and businesses on lots that are comparable in size, mass and scale, while maintaining and promoting
the traditional character of Historic Dublin. The districts were further designed to maintain the unique
qualities of this historic community and ensure that those development patterns continue the intent and
purpose of the original village.
The application was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 5, 2008 and the
Commission has forwarded to Council with a recommendation for approval of the rezoning.
Recommendation
Staff requests approval of Ordinance 48-08 at the second reading/public hearing on August 18, 2008.
__., R-4 ~~~~
SO
1 ~--~ ~_~
~ CB ~-~I R=4 ~~'
HB HB CB
_ jSITE CB R-4 R-4
HR H ~1 CB _CB _-~-a ~~
f CB CB -SEC- _!. R-4
--
HB C -. C R-4
CCC
i_
--- --Street
~_ Badge _ ` ~-c H R-4
~ PUD g~CC __~ -~~
I ~ PUD ~-ECC'`
PUD PUD ~ 1,,`~~.- ~ ~ HR
1 CB ~ ~ --~
_~- IrPUD 1.--:=~'.~I CB HR HR -
PUD ~ - 1 ~ CB _~
PUD R-4 _ . CB - ~+',_-- HR
R-2 ---~ C, (D ~--eB~ HR --
PUD R-4 CB N~-l-CB
PUD R-4 CB Cg HR ---HR"
- ~ HR
R-4 _ R-a ~-~C~" R-4
R-4 ' ~" C B ~_
R-a `~ '' SITE
R-4 ~ _ R-4 ~ CB 1 f ~ HR
Jr ~ CB _~
R-4 ~ R-4 CB
-- ~B _-Hf2---
~, l
R-2 R-4 ~ R-a SITE ~g - HR
R-4 ~, R-4 CB
~_ HB ~
PUD PUD -i HR
R-4 y-R ~~ J ~~
PUD R 2 J~J HR
PUD _ R 22 R-4 ~
P D ~f r HR HR
PUD ~ R-4 _.. R-2 R-4 --
PUD R_4 R-2 -J _ -
-~ f ~~
P D PUD _ R-2 R-2 ~~IR~ HR R-4
~ PUD ~ ~-`
P ~ PUD PUD R-2 .~- f
PUD _~ R-2 R-2 R=E
P D \PUD \ PUD ~~ PUD R-2 _r
-~ ~ `P~ p I I-PIED-~~ PUD /~ /PUD ~,,~-~~ ~,- -_`- ~f R-2 I ~I
__ I ~,u ~~1~~~/II i-~f-.~~~' ~;~il;i"VEIL
~` 08-0422
~~: - 1~-0~ poi; ~,.,~:~. ,i~; aN~~g
~._ City of Dublin Rezoning
~ Land Use and Historic Dublin Rezoning
Long Range Planning 123 & 95 S. Hi h, 45 N. Hi h
g g 0 112.5 225 450
Feet
CITY OF DUBLIN..
January 2007
EXHIBIT "B"
REZONING APPLICATION
(Code Section 153.234)
TO EXPIRE
ORDINANCE NUMBER
Land Use and
long Rangs Plonning CITY COUNCIL (FIRST READING)
5800 Shier-Rings Rood
°~blin.°'''043°'6_'236 CITY COUNCIL (PUBLIC HEARING)
Phone/iDD:b14-410.4600 CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Fax: 614-4144747
wQb Sfte: www,du6lFn,oh.us
NOTE: All applications are reviewed by Land Use and Long Range Planning for completeness prior to being processed.
Applications that are incomplete will not be accepted. Applicants are encouraged to contact Land Use and Long Range
Planning for assistance and to discuss the rezoning process, and if needed; to make an appointment for apre-submittal
review prior to submitting a formal application.
I. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Preliminary Development Plan (Section 153.053)
Other (Please Describe)
II. PROPERTY INFORMATION: This section must be completed.
Property Address: I.2 3 ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~~ , ~--~-~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ '`-}-I `1
Tax ID/Parcel Number(s): ~ 7 30 0 ~ ~ _I j
-2, .- ~ _ ~73f~C~(>L''SU Parcel Size (Acres): ~' i I U 6 rFS
b.7-I <~cYrPS
Existing Land UselDevetopment: / 1 I ~ X~ (Ii Corn rn e v c-; ~t.(
Proposed Land Use/Development: ~i ~ ~~ ~~y~ {~I ~~ L~~1d(~Lt / y ~{ ~y(~
1
Existing Zoning District: C, ~~ Requested Zoning District: I-} ~ Total Acres to be Rezoned: ~ ~ 5 Ja C
III. REZONING STATEMENT: Please attach separate sheets (8.5 X 11) to the back of this application with your responses to the
following sections.
A. Please briefly explain the proposed rezoning and development:
-I-1n ~. Nrt:; r' P-V t1 ~S w i til ~>>° Vr>° 20 Vti~d £rurv~ C ev~{-r-al 13~n ~, Irul ss t
a vv~p r z c~ w pw ~ vi <ti }~ e- G l Gt ~s~i-EiG G~'ri v v~ ~ t-ti ~~'t21~ L~ ~ 1~l S1 V~-Q-S S
B. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the existing and potential future land use character of the
vicinity: ~-y~ IrQ~i,~e~~G~ ~t,~wl,ti`~ G~i~~`c~' 1`~ v~n~v~e ~ppvc;~~~1K. {z,-~
--E h~ eX i ~>ti4~. m -~ d t, ~evtik ~ r~ 1 '~ 1~-~' 1.~.Y'~ ~~~cC. ~~ ~ YZ k fie. 1-~i s~v.rti c C~ ~<~`~,~ ~~~r
C. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan and, if applicable, how the proposed
rezoning meets the criteria for Planned Districts [Section 153.052(6)]:
~ o C.6c,t ~0~1 sr rt,e.~ S ~-f v ~~t' ~ v~ I Ica ~ !~~nrtitiU.ivi -~c
D. Briefly address how the proposed rezoning and development meet the review criteria for Preliminary Development Plan approval by
the Planning and Zoning Commission as stated in [Section 153.055(A)J (SEEATTACHMENT A): A$ SUE3MI~f ~E~ fiQ ~f~UN(:IL
~~
-~
Page 1 of 5
Has a previous application to rezone the property been denied by City Council within the last twelve months? ~ Yes ~ NO
If yes, list when and state the basis for reconsideration as noted by Section 153.234(A)(3):
IV. PLEASE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FOR INITIAL STAFF REVIEW: Please submit large (24x36) and small (11X17) sets of
plans. Please make sure all plans are stapled and collated. Large plans should also be folded. Staff may later request plans that incorporate review
comments. Fourteen (14) adddional copies of revised submittals are required for the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing.
TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS AND THIRTEEN (13) COPIES Please notarize agent authorization, if
necessary.
FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A TAX PARCEL ID MAP indicating property owners and parcel numbers for all parcels within 500 FEET of
the site (Maximum Size 11X17). Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance.
FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LIST OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET of the perimeter of the property
based on the County Auditor's current tax list, including parcel number, owner name (not Mortgage Company or Tax Service), and address
(Maximum Size 11X17). It is the policy of the City of Dublin to notify surrounding property owners of pending applications under public
review. Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance.
FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF 7HE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
[~ FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF SCALED SITEfSTAKING PLANS SHOWING
a. North arrow and bar scale.
b. Location, size and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping,
structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking).
c. Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, number of dwellings, building/unit types, square footages, parking,
open space, etc.).
d. Size of the site in acres/square feet.
e. All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights-of-way, easements, and other information related to the site.
f. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries.
g. Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties.
IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X3&) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING SCALED
PLANS:
a. Grading Plan.
b. Landscaping Plan.
c. Lighting Plan.
d. Utility and/or Stormwater Plan.
e. Tree Survey, Tree Preservation and Tree Replacement Plans
IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) SCALED, ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS
with proposed colors and materials noted.
IF A PPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF SCALED DRAWINGS
SHOWING:
a. Location of signs and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window).
b. Sign dimensions, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grade.
c. Copy layout and lettering styles (fonts) of signage.
d. Materials and manufacturer to be used in fabrication.
e. Total area of sign face (inGuding frame)
f. Type of illumination
MATERIAUCOLOR SAMPLES (swatches, photos, plans, or product specifications), Include manufacturer name and product number.
Page 2 of 5
V. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER(S): This section must be completed. Please attach additional sheets if needed.
12 3 ~ ~•
Name (Individual or Organization): ~~~~~ I ~ _ ~ n L
~~t /1,~~ "-l l~
Mailing Address: 1 1 ~ y' ~ " 1 ~ -7
{Street, City, State, Zip Code) 17-~G' [ `~~1.V1 t~-~ j Vl ~%1 Y{~. ~ .~ ~t ~-~~ i yl t~ ~'E ~ %,r`~
Daytime Telephone: Fax:
Email or Alternate Contact Information:
VI. APPLICANT: Please complete if applicable. This is the person(s) who is requesting the zone change if different than the property
owner(s).
Name: ( ' ~ 't~ `~j r~ ~/~ ~ J~ -~ e. ~~ ~~ L~ ~ Gi F'Yl ~ I f ~~
l~ -oV~~1~1<< t -Y
Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.):
Mailing Address: ~ 7 ~~ ~~~ ~~' ~ Q~ ~~ ~ w~.~t- i/c1 ~~! n ~~~ `~1J~7
(Street, City, State, Zip Code) ! _ r
Daytime Telephone: ~n C L( _ L1 J ~ ~_ i / i1 ~ U
`t" "T Fax:
Email or Alternate Contact Information:
VII. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF OWNER/APPLICANT: Please complete if applicable. This is the primary contact person who will
receive correspondence regarding this application. If needed, attach additional sheets for multiple representatives.
Name:
Organization:
Mailing Address:
(Street, City, State, Zip Code)
Daytime Telephone: I Fax:
Email or Alternate Contact Information:
Page 3 of 5
Additional Property Owners
Owner of 91/95 S High Street
Luanil Albert
91 S High Street
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Owner of 45 N High Street
Sonksen Properties LLC
5679 Haddington Drive
Dublin, Ohio 43017
VIII. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE(S): if the applicant is not the property owner, this
section must be completetl and notarizetl
I ,the owner, hereby authorize
to act as my applicant/representative(s)
in all matters pertaining to the processing and approval of this application, including modifying the project. I agree to be bound by all
representations and agreements made by the designated representative.
Signature of Current Property Owner: Date:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 20
State of
County of Notary Public
IX. AUTHORIZATION TO VIStT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City representatives are essential to process this
application. The Owner/Applicant, as notarized below, hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the
property described in this application.
X. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The City of The Owner/Applicant acknowledges the approval of this request for rezoning by the Dublin
Planning and Zoning Commission and/or Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of
Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said Owner/Applicant.
XI. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: This section must be completed and notarized.
\'G'1V1 [% F~,f Gt-[,l T T~G~ry1. , ~'~ ~ " I G(ilit L~'~(~i(~ ,the owner or authorized representative, have
read and understand the concert of this application. The informs fon contained in this application, attached exhibits and other
information submitted is complete and in all respects true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature of applicant or authorized representative:~~~s ~~~i.w~!1c~rv~ I Date: Jr . Zcf .~
Subscribed and worn to before me this a~ 7 day of I ~~ , 20 (~ .'' ~'"' ~~ " ° ''•
~9~';
~~ ~ . i
State of U L~ ~ `~~"~ ~ 1 't; ,RACHAEL M. VlE11i
N ,, - / ~ I D ~~, F`~~ '~"'_"~~~~.' •~ Notary Publlc, 3teto of Ohlo
ty r-' ~'•~'~~~~~ Notary Public ~*~~"` ~~ ~'' 't r` My Comml~elnn f:>c~In10!!•08.08
coup of
NOTE: THE OWNER, OR NOTED REPRESENTATIVE IF APPLICABLE, WILL RECEIVE A FACSIMILE CONFIRMING RECEIPT OF THIS APPLICATION
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Amount Received: Application No: P8Z Dates}: P&Z Action:
Receipt No: MIS Fee No: Oate Received: Received By:
Type of Request:
N, S, E, W (Circle) Side of:
Nearest Intersection:
Distance from Nearest Intersection:
Page 4 of 5
ATTACHMENT A: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA
(A) Preliminary development plan. In the review of proposed planned developments, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council shall determine whether or not the preliminary development plan complies with the following criteria. In the event the Planning
and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed preliminary development plan does not comply with a preponderance of these
criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall disapprove the application:
(1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Zoning Code;
(2) The proposed development is in conformity with Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan, and other adopted plans or
portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing street network;
(3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the city and immediate vicinity and will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas;
(4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the city so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will
be safeguarded;
(5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan;
(6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the
site;
(7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided;
(13) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion an the sur-
rounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that
the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non-conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedes-
trians;
(9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for the coordination and integration
of this development within the PD and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community;
(10) The density, building gross Floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and structures, yard space, design
and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overall accept-
ability of the development plans contribute to the orderly development of land within the city;
(11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and
normal swales, water courses and drainage areas;
(12J The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard devel-
opment regulations included in the Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent
of the Planned Development District regulations;
(13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable
appearance standards of the city;
(14) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated
among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development;
(15) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements and not impair the existing
public service system for the area;
(16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service
the new development.
Page 5 of 5
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
JUNE 5, 2008
CI11 OF DIYLI'V..
Lond Use and
long Ronge Planning
5800 Shier-Rings Rood
Dublin, Ohio 4301b-1236
Phone: 614-410-4600
Fox: 614.410.4747
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
4. Historic Business Rezanings 123 and 95 S. High and 45 N. High Street
08-0422 Rezoning
Proposal: Rezoning of properties from CB, Central Business District to HB,
Historic Business District within Historic Dublin.
Request: Review and approval of a rezoning under the provisions of Code
Section 153.234.
Applicant: Jane Brautigam, City of Dublin.
Planning Contact: Tammy J. Noble-Flading, Senior Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4649, tflading@dublin.oh.us
MOTION: To approve this Rezoning application because this request is in keeping with
previous intentions of the City of Dublin to rezone portions of the Historic District to a zoning
classification that is consistent with the development located found in this area and goals of both
the residents of the Historic District and the City of Dublin.
VOTE: 6 - 0.
RESULT: This Rezoning application was approved.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
~ ~,
~: ~ ;% ~ r
/-
i
Tammy J oble-Flading ~
Senior Planner
f1S SUBMITTED TO COUNRCI/Ll
~~~ ~~ FOR MEETING ON 11 J"I. -0~
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 5, 2008 -Minutes
Page5of10
Mr. Zimmerman pointed Alit that at the Wor ession the c
buffering was provid~n the western elev on of the site to
and the service do,9 s. Ms. Noble-Flad' g said to the exten~
screened, that isstte has been addres She said the a~is
southern bo~ary and some addi~i pal vegetation on the wes~
;omm~ion wanted to en~uie that
a~uately screen the 1 aiding area
~a service area of tfs size can be
ant has propos screening on the
ern boundazy
//
Final Develop nt Plan with the
Mr. l~an agreed to the twg~onditions listed be
1Vlotion and Vote
Mr. Zimmerma~ma~
following tw~onditi
1) The applicant
landscape mat
2) That any trayx~
a motion
'with Planning to
on the landscape
;d material that doE
this
~ectly identify all ew, transplanted
in order tom t the Code.
t survive, ust be replaced ac~COfdir
existing
Code.
Ms. Amoros roomes scconde~! The vote was as f ows: Mr. Fishmn ,yes; Mr. Walter, s;
Mr. Frei nn, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Amo se Groomes, yes; d Mr. Zimmerm ,yes.
(App ed 6 - 0.) ~'
3. Dublin.Medical Campus P - ,Subarea II Hospita rive Connection.
08-U25AFDP ~ / Amended Fi I Development P
Jean-Ellen Willis, Traffic Engineer on behalf of the City of Dublin s given the oath Mr.
Zimmerman. Ms. Willis greed to the two ~riilitions as listed i e Planning Repo There
was no further discussla~ii on this case. ~
Motion and Vote ~~ '
Mr. Zimmerman made the motion to approve this A ended Final Development Plan, and Mr.
Walter seconded. The vote was as follows: Freimann, yes~~lvlr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms.
Amortise Groomes, yes;. Mr. Fishman, yes,; r. Walter, yes;. 'and Mr. "Zimmerman, yes.
(Approved 6 - 0.)
4. Historic Business Rezonings 123 and 95 S. High Street
08-0422 45 N. High Street
Motion and Vote
There was no discussion regarding this case which had no conditions recommended. Mr.
Zimmerman made the motion to approve these reLOnings and Mr. Fishman seconded. The vote
was as follows: Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Waiter, yes; Mr. Freimann, yes; Ms. Amorose
Groomes, yes; Mr. Fishman, ycs; and Mr. Zimmerman, yes. (Approved 6- 0~,~; ,IJL~MIT-1'EU 70 CUUNp L
1. ~ ' F017 MEETING ON o ~ M
WO SESSION
M .Zimmerman expl• ' ed the Work Session purpose and procedures. He advised that all
omments made h e Commission are' nformal and non-binding, and are intended only to
provide general tdance to the applicant regarding the application.
PLANNING REPORT
cr7v of DL~BI -~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Land Use and
Lang Range Planning
5800 Shier•Rings Raod .IVi11Ej 2QQ8
Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 ~
Phone: 614-410-4600
Fox: 614A10-4141
Web 5ile: www.dublin.ah,us
SECTION I -CASE INFORMATION:
4. Historic Business Rezonings 123 and 95 S. High and 45 North High Street
08-0422 Rezoning
Proposal: Rezoning of properties from CB, Central Business District to HB,
Historic Business District within Historic Dublin.
Request: Review and approval of a rezoning under the provisions of Code
Section 153.234.
Applicant: Sane Brautigam, City of Dublin.
Planning Contact: Tammy J. Noble-Flading, Senior Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4649, tflading@dublin.oh.us
Case Summary:
This is aCity-sponsored application for review and approval of a rezoning to Dublin HB,
Historic Business District. T1ie application consists of three properties which have been based
upon recent permitting procedures that have either required rezoning to the Historic Business
zoning classification. All non-conforming uses and structures will be subject to the requirements
of Section 153.004(C) of the Dublin Zoning Code. Planning recommends approval of this
rezoning.
Case Background:
Property maintenance and redevelopment efforts in Historic Dublin have been problematic over
the last couple of years. This is due to several issues, including the fact that the underlying
zoning of the district is suburban in nature and does not reflect the development patterns within
the original village. As a result, the Zoning Code provisions do not adequately address the
District's unique qualities.
The Historic Residential and Historic Business Districts were adopted in October 2003 in an
effort to address these concerns. The purpose of the districts is to permit the preservation and
development of homes and businesses on Lots that are comparable in size, mass and scale, while
maintaining and promoting the traditional character of the Historic Dublin area. The districts
were further designed to maintain the unique qualities of the historic community and ensure that
those development patterns continue the intent and purpose of the original village.
Site Description:
The area is comprised of approximately .SS +/- acres that are currently zoned CB, Community
Business District. The parcels are located on the west side of High Street within the Historic
District.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 5, 2008 -Planning Report
Application No. 08-0422
Page 2 of 3
The current uses of these properties are commercial uses, including a catering business, a peanut
butter and pastry retail establishment, and a hair and nail salon. No new development is
proposed with the current application and all properties will be subject to the development
standards of the HB, Historic Business District.
Proposed Rezoning:
T`he uses permitted in the HB, Historic Business District aze similar to those permitted in the CB,
Community Business District. However, the development standards for the HB, Historic
Business District are more conducive to more dense development patterns. A comparison of the
districts follows:
CB District Historic Residential District
Uses Residential structures (one Residential uses (one through four
through four dwellings); dwellings), retail uses, eating and
retail stores, administrative drinking establishments,
offices, personal and administrative offices, medical and
consumer services. dental offices, personal and
consumer services, institutional
uses, religious uses, child care,
parks and public plazas, bed and
breakfast establishments, outdoor
patios and dance related studios.
Lot Area No minimum lot area is No minimum lot area is required.
re wired.
Lot Width No minimum lot width is 60 feet minimum lot width and
re wired. frontage required.
Side Yard Adjacent to residential Minimum side yard of 0 feet with a
district, the required side total side yard of five feet.
yard is one-fourth the sum
of the height and depth of
the building, no case less
than 15 feet.
Rear Yard Adjacent to residential All lots shall have a minimum rear
district, the required rear yard of five feet.
yard is one-fourth the sum
of the height and width of
the building, except when
adjacent to a dedicated alley
of not less than 20 feet.
Hei t No re uirement 35 feet
Lot Coverage 80% lot coverage of the 80% lot coverage unless otherwise
total lot area. permitted by the Architectural
Review Board.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 5, 2008 -Planning Report
Application No. 08-0422
Page 3 of 3
Evaluation and Recommendation based on the Community Plan
Future Land Use: The adopted Future Land Use Map in the Community Plan shows this site as
Mixed Use Village Center which is consistent with the uses contained in this rezoning
application. The Village Centers include targeted areas near arterials or major collectors that
are intended to provide daily retail, major grocers and other conveniences to serve the Dublin
community within a 3 to S-mile radius. Village Centers incorporate moderately-sized nodes of
commercial activity with a target size of 125, 000 square feet of gross leasable space. Integrated
office uses are encouraged in a manner appropriate to the overall area. Medium to High
Density Mixed Residential uses are encouraged and should be integrated to facilitate pedestrian
activity and to provide support,for commercial uses.
Future Land Use met: The existing uses remain commercial in nature with an intended
purpose to serve the local community. No changes in use are proposed.
Area Plan: This site is part of the Historic Dublin Area Plan within the Community Plan. The
main goal of this area plan is to enhance and revitalize Historic Dublin as activity center within
the City thttt is vibrant, pedestrian-oriented and user friendly with integrated mix of uses that
supports economic, civic, recreational and housing opportunities for all segments of Dublin 's
population.
Area Plan met: The existing uses do concentrate the services and overall design of the
site to pedestrian oriented customers. The uses permitted in the HB District continue to
support these recommendations made by the Area Plan.
SECTION II -REVIEW STANDARDS:
The objective of this process is to rezone the residential portions of Historic Dublin to a zoning
classification that is more reflective of the type and size of development located within the
Historic District. Planning is supportive of this process because it provides more appropriate
standards to the parcels and allows development and redevelopment of the properties to occur in
amore streamlined review process.
After the Planning and Zoning Commission makes its recommendation, the case will be
forwarded to City Council for a public hearing and final vote. With a positive recommendation
from the Commission, a simple majority vote is required for passage. A negative Commission
recommendation requires five votes for City Council passage. If the ordinance is approved, it
will take effect in 30 days.
SECTION III -PLANNING OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION: Approval
The Historic Business District was adopted by the City in 2003 for the distinct purpose of
providing a commercial district that took into account the lot size and development potential of
this unique portion of Dublin. This request is in keeping with previous intentions of the City of
Dublin to rezone portions of the Historic District to a zoning classification that are consistent
with the development located found in this area.
Planning is recommending approval of the request based on the fact that it is in keeping with
these previous objectives and goals of both the residents of the Historic District and the City of
Dublin.
EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT
§ 153.030 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
(A) Permitted use. The following uses shall he permitted in the Central Business
District:
(1) Residential. Residential structures containing not more than four dwelling
units.
(2) Retail stores. Retail stores primarily engaged in selling merchandise for
personal or household consumption and rendering services incidental to the sale of the
goods, including the buying or processing of goods for resale.
(a) Building materials.
522 Heating and plumbing equipment dealers
523 Paint, glass and wallpaper stores
524 Electrical supply stores
5251 Hazdware stores
(b) General merchandise.
531 Department stores
532 Mail order houses
533 Limited price variety stores
5392 Dry goods and general merchandise stores
(c) Food.
541 Grocery stores
543 Fruit stores and vegetable markets
544 Candy, nut and confectionery stores
545 Dairy products stores
5463 Retail bakeries - nonmanufacturing
5499 Food stores not elsewhere classified AS r;lJt.tiMl-~~-f~;lj I l~ t.~lil~cll
'~~~ "fig FOR MEETING ON.
f-s-
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT
(d) Apparel and accessories.
561 Men's and boys' clothing and furnishings stores
562 Women's ready-to-wear stores
563 Women's accessory and specialty shops
564 Children's and infants' wear stores
565 Family clothing stares
566 Shce stores
567 Custom tailors
568 Furriers and fur shops
569 Miscellaneous apparel and accessory stores
(e) Furniture, home furnishings and equipment.
571 Furniture, home furnishings and equipment stores
572 Household appliance stores
573 Radio, television and music stores
(f) Eating and drinking.
581 Eating and drinking places
(g) Miscellaneous.
591 Drug stores and proprietary stores
592 Liquor stores
593 Antique stores and secondhand stores
594 Book and stationery stores
595 Sporting goods stores and bicycle shops
597 Jewelry stores
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT
599 Retail stores not elsewhere classified
(3} Administrative, Business and Professional Offices. Administrative offices
primarily engaged in general administration, supervision, purchasing, accounting and
other management functions. Business offices carrying on no retail trade with the general
public and having no stock of goods maintained for sale to customers. Professional
offices engaged in providing tangible and intangible services to the general public,
involving both persons and possessions.
(a) Finance.
601 Federal reserve banks
602 Commercial and stock savings banks
603 Mutual savings banks
604 Trust companies not engaged in deposit banking
605 Establishments performing functions closely related to banking
611 Rediscount and financing institutions for credit agencies other than
banks
612 Savings and loan associations
613 Agricultural credit institutions
6l4 Personal credit institutions
615 Business credit institutions
b 16 Loan correspondents and brokers
621 Security brokers, dealers and flotation companies
622 Commodity contracts brokers and dealers
b23 Security and commodity exchanges
b28 Services allied with the exchange of securities or commodities
(b) Insurance carriers.
631 Life insurance
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. I-sigh, 45 N. High
EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT
632 Accident and health insurance
633 Fire, marine and casualty insurance
635 Surety insurance
636 Title insurance
639 Insurance carriers not elsewhere classified
(c) Iasurar7ce agents.
641 Insurance agents, brokers and service
(d) Real estate.
651 Real estate operators (except developers) and lessors
6,53 Agents, brokers and managers
654 Title abstract companies
655 Subdividers and developers
656 Operative builders
661 Combination of real estate, insurance, loans, law offices
(e) Holding and other investment companies.
671 Holding companies
672 Investment companies
673 Trusts
679 Miscellaneous investing institutions
(f) Professional.
801 Offices of physicians and surgeons
802 Offices of dentists and dental surgeons
803 Offices of osteopathic physicians
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
] 23 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT
804 Offices of chiropractors
807 Medical and dental laboratories
809 Health and allied services not elsewhere classified
811 Legal services
891 Engineering and architectural services
893 Accounting, auditing and bookkeeping services
(4) Personal and Consumer Services. Personal services generally involving the
care of the person or his personal effects. Consumer services generally involving the care
and maintenance of tangible property or the provision of intangible services for personal
consumption.
(a) Persorurl.
721 Photographic studios, including commercial photography
723 Beauty shops
724 Barber shops
725 Shce repair shops, shoe shine parlors and hat cleaning shops
726 Funeral service
727 Pressing, alteration and garment repair
729 Miscellaneous personal services
(b) Business.
731 Advertising
732 Consumer credit reporting agencies, mercantile reporting agencies,
and adjustment and collection agencies
733 Duplicating, addressing, blueprinting, photocopying, mailing, mailing
list and stenographic services
735 News syndicates
08-0427
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT
739 Business services not elsewhere classified (except 7391 -research, development
and testing laboratories (see § 153.026(B)(3)(a))
(c} Miscellaneous repair.
762 Electrical repair shops
763 Watch, clock and jewelry
764 Reupholstery and furniture repair
769 Miscellaneous repair shops and related services
(B) Conditio~ral use. The following uses shall be allowed in the Central Business
District, subject to approval in accordance with § 153.236.
(1) Residential. Living quarters developed as an integral part of permitted use
structure.
(2) hTdustrial Controls.
3622 Industrial controls, but limited to those of an electronic character.
(3) Large format retail. Any retail or wholesale use of 20,000 square feet or
more of gross floor area.
(4) Outdoor service facilities. Outdoor service facilities when developed
independently or in association with a permitted use.
(C) Development standards. In addition to the provisions of §§ 153.070 through
153.076, the following standards for arrangement and development of land and buildings
are required in the Central Business District.
(1) Intensity of rise. No minimum lot size is required.
street.
(2) Lot width. No minimum lot width is required; however, all lots shall abut a
(3) Side yard. Aside yard shall be required adjacent to a residential zoning
district or planned residential zoning district as listed in § 153.016. These required side
yards shall be not less than one-fourth the sum of the height and depth of the building, but
in no case shall be less than 15 feet.
(4) Rear yard. A rear yard shall be required adjacent to a residential zoning
district or a planned residential zoning district as listed in § 153.0]6. These required rear
yards shall be not less than one-fourth the sum of the height and width of the building,
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT
except when adjacent to a dedicated alley of not less than 20 feet. A use designed to be
serviced from the rear shall provide a service court, alleyway or combination thereof
having a width of not less than 40 feet.
(5) Location and appearance. The location on the site and appearance
(architectural character) of structures proposed for construction in the Central Business
District shall be governed by the provisions of Section 1183.1 I .
('80 Code, §§ 1167.01 - 1167.03) (Ord. 21-70, passed 7-13-70; Am. Ord. 147-97, passed
12-15-97; Am. Ord. 88-98, passed 11-2-98; Am. Ord. 68-99, passed 9-5-00; Am. Ord.
57-07, passed 9-4-07) Penalty see § 153.999
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT
153.036 HISTORIC BUSINESS DISTRICT.
(A) District intent. The intent of the Historic Business District is to improve
economic viability and to provide a greater mix of uses with an emphasis on historic
preservation and traditional development patterns. Utilization of the district is intended to
foster pedestrian-oriented development that will enhance Historic Dublin as a community
focal point. It is intended to discourage auto-oriented uses, uses with fleet parking,
commercial storage and other uses that would detract from the visual quality and scale of
the district. Its goal is to foster appropriate development standards to preserve historic
character by promoting the re-use of existing buildings when compatible with the district
and the addition of suitable infill development.
(B) Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the Historic Business
District.
(1) Retail. Retail stores engaged in selling merchandise or rendering services
incidental to the sale of the goods, including the buying and processing of goods for
resale or repair.
(a) General merchandise
(b) Food and catering activities
(c) Apparel
(d) Home furnishings
(e) Arts, crafts and antiques
(f) Miscellaneous retail
(2) Tatirrg a~ad drinking establishments. Eating and drinking establishments that
are commercial establishments engaged in furnishing meals on a fee basis.
(a) Restaurants
(b) Bars and taverns
(c) lce cream parlors
(d) Coffee shops
(e) Bagel shops
(f) Delicatessens and sandwich shops
OS-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT
(3) Administrative, business and professional offices.
(4) Medical and dental offices.
(5) Personal and consumer services.
(a) Barbers
(b) Beauty salons and shops
(c) Tanning salons
(d) Pedestrian-only ATMs
(e) Tailors and pressing shops
(f) Print shops and copy centers
(g) Photography and framing shops
(6) Institutional.
(a) Government offices
(b) Libraries and museums
(c) Community theaters
(7) Religious. Churches, temples or other places of worship.
(8) Child care. Kindergarten, childcare, or daycare in accordance with all
applicable state provisions.
(9) Parks and public plazas. Parks, public plazas, playgrounds, play fields or
other related park uses.
(10) Bed and breakfast establishments. Bed and breakfast establishments with a
resident manager/owner providing eight or fewer guest units.
(11) Ihvellings. One-family through four-family dwelling units, including
residences in detached accessory structures (i.e. carnage house units) and/or residences in
conjunction with structures containing other permitted Historic Business District uses.
(12) Outdoor patios. Outdoor seating areas, including but not limited to outdoor
dining and restaurant patio spaces in conjunction with other permitted Historic Business
District uses.
08-042L
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 INT. High
PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT
(13) Dance, aerobic, exercise, gymnastics, and related studios.
(C) Corrditio~ial rises. The following uses shall be conditional uses within the
Historic Business District:
(1) Notel and motel facilities. Hotels, motels and other boarding facilities,
including bed and breakfasts as not otherwise noted in division (B)(10) of this section.
(2) Recreation centers.
(3) Lodges, banquet halls, and private elr~bs.
(4) Parking lots. Stand-alone parking lots not in conjunction with other
permitted and/or conditional Historic Business District uses.
(5) Open-air markets. Farmer`s markets or other outdoor markets.
(D) Development standards. The following standards for arrangement and
development of land and buildings are required.
(1) Lot area. There shall be no minimum lot area; however, lot size shall be
adequate to meet all applicable development standards. No land may be subdivided or
combined into lots greater than 21,780 square feet (0.5-acre).
(2) Lot width. Lots shall be a minimum of 60 feet in width with a minimum
frontage of 60 feet along a public street.
(3) Front yard. All lots shall have a minimum front yard setback of 0 feet.
(4) Side yard. All lots shall have a minimum side yard of 0 feet with a total of
side yards of five feet. Minimum side yards for parking with direct access onto an alley
shall be 0 feet.
(5) Rear yard. All lots shall have a minimum rear yard of five feet. Minimum
rear yards for parking with direct access onto an alley shall be 0 feet.
(6) Height. No dwelling structure shall exceed 35 feet in height. Maximum
height for other structures shall not exceed a safe height as determined by the Fire Chief
and as reviewed and accepted by the Architectural Review Board.
(7) I,ot coverage. Combined square footage of all primary and accessory
structures and impervious surfaces shall not exceed 80% of the lot area, unless otherwise
approved by the Architectural Review Board.
(Ord. 53-03, passed 10-6-03)
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
AUGUST 9, 2007
CITY OF DUBLI\
land Use and
long Range Pkaning
5800 Shier Rings Road
Dublin. Ohio 43016-1236
Phone: 614410-4600
fax: 614-410-4141
Web Site: wvrw.dub6n.oh.us
The Planning and Toning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
4. Historic Dublin South Riverview and
Residential Rezonings High Streets
07-0692 Rezoning
Proposal: Rezoning of properties from R-2, Limited Suburban Residential
District and R-4, Suburban Residential District to HR, Historic
Residential District within Historic Dublin.
Request: Review and approval of rezonings under the provisions of Code
Section 153.234.
Applicant: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, City of Dublin.
Affected Parcels: 19, 25, 37, 55, 56, 61, 63, 64, 73, 76, 83, 84, 97, 109, l 12, 129,
I34, 137, 143, 170, 179, 180, 185, 195, and 224 South Riverview
Street, Short Street Tax District 273, Parcel 011175, 190 South
High Street.
Planning Contact: Tammy Noble-Flading, Senior Planner
Contact Information: (614) 410-4649, tnobie@dublin.oh.us
MOTION: To approve this Rezoning application because it is in keeping with the objectives
and goals of both the residents of the Historic District and the City of Dublin.
VOTE: 5 - 0.
ILESULT: 'I~his Rezoning application was approved.
STA ~ F CERTIFICATION
Steve Langworth
Planning Directo
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
Planning and 7_oning Commission
Minutes -August 9, 2007
Page 18 of 30
Mr. Gerber said it wovl'd take him a while
more open space more of a setback.
buildings are go' to the ARB, it is go' g
support it witl} t more stone and brie
to~et used to this. He s~(d he was expecting a ittle
hIe said with respect~to the architecture, w ile the
to come back to the~ommission. He sal could not
Mr. Mc h said regarding the ace issue, there is a t of noise along Bri a Street, and said
the el ated internal plaza w ld provide a view a that was really the b of activity on the
site r. Gerber said he d' not disagree with th as far as gathering p cos, but really thoug
t y would have more g en, more open.
Mr. McCash said e only other comme a had on architectu was that snow guar be used
on the portions the buildings with s ding seam metal roo He noted that with wn Center
I there have b en instances where s wand ice have slid the metal roof and tentially onto
people pas 'ng by on the sidewal .
Mr. Gerber said he appreciated all of Mr. Bird's hard work and thanked
4. Historic Dublin Residential Rezonings South Riverview and High Streets
07-0692 Rezoning
Steve Langworthy presented this rezoning application which was requested by petition from the
property owners. Ile expressed Planning's appreciation to the residents who helped determine
properties that wanted to be included in the petition. He said the criteria used for this zoning was
similar to those used for the area rezonings. Mr. Langworthy said Planning's attempt with the
Historic Residential District originally was to devise a district that was more in tune with
actually what was happening on the ground so that it is a more realistic zoning district placed
mostly on these historic properties. Mr. I,angworthy said Planning's recommendation is for
approval of these rezonings and to forwazd the recommendation to City Council.
Ms. Amoroso Groomes noted that the present zoning was residential, and asked what differences
would be if this were rezoned.
Mr. Langworthy said primarily, the differences were not with uses, but with lot dimensions and
setback requirements. He said most of the properties aze fairly small and it was difficult for
additions to be made without having to appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ile said the
idea was to try to create a district that was more in tune with the historic nature of the area. He
said it was likely in the future that Planning will come back with more of these rezonings in the
Historic Residential District. He said Planning is only reacting now with the petition received.
Ms. Amoroso said she understood that currently, if someone wanted a bed and breakfast, it
would require a variance and if these rezonings were to happen you would not only need a
variance, but also you would need to be rezoned.
Mr. Langworthy said if she was talking about a use variance, then a rezoning would not be
necessary because if the use is not allowed, it is just a straight use variance to the Board of
Zoning Appeals, or you could be rezoned to a district that did permit the use and the rezoning
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 9, 2007
Page 19 of 30
would go though the Commission. He said it would not require both - it would be either/or. Mr.
Langworthy confurned that this potential change would not have impact on that process.
David Garcia, 109 South Riverview, said one of the main reasons why the residents wanted
rezoned was that they wanted to preserve the consistency, at least in this very small section. He
said it was a quaint street without sidewalks with a speed limit of 15 mph. 1-Ie said some
businesses and residences are seen in certain historic areas, but as it stands today, particularly
with no sidewalks and a lot of children on the street, that is why the residents decided with one
voice to try to preserve this as a residential section. He said that would not prevent someone in
the future, if they did want a bed and breakfast or something, from requesting it.
Mr. Fishman confirmed this HR rezoning was still for asingle-family residential district.
Mr. Gerber recalled that this rezoning process began approximately three years ago. He said it
was to distinguish between business and residential areas. He said this new rezoning will
preserve the residential areas more than it does now.
Motion and Vote
Chris Amorose Groomes made a motion to approve this Rezoning application because it is in
keeping with these previous objectives and goals of both the residents of the Historic District and
the City of Dublin. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr.
Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; and Ms. Amorose
Groomes, yes. (Approved 5 - 0.)
5. Eiterman Road Right- -Way 5625 E'rrman Road
07-058PP/FP Preliminary P and Final Plat
Ed Reinhard, 6634 trathern Court, thanked't Commission and Plarui g for the additional
review of this t. He said initially, it w set to go through the tr a line and remove the,
existing buffp{ng, but the redesign mat med the tree line and a ded an additional 15 fee {f
buffer.
einhard brought up the is e of the proposed speed it of 35 mph and said~~lii dren from
e Ballantrae neighborhoo will cross the road to geft to the school. He was oncerned about
their safety. He asked f9r a reconsideration to redu~the speed limit to 25 i.
Steve Smith, Jr. plained that most spee~ mits are set statutorily epending on the typ~f
road and ther 's a process to go througl~,to either lower and/or ra' a speed limit. He su fisted
that Mr. 'nhard contact the Engin~rmg department.
Mr einhard said he had alre y discussed the speed r uction with Engineeri ,but he did not
feel like it was being hear roperly.
Mr. Gerber stated t this was a preliminary at and final plat, and t would be reviewed and
approved or dis proved by City Counci He recommended that r. Reinhard attend the City
Council meeting when this is scheduled o express his concern.
OS-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
BOARD ORDER
MAY 24, 2006
CITY OF DUBLIAr_
Land Use and
long Range Punning
5600 Shier•Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016.1236
Phone: 614 10-0600
Fox: 614-910-4141
Web Site: www.dubtin.oh.us
The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting:
2. Architectural Review Board 06-OS6ARB - 91/95 South High Street -Dublin Hair
and Nails
Location: 0.21-acre lot located at the northwest corner of Pinney Hill and South High
Street.
Existnag Zoning: CB, Central Business District.
Request: Review and approval of the demolition of a 578-square-foot building and the
construction of a 772-squaze-foot building.
Proposed Use: Nail salon.
Applicant: John C. Albert, 10776 Campden Lakes Boulevard, Dublin, Ohio 43016;
represented by aim Clarke, Clazke Architects, 507 Village Park Drive, Powell, Ohio
43065.
Staff Contact: Todd Corwin, Senior Planner, or Joanne Ochal, Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4656/Email: tcorwin@dublin.oh.us, or (6l4) 410 -
4683/Email: jochal@dublin.oh.us.
MOTION #1: Kevin Bales, made a motion, seconded by Clayton Bryan, to approve the
demolition, with two conditions:.
Demolition:
The demolition of the existing 578-square-foot outbuilding is within the Guidelines. Staff feels
the removal of this structure for the construction of the new structure will enhance the Historic
District. Staff recommends approval with the following two conditions:
1) That a demolition permit be obtained from the Building Division prior to demolition; and
2) That demolition occurs within six months of ARB approval.
VOTE: 5-0
RESULT: 'The building demolition was approved/
RECORDED V~
Thomas Holton
Kevin Bales
Clayton Bryan
William Souders
Linda Kick
RTES:
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes Page 1 of 3
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin P~ezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 445 N. 1~igh
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
BOARD ORDER
MAY 24, 2006
2. Architectural Review Board 06-056ARB - 91/95 South High Street -Dublin Hair
and Nails (Continued)
MOTION #2: Thomas Holton made a motion, seconded by Clayton Byran, to approve this
building construction with 16 conditions:
New Proposal:
The proposed structure will replace an unsafe, historically insignificant outbuilding. The
proposed replacement structure is consistent with the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. Staff
believes that the proposed building materials are of high quality and have been traditionally used
throughout the Historical District. Staff recommends approval of the building addition with the
following 16 conditions:
1) That the applicant rezone the property to HB, Historic Business District;
2) That the applicant obtains a variance for the size of the accessory structure;
3) That the two lots be combined prior to the issuance of a building pernut;
4) That a building permit be obtained prior to construction of the proposed improvements;
5) That the plans be revised to show existing and proposed conditions, including the
location of ADA accessible parking, utility services, and pedestrian paths;
6) That the necessary civil plans be prepared prior to submitting for a building permit;
7) That the applicant complies with the City's Stormwater Management and Stream
Corridor Protection Zone Ordinance;
8) That landscaping requirements be met, subject to staff approval;
9) That protective chain link fencing for the black locust tree be installed prior to and
maintained during all construction activity;
10} That if the black locust tree dies or becomes a hazard within five years, it will be replaced
on an inch by inch basis or the appropriate fee will be paid;
11) That gray asphalt shingles be used on the new accessory structure's roof, subject to staff
approval;
12) That a tree removal permit be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit;
13) That any lighting proposed for the new construction be subject to staff approval;
14) That all mechanicals be screened to Code subject to siaff approval;
15) That any proposed signage be brought back to this Boazd prior to installation; and
Page 2 of 3 08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
BOARD ORDER
MAY 24, 2006
2. Architectural Review Board 06-056ARB - 91/95 South High Street -Dublin Hair
and Nails (Continued)
16) That the applicant work with the property owner to the north to install a brick sidewalk to
provide connectivity from Mill Lane to the pazking lot, if feasible, and to install coach or
post lighting fixtures along this sidewalk, subject to staff approval.
VOTE: 5-0
RESULT: This building addition was approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Thomas Holton Yes
Kevin Bales Yes
Clayton Bryan Yes
William Souders Yes
Linda Kick Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
~~~~
Todd Corwin
Senior Planner
Page 3 of 3 08-0427
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezo~:ing
123 & 95 S. High, 4~ N. Iiigh
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
BOARD ORDER
MAY 24, 2006
CITY OF DtiBLI'V_
land Use and
Long Range Pknning
Sfl00 Shier-Rings Rood
Duhlin, Ohio 43016.1236
Phone: 614-010-0600
Fax: 614.410741
Weh Sile: www.duhlin.oh.us
The Architectural Review Boazd took the following action at this meeting:
3. Architectural Review Board 06-041ARB - 45 North High Street - Krema Products
Addition
Location: 0.25-acre lot located on the west side of North High Street, 300 feet north of
East Bridge Street.
Ezisting Zoning: CB, Central Business District.
Request: Review and approval of the relocation of an existing 1,208-squaze-foot
building and a 3,422-square-foot addition to the existing building.
Proposed Use: Wazehouse and retail space.
Applicant: Craig Sonkson, 45 North High Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Jeff Jacobs, Planning Intern, or Joanne Ochal, Planner.
Contact Information: (6I4) 410-4677IEmail: jwjacobs@dublin.oh.us, or (614) 410-
4683/Ernail: jochal@dublin.oh.us.
MOTION #1: Linda Kick made a motion, seconded by Kevin Bales, to approve the building
relocation with one condition:
Demolition
The demolition of the existing outbuilding is within the Guidelines, as it is not economically
feasible to restore the structure and because there is no reasonable economic use for the structure
as it exists Staff believes the removal of this outbuilding for the construction of the sidewalk will
provide connectivity from Darby Street to North High Street and will enhance the Historic
District. Staff recommends approval with the following condition:
1) That if a demolition is approved; the owner of the land which contains the out building is
required to obtain a demolition permit from the Division of Building Standazds prior to
demolition.
OS-0422
Page 1 of 3 Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
BOARD ORDER
MAY 24, 2006
3. Architectural Review Board 06-041ARB - 45 North High Street - Krema Products
Addition (Continued)
VOTE: 5-0
RESULT: The building demolition was approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Thomas Holton Yes
Kevin Bales Yes
Clayton Bryan Yes
William Souders Yes
Linda Kick Yes
MOTION #2: Thomas Holton made a motion, seconded by Linda Kick, to approve this
building addition with ten conditions:
New Construction:
Staff believes that the proposed expansion is compatible with the Historic District and will
provide a suitable and consistent addition to the existing building and the character of the
streetscape. The expansion provides architectural detailing and relief and generally meets the
intent of the Guidelines. Staff recommends approval of this application with the following ten
conditions:
1) That the applicant revise the Landscape plan to reflect the comments in the memo dated
May 12, 2006;
2) The applicant comply with ensuring all stormwater is adequately routed to a public
stormwater system and not onto adjacent properties;
3) That the applicant obtain a parking variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals or that
Code be met;
4) That the applicant file an application with Land Use and Long Range division to rezone
the property to Historic Business (HB) prior to issuance of a building permit;
5) That the applicant return to the ARB for approval of any additional signage prior to
installation;
6) That the applicant obtain a sign permit for the relocated sign;
7) That the applicants lighting plan be revised to meet the Dublin Lighting Guidelines;
8) That the applicant pay a fee of $100.00 per inch for any required tree caliper inches not
relocated on site;
08-0422
Page 2 of 3 Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
BOARD ORDER
MAY 24, 2006
3. Architectural Review Board 06-041ARB - 45 North high Street - Krema Products
Addition (Continued)
9) That if a demolition permit is necessary, it be obtained from the Division of Building
Standards prior to demolition; and
10) That can lighting be eliminated from the original structure and ceiling mounted fixture be
installed, subject to staff approval.
VOTE: 5-0
RESULT: This building constntction was approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Thomas Holton Yes
Kevin Bales Yes
Clayton Bryan Yes
William Souders Yes
Linda Kick Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
G.~
oanne Ochal
Planner
Page 3 of 3 08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes -May 24, 2006
Page 2 of 12
Tom Hol n noted that the pl next to the Frog P was almost comple and the frog was
finally ' its place.
C 'Holton made a m ion to go into Execut' a Session to discuss rsonnel matters.
Keith Bales secon d the motion, and th ote was as follows: .Holton, yes; Mr. ales, yes;
Mr. Bryan, yes; .Souders, yes; and s. Kick, yes. (Appro ed 5-0.)
[The Boar members left the roo for the Executive Se on.]
Mr. Iton upon return of Board, made them ion to elect Kevin B s 2006 Vice Chair
th Architectural Review oazd, and Mr. Bryan econded the motion. he vote was as foll s:
s. Kick, yes; Mr. uders, yes; Mr. B ,yes; Mr. Holton yes; and Mr. Bale , yes.
(Approved 5-0.)
Mr. Bryan ma the motion to elect homas Holton 2006 hair of the Archit tural Review
Board, and .Souders seconded emotion. The vote as as follows: ales, yes; Mr.
Bryan, ye , Mr. Souders, yes; M . 'ck, yes; and Mr. H ton, yes. (Approve -0.)
Kev' Bales made a moti ,seconded by Tho Holton, to accep a documents into e
re rd. The vote was as llows: Mr. Holton, s; Mr. Bales, yes; .Bryan, yes; Mr. So ers,
es; and Ms. Kick, ye (Approved 5-0.)
Thomas Holton de a motion, seconde y Kevin Bales, to prove the April 19, 06 meeting
minutes as pre nted. The vote was oolows: Mr. Holto ,yes; Mr. Bales, yes; .Bryan, yes;
Mr. Souder yes; and Ms. Kick, ye . (Approved 5-0.)
Mr. H on swore in those wh intended to speak t ght before the Boar
Architectural Re 'ew Board 06-069 - 25 South Riverv' w
Joanne Ochal apolo ized because the ap icant for this case w not present when case was
called. She requ ted that the case b ostponed to the end the meeting to alto time for the
applicant to co a to the meeting.
Chair To Holton agreed to p tpone this case until a end of the meeting
Aft all other cases wer eazd; Clayton Bry made a motion, seco ded by William Sou rs,
t ble this applicati due to the absence the applicant or a r resentative at the eting.
he vote was as fol ws: Mr. Holton, yes• .Bale, yes; Mr. S ders, yes; Mr. Bryan es, and
Ms. Kick, yes. ( led 5-0.)
2. Architectural Review Board 06-056ARB - 91/95 South High Street -Dublin Hair and
Nails
Planner Todd Corwin presented this case and slides for this application for the demolition of a
578-square-foot structure and the new construction of a 772-square-foot strnrttire_ He said 14
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
Dublin Architectural Review Boazd
Minuses -May 24, 2006
Page 3 of 12
parking spaces aze proposed which is sufficient for the site. Mr. Corwin said the existing Black
Locust Tree will be preserved.
Mr. Corwin pointed out that the 772-square-foot building proposed was beyond the 25 percent
square foot expansion of an accessory structure allowed by Code He said the Board had
previously approved such an expansion on this site. He presented paint samples. Mr. Corwin
stated that the proposed building has astucco-stone foundation and anasphalt-shingled roof. He
said Andersen 400 Series windows and ogee gutters would be used on the structure.
Mr. Corwin said the applicant worked with staff and Dublin's Historic consultant to reduce the
scale of the proposed porch.
Mr. Corwin said the existing roof was in poor condition.
Mr. Corwin said staff recommends approval of the demolition with the following two conditions:
1) That a demolition permit be obtained from the Building Division prior to demolition; and
2) That demolition occurs within six months of ARB approval.
Mr. Corwin said staff recommends approval of the proposed building construction with 12
conditions:
1) That the applicant rezone the property to HB, Historic Business District;
2) That the applicant obtains a variance for the size of the accessory structure;
3) That the two lots be combined prior to the issuance of a building permit;
4) That a building permit be obtained prior to construction of the proposed improvements;
5) That the plans be revised to show existing and proposed conditions, including the location of
ADA accessible parking, utility services, and pedestrian paths;
6) That the necessary civil plans be prepared prior to submitting for a building permit;
7) That the applicant complies with the City's Stormwater Management and Stream Corridor
Protection Zone Ordinance;
8) That landscaping requirements be met, subject to staff approval;
9) That protective chain link fencing for the black locust tree be installed prior to and
maintained during all construction activity;
10) That if the black locust tree dies or becomes a hazard within five years, it will be replaced on
an inch by inch basis or the appropriate fee will be paid;
11) That gray asphalt shingles be used on the new accessory structure's roof, subject to staff
approval; and
12) That a tree removal permit be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Albert said the colors for the rear building would be identical to those on the front building,
which were previously approved colors.
Mr. Holton asked about the roof.
Mr. Corwin provided a sample of the asphalt shingle proposed.
Mr. Albert agreed to use a gray asphalt shingle as requested by staff.
Mr. Bryan asked for an explanation of the lot coverage.
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes -May 24; 2006
Page 4 of 12
Ms. Ochal said part of the approval is that the two pazcels be combined in order to build the new
structure. She clarified that the 25 percent issue had to do with the size of the existing structure.
She said Code allows accessory structures to be 25 percent of the main building. She said this
structure is above that and the applicant has applied for a Board of Zoning Appeals variance for
that increase.
Mr. Corwin said the proposed structure will be 27 percent over the allowed 25 percent (52.7
percent or 1,464 square feet), and the addition will be 772 square feet (52 percent) for the
accessory building. He said both structures exceed the 25 percent permitted by Code.
Ms. Ochal said this property was akeady approved for a partial demolition of the outbuilding and
the construction of an addition to the outbuilding. She said the construction size proposed by the
applicant within the current application was approximately the same as what was approved in
2001. She said what has changed with this application is that the Board requested during the
approval process in 2001 that part of the outbuilding be repaired. She said now, the outbuilding
has decayed and needs to be replaced.
Kevin Bales asked what type of lighting is proposed for the site.
Mr. Albert said it would likely be a light near the door, similaz to what was on the front building.
He said a coach lamp of some type would be attached to the wall on the porch.
Mr. Bales said can lighting was not acceptable and suggested a condition that exterior lighting
would be subject to staff approval.
Mr. Albert said they were flexible with the lighting.
Ms. Ochal asked if the Board wanted the lighting to specifically match that of the existing
building.
Mx. Bales said "subject to staff approval" would suffice.
Ms. Ochal read drafted Condition 13: That any lights proposed with the new construction be
submitted, subject to staff approval.
Mr. Souders asked about signage for the new building.
Mr. Albert said it would be addressed when it is decided what its use is. He said he knew the
ARB process for sign approval.
Mr. Souders asked if there was any historic value of this building.
Ms. Ochal said there was no historic value to it.
Mr. Bryati suggested placing a lighted sidewalk along the alley or installing some lighting on the
back of the building to make the area pedestrian-friendly. He asked for other suggestions.
08-0427
Rezoning
1-Istoric Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes -May 24, 2006
Page 5 of 12
Mr. Bryan asked if the other Boazd members were comfortable with the one over one window
proposed.
Mr. Clarke replied that the historical consultant had indicated that they were appropriate. He
said they were similaz to the main building.
Mr. Souders said he liked the idea of a sidewalk and a lamppost being added. He said the light
would help when pulling trash back to the alley.
Mr. Albert said the outbuilding to the north had already received ARB approval for demolition
and plans, but he could not recall what had been proposed for the back of the building. Mr.
Albert said the structure to the north would be only 10 or 1 S feet from their building.
Ms. Ochal said that the proposed building would set five feet from the property line, therefore,
she did not believe a sidewalk would be possible on the south elevation.
Mr. Bryan recalled that a sidewalk had been approved, but was not sure if it was on the north or
south side of the building.
Mr. Holton said he remembered the Board approving the structure to the north and he knew they
talked about doing installing a sidewalk to link the pazking azea to the alley. However, he said
he could not recall if the sidewalk was to the north or south side of that building. He said on the
south side, it would border this property and could perhaps be a joint venture.
Mr. Albert said brick pavers aze presently located in the azea between the two outbuildings and
the parking lot to the west.
Mr. Bales said the applicant should be sensitive to the residents behind him regarding lighting.
Mr. Bryan suggested a coach light or something similar, which would not be intrusive to the
residents. He said he would like to see a joint venture. He said there would be ample space to
put in a sidewalk and perhaps one lamppost. He said the azea would then appear to be more
inviting for those walking down the alley.
Mr. Holton said lighting should be minimized in the Historic District.
Mr. Holton asked about the stormwater requirement where staff recommended that the applicant
work with the engineering department to meet current stormwater requirements.
Mr. Corwin said for this site, the applicant will be required to show the City Engineer that water
will not be diverted to an off site location such as the neighboring properties.
Mr. Clarke said they had not yet talked to the City to see what was wanted. He said they will
follow the recommendations.
Mr. Bryan said he would like to have a connecting sidewalk from the parking lot to the alley, as
a condition to be reviewed and approved by staff.
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
Dublin Architectural Review Boazd
Minutes -May 24, 2006
Page 6 of 12
Mr. Clarke said he would rather look at the possibility of placing a sidewalk to the north rather
than to the south to avoid damaging the large tree. Mr. Clazke asked if the Board would rather
have a post lamp than asoffit-type lamp.
Mr. Bryan suggested something other than a down light.be used, perhaps a post lamp or a
lantern, something that would be sensitive to the building design.
Mr. Bryan said he thought both the lighting and sidewalk issue could be considered for staff
approval as a combined issue. He said that way, the option is open for a joint venture with the
property to the north.
Ms. Ochal reviewed additional conditions regarding can lighting, mechanical screening, and any
proposed signage being brought back to the Board for approval. She said there were now a total
of 16 conditions, including: That the applicant work with the property owner to the north to
install the sidewalk to provide connectivity from Mill Lane to the parking lot, and that the
applicant install coach or post lights along this sidewalk, subject to staff approval.
Mr. Holton said the coach lights, if used must match or compliment the main building, subject to
staff approval.
Mr. Holton asked if there was enough right-of--way.
Ms. Ocha1 asked if the Board had another suggestion for the sidewalk if it is not possible to
construct it due to the location of the condenser and trash receptacles. She said Code states that
the minimum sidewalk is to be four feet wide.
Mr. Albert asked if brick pavers similar to those on the north elevation would be satisfactory.
Mr. Bryan and Mr. Bales said the brick pavers would be acceptable.
Mr. Holton modified the recommendation to install a brick paver sidewalk for connectivity, if
feasible, and that the applicant work to install coach lights.
Mr. Souders suggested that the original property owner be contacted to see if a sidewalk was
previously approved.
Ms. Ochal agreed to report back to the Boazd regazdvng the original site plan and the sidewalk.
Mr. Holton asked why the applicant had decided to do nothing about the building condition.
Mr. Albert said in 2001, they received approval for an addition, but the estimates were cost
prohibitive. He said he was told it would be less expensive to demolish the structure and build a
new one.
Motion #1: Mr. Bales made'a motion seconded by Clayton Bryan, to approve the demolition of
the existing 578-squaze-foot outbuilding, as it is consistent with the Historic Dublin Design
Guidelines, and that the removal of this structure for the construction of the new structure will
enhance the Historic District, with the following two conditions:
1) That a demolition permit be obtained from the Building Division pric
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes -May 24, 2006
Page 7 of 12
2) That demolition occurs within six months of ARB approval.
Vote: The vote on the motion regadding the demolition of the existing outbuilding was as
follows: Mr. Holton, yes; Mr. Bales, yes; Mr. Bryan, yes; Mr. Souders, yes; and Ms. Kick, yes.
(Approved 5-0.)
MOTION #2: Thomas Holton made a motion, seconded by Clayton Byan, to approve this
building construction because the structure will replace an unsafe, historically insignificant
outbuilding, it is consistent with the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines and the building
materials are of high quality and have been traditionally used throughout the Historical District
with 16 conditions:
1) That the applicant rezone the property to HB, Historic Business District;
2) That the applicant obtains. a variance for the size of the accessory structure;
3} That the two lots be combined prior to the issuance of a building permit;
4) That a building permit be obtained prior to construction of the proposed improvements;
5) That the plans be revised to show existing and proposed conditions, including the location of
ADA accessible parking, utility services, and pedestrian paths;
6) That the necessary civil plans be prepared prior to submitting for a building permit;
7) That the applicant complies with the City's Stormwater Management and Stream Corridor
Protection Zone Ordinance;
8) That landscaping requirements be met, subject to staff approval;
9) That protective chain link fencing for the black locust tree be installed .prior to and
maintained during all construction activity;
10) That if the black locust tree dies or becomes a hazard within five years, it will be replaced on
an inch by inch basis or the appropriate fee will be paid;
11) That gray asphalt shingles be used on the new accessory structure's roof, subject to staff
approval;
12) That a tree removal permit be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit;
13) That any lighting proposed for the new construction be subject to staff approval;
14) That all mechanicals be screened to Code subject to staff approval;
15) That any proposed signage be brought back to this Boazd prior to installation; and
16) That the applicant work with the property owner to the north to install a brick sidewalk to
provide connectivity from Mill Lane to the parking lot, if feasible, and to install coach or post
lighting fixtures along this sidewalk, subject to staff approval.
Vote: The vote on the motion regarding the building construction was as follows: Mr. Holton,
yes; Mr. Bales, yes; Mr. Bryan, yes; Mr. Souders, yes; and Ms. Kick, yes. (Approved 5-0.)
3. Architectural Review Board 06-041ARB - 45 North High Street - Krema Products
Addition
Jeff Jacobs presented the staff report and slides. He said this is a request for zeview and approval
of a demolition of a 135-squaze-foot outbuilding and an addition to the site. He said the site is
located in the northeast portion of the Historic District and it is zoned CB, Central Business
District. He said the applicant is proposing to deed 12 feet along the southern property line to
the City to provide for a sidewalk connectivity from High Street to Darby Street. He said the
City is also looking into the relocation of the outbuilding to another site within the District.
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes -May 24, 2006
Page 8 of 12
Mr. Jacobs said the site includes a 1,208-square-foot building located along North High Street.
He said the applicant is proposing to relocate the structure approximately 12 feet closer to High
Street and convert the building into office space. Mr. Jacobs said 2,578 square feet aze proposed
to be retail warehouse azea, and 422 square feet of that azea will be a retail showroom. He said
the total size of the building will be 3,000 square feet, slightly different than was indicated in the
staff report and on the original plans.
Mr. Jacobs said new parking spaces are proposed on the west side of the lot. He said the
applicant is going to request a variance on the number of required parking spaces.
Mr. Jacobs said fiber-reinforced cement board siding and trim will be used. The siding will be
painted Agreeable Grey and the trim will be painted Mega Greige. He said the windows aze
white Andersen 400 Architectural Series. He said the cupola proposed for the west peak is to be
painted Billiard Green to match the existing roof. Mr. Jacobs said the applicant had taken into
consideration the historian's recommendations for limiting the number of cupolas on the
building. He said tine copula trim will be painted Agreeable Grey which will match the siding of
the addition. He said the new retail space will be located on the west elevation. Mr. Jacobs said
the existing building will be repaired and repainted. He said the siding of the building will be
painted a Mega Greige and the trim will be Agreeable Grey. Mr. Jacobs said the windows on the
existing building will remain and be painted to match the windows of the addition. He said the
existing metal standing seam roof will be repainted a Billiard Green. He said downspouts and
ogee gutters will be prefuushed five-inch aluminum in Natural Linen.
Mr. Jacobs said the applicant will be retaining the front porch structure, adding a decorative
Billiard Green metal railing to match the roof and cupola. He said the porch on the south
elevation will be removed and rebuilt to coordinate with the front porch and a ramp and railings
will be added to meet ADA requirements.
Mr. Jacobs said the applicant is proposing to relocate the previously approved sign from the
current site. He said coach lights have been added based on staff recommendations. He said can
lights are proposed for the soffits.
Mr. Jacobs said staff recommends approval the demolition with the following condition which
had been modified and distributed to the Commission: That if a demolition is approved; the
owner of the Iand which contains the out building is required to obtain a demolition permit from
the Division of Building Standazds prior to demolition.
Mr. Jacobs said staff recommends approval of the application for the addition with the nine
conditions as listed in the staff report.
Tom Holton said there seemed to be a contradiction with the demolition and the relocation.
Mr. Jacobs explained that the historian had indicated that outbuildings are an important part of
the District, but this particular building is not architecturally significant. Staff has contact other
property owners to see if they would like to relocate the outbuilding.
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
Dublin Architectural Review Boazd
Minutes -May 24, 2006
Page 9 of 12
Mr. Bales said there was a Board concern about the perspective from the street regarding the
appearance of the flat elevation having more mass. He said most of the mass disappeared behind
the existing building.
Joe Sullivan, Sullivan Bruck Architect, representing the applicant said the addition has very little
impact from the street.
Mr. Bryan said if it were rotated southward, there would be nothing to obscure the roof line all
the way to Bridge Street. He said the back of the original structure would still wind up even or
in front of the face of Tucci's.
Mr. Sullivan said the addition would be two to three feet in front of Tucci's. He said the existing
house will be exposed, but the building behind will be mostly obscured by Tucci's. He said
there is a slight grade change which will diminish the scale from a distance.
Mr. Bales said a lot of it will disappeaz with the landscaping.
Mr. Sullivan apologized and said that they had exchanged the colors on the plan. He said the
design intent was not to have the two buildings the same color, but a palette of different colors.
He said it was more appropriate to have a dazker siding and lighter trim on the front structure that
faced the street, and then to reverse that on the addition where there is lighter siding with the trim
being darker. He said the lighter color will recede and diminish its perceived scale. He said the
additional railing on the front is on the steps only. He said they are maintaining the existing
porch rail. Mr. Sullivan said on the side, the railing was at the ramp, but not at the porch.
Mr. Holton asked why metal railing was proposed instead of wood.
Mr. Sullivan said they felt that using wood was out of character with the rest of the house. He
said the thin metal railing painted Billiard Green would recede and not be a prevalent element.
Mr. Sullivan clarified that railing on the front elevation has balusters and the south elevation
does not.
Mr. Holton asked if there was signage on the front of the building.
Mr. Jacobs said the applicant was proposing to add signage later and it would come back to this
Board for approval.
Mr. Bales said the drawing did not show exterior can lighting, as in soffit lighting.
Ms. Ochal said staff had suggested coach lighting to replace the flood lighting shown. However,
the applicant still wants can lighting.
Mr. Bales said that can lighting has not worked in the past.
Mr. Sullivan said can lighting was on the existing facility. However, he said if there is an
objection to can lights, they could do asurface-mounted porch light to the ceiling which would
be historically appropriate.
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
Dublin Architectural Review Boazd
Minutes -May 24, 2006
Page 10 of 12
Mr. Holton said it was the Board members consensus to allow recessed lighting in the reaz only.
Mr. Bryan asked about the shingles material.
Ms. Ochal provided a sample of the dimensional shingle proposed.
Mr. Jacobs said dimensional shingles had been approved by the Boazd in the past.
Mr. Holton recalled that the Boazd had approved the three-tab gray or black shingles in the past.
He thought that was what the Guidelines recommended.
Ms. Ochal said that the dimensional shingles have been approved in the District.
Mr. Holton noted that this will be the largest roof in the area and will be very visible.
Mr. Sullivan said they were trying to get more texture on the roof because of its scale. He said
they specifically wanted that roof different than the one on the house. He said the house had a
standing seam roof painted green.
Mr. Holton asked what was the concern about dimensional shingles.
Mr. Bryan said dimensional shingles allude to a look that is not authentic.
Mr. Sullivan said this addition was a new structure. He agreed to go in the direction the Boazd
wanted. He said they thought getting texture on the lazge roof was good. He said it being a new
structure, they did not feel it compromised the historic quality of the neighborhood.
Mr. Bryan agreed.
Mr. Holton said the Boazd wanted to be consistent. He asked if the Weathered Wood shingle
color was acceptable.
Ms. Kick agreed that the warm gray shingle color was acceptable.
Mr. Holton said in regazds to the dimensional vs. three-tab shingles, the Board needed to be
consistent with their decision.
Mr. Bales said dimensional shingles are now being manufactured to look more like cedar wood.
He repeated that continuity within the District and the Guidelines is the issue. He said if the
owner and architect have objections to using athree-tab shingle to maintain the criteria within
the design Guidelines, then that is what should be used.
Mr. Sullivan agreed to use three-tab shingles. He said the building will still look good. He said
dimensional shingles will define the texture.
Mr. Bryan said he had a problem deviating from the Guidelines, but that the Guidelines are only
guidelines. He said if that deviation had been allowed in the past, then he suggested they were
doing a disservice to a patron by disallowing something that would be a
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes -May 24, 2006
Page 11 of 12
as long as the Board could provide some idea or rationale for changing from the Guidelines
because of something that is already pre-existing and approved, then he had no problem
approving a dimensional shingle.
Mr. Holton asked if the Board had decided on dimensional shingles.
The Board members all agreed.
Mr. Bryan said the only additional recommendation was the change from recessed lighting to
surface mounted lighting on the original structure.
Mr. Holton asked if the storm water would be tied into the City system.
Mr. Sullivan said yes.
Mr. Holton asked if the Hackberry tree in the front would stay.
Mr. Sullivan said it was akeady significantly damaged and would not stay. He said new trees
will be added in the tree line.
MOTION #1: Linda Kick made a motion, seconded by Clayton Bryan, to approve the
demolition, with two conditions:
1) That if a demolition is approved; the owner of the land which contains the out building is
required to obtain a demolition permit from the Division of Building Standards prior to
demolition
2) That demolition occurs within six months of ARB approval.
Mr. Holton asked who owned this property now.
Mr. Sonksen said Pat Grabill owned the property now, but he would simultaneously buy this
property and do the 12-foot strip so that the City can put theiz sidewalk through. He said in
reality, the building was the City's problem, not his.
Ms. Ochal confirmed that the building actually sat on the City's property
MOTION #2: Thomas Holton made a motion, seconded by Linda Kick, to approve this
building addition with 10 conditions:
1) That the applicant revise the landscape plan to reflect the comments in the memo dated
May 12, 2006;
2) The applicant complies with ensuring all storm water is adequately routed to a public
storm water system and not onto adjacent properties;
3) That the applicant obtain a parking variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals or that
Code be met;
4) That the applicant file an application with Land Use and Long Range division to rezone
the property to Historic Business (HB) prior to issuance of a building permit;
5) That the applicant return to the ARB for approval of any additional signage prior to
installation;
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High
Dublin Architectural Review Board
Minutes -May 24, 2006
Page 12 of 12
6) That the applicant obtain a sign permit for the relocated sign;
7) That the applicants lighting plan be revised to meet the Dublin Lighting Guidelines;
8) That the applicant pay a fee of $100.00 per inch for any required tree caliper inches not
relocated on site;
9) That if a demolition permit is necessary, it be obtained from the Division of Building
Standards prior to demolition; and
10) That can lighting be eliminated from the original structure and ceiling mounted fixture be
installed, subject to staff approval.
VOTE: Mr. Souders, yes; Mr. Bryan, yes; Mr. Bale, yes; Ms. Kick, yes; and Mr. Holton, yes.
(Approved 5-0.)
Mr. Sonksen agreed to the above conditions
The meeting was adjorned at 9 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Libby F ley
Administrative Assistant
08-0422
Rezoning
Historic Dublin Rezoning
123 & 95 S. High, 45 N. High